It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by uca6usev2FeDREmU
Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Call him crazy, nuts, or any name. Now what about his sources [for the 75% other subjects he talks about?] eh? Eh? The silence is deafining.
I keep hearing people defend his story by mentioning how he lists lots of sources at the end of every chapter. I have to wonder how many of them bothered to investigate those sources.
Everyone has looked them up. Including me. And ya know what? None of his sources (to quote your quote of my quote)
[for the 75% other subjects he talks about?]
can be rebutted, proven wrong, refutted. Not by any of his detractors. People can't rebutt his sources, so they instead attempt to call him names. LOL! Make fun of how he looks. Talk only about the parts of his books that talk about reptilians. Make fun of his British accent. On and on... except rebutt his sources for the 75% of the other subjects he talks about.
Originally posted by uca6usev2FeDREmU
Indeed, those that are willing to shell out money for such books, aggressively argue the claims, and yet not check out the sources clearly want to believe in fiction. And those people are not helping the effort to make the case, they're hurting it.
You go from saying "who's check on his sources" to saying you already know no one has check on his sources. OMG!
2. Then you say what if they're ALL bad sources. Wait... wait. How does anyone know they're all bad sources?
4. Then you say even if a source can be trusted, it's still useless if its "irrelevent to the claim". It's useless if it's a good source, but irrelevant? Errr... then why would it be listed as a source in the first place?!?
LOL! You are desperatly grasping for straws.
Yeah? So what? His books cost money to print, ship, distrubute!
Originally posted by uca6usev2FeDREmU
Coming to a definite conclusion based on good solid evidence and sound logic is rational. Believing something without evidence (as above) is irrational. That is how we define those two terms (more or less). The history of our advancement has taught us that rational thinking is required in our pursuit of truth. Truth cannot be resolved from irrational, illogical belief
... I want to respond to one of Icke's articles here but don't have the time. Hopefully tomorrow. In the mean time, can one of his supporters point out any good sources he uses in support of the Reptilian claims?
Originally posted by Vertu
Originally posted by uca6usev2FeDREmU
Coming to a definite conclusion based on good solid evidence and sound logic is rational. Believing something without evidence (as above) is irrational. That is how we define those two terms (more or less). The history of our advancement has taught us that rational thinking is required in our pursuit of truth. Truth cannot be resolved from irrational, illogical belief
On the other hand, every single person (exploring his abilities through life) can come to definite conclusion at different levels of intelligence. Prooving that "rational" thinking is based on the laws of human history, is actually blocking human advancement.
Therefore, it is possible to have a firm "irrational" thinking concluding to hardcore truth, without any raw evidence of a "rational" primitive thinking. Especially, if that particular person is capable of using his mind accurately through a lifetime.
David Icke knows nothing about the Lacerta Files. I wonder why... What do you think about it?
What's your opinion?
[edit on 4-4-2005 by Vertu]
Originally posted by Vertu
The NWO is already on its way, there must be a NWO. Or else, the chaos will continue on. The God/s hated the Reptilians, there was a war between them. You couldn't see God's face because he was in scaffander. Jesus will never come, he was just a human like everyone else.
Originally posted by Vertu
That is clear. Only 20% of his books is about Reptilians. But I tell you a secret: his ethernal hatred towards Reptilians is holding back all his credibility from his work of art. I mean, would you consider the books of an anti-Bush about G. Bush credible?! No. If I knew him as a completely neutral person towards Reptilians, I'd knew that he may be credible, without turning towards either side. This is the cause of the dilemma.
Originally posted by uca6usev2FeDREmU
Originally posted by uca6usev2FeDREmU
Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Call him crazy, nuts, or any name. Now what about his sources [for the 75% other subjects he talks about?] eh? Eh? The silence is deafining.
I keep hearing people defend his story by mentioning how he lists lots of sources at the end of every chapter. I have to wonder how many of them bothered to investigate those sources.
Everyone has looked them up. Including me. And ya know what? None of his sources (to quote your quote of my quote)
[for the 75% other subjects he talks about?]
can be rebutted, proven wrong, refutted. Not by any of his detractors. People can't rebutt his sources, so they instead attempt to call him names. LOL! Make fun of how he looks. Talk only about the parts of his books that talk about reptilians. Make fun of his British accent. On and on... except rebutt his sources for the 75% of the other subjects he talks about.
This discussion is titled "David Icke on Reptilian Race - Is he making it up?". Why are you even talking about his other claims, I wondered? Given the topic, I assumed that you were trying to demonstrate his credibility regarding other claims to bolster his more extraordinary ones. But it doesn't work that way: That the sources for 75% of his claims are good does not imply that the sources for the other 25% of his claims are good. I should not have assumed as I did, I suppose? But if not, then what? What was your point exactly?
Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
He's just putting out info he's found during his personal investigations. It's up to the reader to take all of it, some of it, or none of it. But the reader should read his info, and sources, before deciding to reject some, or all, of his research, investigation, and info.
David Icke is not the end all on anything. He's just someone who wrote some books that have intresting info in them. More food for thought. More flavors of ice cream one never knew existed. Taste them at least once (or a few times more aka re-read his books or the chapters) before deciding if they're good or not.
Part of checking someone, anyone, out is looking at the big picture. When a Judge sentances someone, he looks at the big picture. If the guy or girl, commited crimes for the past 20 years, or the past 2 years, or if it was their first 1 crime. He wants to form as accurate of an overall picture. If the guy commited 1 crime, or even 2 crimes, over the course of 40 years of life.... vs 100 crimes.
From the article:
I witnessed a "channeling" session this week in England, performed by a channel/medium I was very impressed with. As readers of my books will know, I am extremely wary of channeled information...
From the article:
However, I felt that this channel was one of those who is truly gifted and a wealth of detailed information emerged that confirmed and added to my own research, which has been very much gathered in this dimension and not through channeled messages.
From the article:
As always, the choice of what feels right is yours and yours alone
In general human terms, you are right. Belief is a very primitive unconditional trust of something, eg. a god, an issue, whatever. Usually it is based on laze, or ignorance.
it is possible to have a firm "irrational" thinking concluding to hardcore truth, without any raw evidence of a "rational" primitive thinking.
Perhaps the Tsunami meant, that no human lives will be respected in order to wipe out an entire alien colony, that is hostile to humans...
What's your opinion?
David Icke knows nothing about the Lacerta Files. I wonder why... What do you think about it?