Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

David Icke on Reptilian Race - Is he making it up? (Video)

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Hello OpenSecret. Icke is a superb researcher.

I have read And the Truth will Set you Free... , and I am halfway through the Second Edition of The Biggest Secret.

I have to agree with you. Ickes claims are credible. As I read, I sit by my computer and google every name and book title that I come across. The information is out there. The man's book's are worth every penny they sell for.

I think the thing that woke me up the most about his research was the fact that the (Ramses-Piso) family created the entire Jesus fable off of the Isis, Krishna, Mithra, Horus etc. stories that were all based off of the original ancient Sumerian legends.

I always thought that Jesus was a real person that was as normal as you and me, but wise, and that over time, people rewrote his words for their benefit and to control the masses.

Boy was I ever wrong. Here's a good excercise for any of you knowledge seekers who want to learn more about the superb research that Icke has dedicated his life to.

Religion, which I refer to as "Modern Mythology" is exposed for what it really is. Just do what I did. Read the chapter called "Conquered by the Cross", write down all the names and book titles that he refers to, then research and read them. Feel free to post your findings here.

But please, for the sake of denying ignorance, do the research before you post.

Happy searching.




posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Personally I think David Icke is crazy. I'd like to see him on TV giving an interview with Jay Leno, Letterman, or Bill Mayr.

That would be interesting.

Regarding his claim, assuming it is true. Could you correlate any of that to dinosaur museums?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   


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 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!


If you'll reread my sentences, I'm using the term those, not all. Calm down.


2. Then you say what if they're ALL bad sources. Wait... wait. How does anyone know they're all bad sources?


I don't even know what you're trying to say here. A source is good or bad independently of whether most people know it's good or bad.


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?!?


Let me explicitly state what I was implying: Even if a source can be trusted as reliable and truthful, it's useless if it is irrelevent to the claim. The example you provided after stating the above is exactly what I was referring to. At least we concur on one point.


LOL! You are desperatly grasping for straws.


I think I made reasonably valid statements about sources in general. I didn't even say Icke's sources were bad. I merely wondered aloud whether they were good or not. But you responded quite defensively and a little emotionally. That's a bar to rational discourse.



Yeah? So what? His books cost money to print, ship, distrubute!


With the advent of the Internet that's a weak excuse. Why not post the entire content of the books online for free? Put them on a P2P network so that even bandwidth costs are negligible? People download music for free and still buy CDs. If he honestly wants to get his message out to as many people as possible, if he truly believes what he claims and wants to change things, he's just not doing so by the right means at all.


... 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?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   

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


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. Seeking evidence actually proves, that the truthseeker is a very intelligent person able to combine things, and able to get to a certain conclusion.

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.


... 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?


David Icke knows nothing about the Lacerta Files. I wonder why... What do you think about it?

Also, I'm looking forward to see his comments on the Tsunamis of the end of 2004. Very interesting issue, relating all alien lifeforms living underr the surface. 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?

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Vertu]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

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]

I remeber vertu when icke was invited at ATS and GAZROK the MOd asked the lacerta files question.His answer was and i quote "Q: ATS: Gazrok asks, Have you heard of the infamous "Lacerta" interviews? What's your take on them ?

A: David Icke: Haven�t seen them. I will give them a look. ".
Well he hasn't seen but still could you tell me vertu that do reptilians believe in god and do they believe in salvation and purification of the soul? and whats your take on bush and queen of U.K being a shapeshifter reptilian and when do you think the govt other then U.S.A would tell the truth about Aleins and reptilians?.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by warthog911]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Reptilians have a religion, and the Lacerta Files are good reference for you. And yes, they do believe in God. God was an alien genetically engineering monkeys to form humans.

Bush and other leaders of the World have no reptilian bloodline at all. But generally all humans (and mammals) evolved from reptiles, so we all should have reptile bloodline. But for the queston: No.

However, they might have a Reptilian implant, enabling them to be total stealth to hostile aliens (including Greys). It wouldn't be a surprise to know that rich and powerful humans are being under protection of the Reptilians. Also, it would be a necassary option for the USA (as the leading nation) to be in direct contact with Reptilians, and I have the feeling that there is an existing form of contact.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Also would there be a NWO and a fake secoond comming of jesus and then the real comming of jesus and then an all out war of the worlds? and why does the bible disses the reptilians? and do they believe in heaven and hell or do they believe in hindu ytpe of religion AKA real and unreal world(matrix)?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Vertu how do you know Reptilians have a religion?

Is Icke a con-man, a 'seer' or just what? Don't know except he spins some really good stories. How is it possible for someone to have a string of written information thousands of years old describing a master race that can do all the things he ascribes and be against them?

The 'reptilians' would have been in control long, long ago. Icke may have some points that are spot on, but his general thrust is without definitive support, not objective and full of speculation.

I like UFO stuff, the Greys and all. I don't believe any of it as generally presented and Icke is no different. Without a doubt much truth lay within his writings, what the other stuff is certainly is not truth.
.

.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

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.

what do you mean by scaffhander and you do realise the bible speaks of NWO and the mark of the beast so have you been told that everyone in the near future would be forced to have a chip implant? and when will this 65million year old saga end and you didn't tell me what type of religion thses reptilians have.
ps:Why in the name of god i am soo interested in reptilians,i have no idea


[edit on 4-4-2005 by warthog911]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The only person i like even better than him is Alex Jones, these two never dissapoint me.
As for reptilians who knows, if the disclosure project people claim humans know of at least 50 different species of aliens, why couldnt one of those species be reptilian like.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

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.


Your illustration would be more accurate if you said:

What if some guy made a book with 20 chapters, and 1 chapter was 'anti-Bush'. Should the other 19 chapters which are about stuff nothing to do with Bush be ignored?

Or what if some guy made 8 books, and 1 book was 'anti-Bush'. Should the other 7 books which are about stuff nothing to do with Bush be ignored?

Even Icke in his books ("The Biggest Secret" is best example) near the start says if there's parts one's belief system instantly rejects, then skip over those parts, and continue reading the parts, and chapters, that one's belief system doesn't instantly reject. He's not trying to convince anyone of anything. 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.

Read the parts and chapters that stir you, that one is intrested in, that one has been thinking about one's entire life. Don't throw the baby, bathwater, soap, towels, and tub, and baby's cloths, all out, and burn down the house! LOL!

Take what's intresting, skip over what's unintresting. The intresting subjects he covers, out number whatever unintresting subjects he covers. The subjects that one's belief system will instantly reject, are outnumbered by the subjects that one's belief system has been questioning and wondering about.


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.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Driver says:

"As for CCTV not being able to pick up an act of shapeshifting but the human eye can... the human eye and video recording operate on differant frequencies"

Rubbish. They both operate on the spectrum which consists of wavelengths ranging from approximately 780 nanometer (7.80 x 10-7 m) down to 390 nanometer (3.90 x 10-7 m). If they didn't operate on the same frequencies, we wouldn't be able to see what the cameras do -- and they'd be worthless.

You need to come up with a better explanation, Driver.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

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?


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.

When an employer looks at the history of someone seeking a job, they look back 1 week? 1 year? 4 years? 8 years? They want to form as accurate of an overall picture. If the person worked 1 job, or 4 jobs. Or was employed before for 1 month, or 4 years, or 5 years.

Is Icke accurate when he talks about reptilians? Has he ever talked about anything else? How accurate is he about other subjects that have nothing to do with reptilians? How relevant and good, are his sources on other subjects he's written about other than reptilians?

What if Icke is 100% accurate about the 75% of other things he writes about, all his sources check out 100%. Should Icke still be judged only on what he writes about reptilians?

IF the only thing Icke ever wrote about was reptilians and nothing but reptilians, then yeah this thread would be right on! Judge Icke only by what he wrote about reptilians. But reptilians isn't even close to what Icke writes about in the majority of his chapters, and books. Trying to make a thread talking only about when Icke writes about reptilians, and judging Icke only by what he's written on reptilians, is heading towards pushing missinformation about Icke. Icke doesn't only write about reptilians. Not even close.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All I'm saying is everyone should simply get off their lazy bum, and go find out about Icke for theirselves. It's free to do. All his books are free to read at any major bookstore. Just like don't rely on the priest or minister to tell you what to believe in. To tell you what's in the Bible. Study it yourself. Form your own throughly informed conclusions.

Don't rely on someone else to tell you Icke is only about reptilians. Study his books yourself (and its free to do this). Form your own throughly informed conclusions. Worse case, Icke is 100% wrong about reptilians which is 25% of what he writes about...... and 100% right about all other stuff which is 75% of what he writes about.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

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.


There is one problem holding me back from accepting David Icke's books: the fact that he is implanted by Greys. It is such a matter that concerns me the most. Knowing that he is under massive mind control, he didn't write those books as an individual human being, bu as a simple machine being controlled by other lifeforms. Therefore, those books aren't his work of art, but the work of the Greys.

Knowing that the Greys are at higher intellectual level than humans, those books can have exaggerated influences on specified individuals. Also, I have closely witnessed what did those books do to a particular person near me, and I find it very disturbing.

So, what do you think?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I'd like to see an ATS Celebrity Cage Match - David Icke vs. John Titor!
Who wins out, the Master of Illusion Space or Time-Tripper Extraordinaire?! Tickets on sale now at your local Tickemaster. Please include twice the ticket price for processing fees and service charge.

Buy my book! Well, when I write it anyway...



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

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.


Sentencing is done after it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed. In other words, sentencing is not the process by which truth is determined. For that, we have the trial.

"Your honor, I submit into evidence this rusty pipe covered with the fingerprints of the defendent and stained with the blood of the first victim. This conclusively proves the defendent beat the second victim to death with a rusty pipe." The judge would quickly throw out the later claim, even though the pipe is good evidence in the murder of the first victim.

I see what you're trying to get at though: Credibility. The problem is, credibility is independent of the best objective evidence. And when you're trying to prove the existance of Reptilian aliens to people, that evidence has to be real strong. Evidence from credulous sources should still be scrutinized.

So I'll stick with my original assertion: Being at least 75% correct doesn't make you 100% correct. I would have gotten a lot more scholarships in school otherwise.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Earlier I said I wanted to comment on an article Icke wrote. I had a particular one in mind, but when I went to look for it on his site, the first one I found regarding Reptilians was this one so I'll work with it instead. I don't even have to read past Icke's introduction before it comes apart!

www.davidicke.com...


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...


Alright, what he says here appeals to rational thought. But I think that's the only reason he writes this, based on what he says next. He's trying to sound as rational as possible so as to be believable. But ultimately, he's not.


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.


He's basically saying that he only believes in channeling when it supports his conclusions. In other words, he ignores channeling if it does not support his conclusions. He even says this session "confirmed and added" to his research. Whether he'll include it as a source in his books I don't know, but he obviously regards it as a good source in his own mind.*

He often invites readers to use the same faulty reasoning:


From the article:

As always, the choice of what feels right is yours and yours alone


If you want to know whether something is true or not, you've got to accept all the evidence whether you agree with it or not. Accepting only "what feels right" is ignorant. Rational thinkers start with a hypothesis, test it against all available evidence, and if it isn't shot down, it can be called a reasonable conclusion**.

But Icke irrationally starts with the conclusion. That is ignorance defined. (Isn't it ironic that Icke's claims are so often supported on a forum site with the tagline Deny Ignorance? Heh.)

Given what he's saying in this article's introduction, it makes me suspicious about all his other claims. Maybe he found two pieces of evidence, one for and one against the existance of Reptilian aliens, and flatly ignored the one against? He's actually managed to reduce his own credibility with what he's said here.

Listen to Icke at the end of the video in light of the above. He talks about people having minds conditioned by Reptilians to dismiss evidence. Yet he dismisses evidence himself by his own contradictions, and invites others to do the same. Seems to me he's the one trying to condition minds. To buy more books I suppose.

* Note that I didn't even have to decide whether or not channeling is real or not to argue my point. That's irrelevent, because I'm making my point based only on Icke's belief, not mine. Even if you and I believe in telepathy and telekinesis and psychics and all that stuff, it doesn't change the fact that Icke is using faulty reasoning here.

** Otherwise known as a theory. Too many people use the term theory to refer to the untested hypothesis. When scientists use the word theory, they're usually referring to a hypothesis that has been well tested.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

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.


I agree with you strongly on that point.


it is possible to have a firm "irrational" thinking concluding to hardcore truth, without any raw evidence of a "rational" primitive thinking.


I completely don't understand why you think that. Maybe you can elaborate?


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?


The tsunami was caused by natural earthquake.


David Icke knows nothing about the Lacerta Files. I wonder why... What do you think about it?


Unfortunately I've got a hand injury that is acting up so I can't address this right now, sorry. But I should at least say that the story of Lacerta Files is no better supported than Icke's.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
you didn't answered my question vertu,plz answer






top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join