Is David Icke a con man?

Originally posted by Wotan
The man needs 'sectioning' in my opinion. A good long spell in Rampton or Broadmoor might sort him out.

Disgraceful thing to say, even though i do not like him.

He was lead up a line probably by british intel services, but maybe now and again he may say something useful.

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by Wotan
The man needs 'sectioning' in my opinion. A good long spell in Rampton or Broadmoor might sort him out.

Disgraceful thing to say, even though i do not like him.

He was lead up a line probably by british intel services, but maybe now and again he may say something useful.

Its my professional opinion and I am well entitled to say it. The people I feel sorry for are his family for having a 'fraggle' for a father.

If we go back through history we see a lot of people who were labelled as mad or heretic because what they taught went against the established way of things. And time and again, we see people ignored because of 1 trip up in their arguement, one single thing that people grab hold of and use to discount the entire theory and brand the speaker a lunatic.

It goes something like this: "That CAN'T be true, because I DON'T BELIEVE... in a round earth/God/No God/life on other planets/life after death/intelligent reptiles/etc/etc".

We pin too much on what we can understand and be comfortable with, and a more honest statement would be "I don't want to believe in that".

If you brought a person from some untouched tribe, off in what we'd consider the darkest reaches of mankind, and brought him to our world, and explained to him that all around him, through him and everywhere there was hundreds and thousands of different songs, words, moving pictures, movies and instantly accessible information, and all you needed was the right tool to catch those sounds and images and you could see them, and even interact with them, he'd think you mad until you proved it, and then he'd probably either deny it or worship it.

reply to post by TheIrvy


I understand what you are saying but, in Ickes case, he has had more trip ups to label him accident prone. He has changed his 'tune', more times than most people change their underpants.

I don't mean Icke's trip ups, I mean the little things that trip up anyone who hears it. For example, how many people in the world reject evolution, not because they find it to be an unsound and poorly evidenced theory, but for the single, solitary reason that the Bible says the world was created in 6 days?

We hear "reptilian", and we skip over all the archeological data, all the research, all the potential evidence, and we think "I don't believe in humanoid reptiles, that bloke must be mad".

Yes, Icke has changed his story over the many years he's been studying and researching. That is the nature of true learning, you have to chase a lot of dead ends and misdirects before stumbling onto something concrete, and I have done the same in my own personal study. If anything, that gives him more credibility than someone who'd been peddling exactly the same message for a decade without ever questioning it or re-examining it.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by TheIrvy]

Originally posted by Wotan

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by Wotan
The man needs 'sectioning' in my opinion. A good long spell in Rampton or Broadmoor might sort him out.

Disgraceful thing to say, even though i do not like him.

He was lead up a line probably by british intel services, but maybe now and again he may say something useful.

Its my professional opinion and I am well entitled to say it. The people I feel sorry for are his family for having a 'fraggle' for a father.

So you are providing your professional opinion on Icke, that he needs 'sectioning'. What profession are you representing by providing such a professional opinion?

I recalled he once talked about Princess Diana look-like-accident assassination was to silent her from exposing reptilian nature of British royal family. And he blamed Mohamed Al Fayed (father of Dodi, Diana's lover) for the plot.

Apparently, he covered up the dead cameras in the tunnel, 2 white Fiat Uno cars and involvement of government agents. Instead, he bragged on talking about lizard/reptilian people.

David Icke is more than con artist. I suspect he's working for spy/covert operation to feed conspiracy disinformation .

David Icke's book on 9/11 is solid, one of the very best works on the subject. It is logical, rational, well documented, well written. It deals objectively with objective reality.

On the other hand, I don't know what to make of the whole "shape-shifting reptilians-from-the-lower-fourth-dimension" thing. I did read extensively in the archives of his website on the subject, and in time I noticed that he had NO direct evidence. What he offered as proof were accounts from people I didn't know from Adam's off-ox, or accounts which read like plot-lines from a 1950's B-movie. In time, I saw it as very subjective.

I really do not know what to make of that sort of contrast.

reply to post by JOHNK46


That's the conspiracy business for you. You can say that about any conspiracy author, as none of them can provide any hard evidence to back up any of their claims. Take it or leave it.

I think david's great, a very clever and well educated man.

But when he start's talking about lizards.... godamnit, shutup dude SHUT UP!!!

Firstly, If a stranger came up to you in the street and said he was the "Son of God", would you have a debate about this with him and his whacked out beliefs, or run away screaming "nutter". Yes, you'd run away or at the very least not even give him the time of day! After watching several of his videos that's my best advice to everyone, do not even give him the time of day!

The original question as to whether David Icke is a con man, here's my answer, David Icke said on national UK TV, that he is the "Son of God". He later retracted this to -

"He later said that he had been misinterpreted, and that he had used the term "the son of God" to mean an "aspect" of the Infinite consciousness"......(Wiki)...

Icke the new Messiah (He's not the messiah............he's a very naughty boy!) anything he has said must be taken with a pinch of salt, because the above statement clearly shows to me he is delusional and borderline insane, no wait, UK Royal family are reptilian shape shifters...... he is insane! My dad has met the queen on several occasion as well as guarded her and her family (Welsh Guards), the expression on his face said it all when I mentioned this to him.... basically "why are you even asking me this crap!"

Also David Icke is completely wrong about the Illuminate, I'm in the Illuminate, and so's my mum, and at our last Illuminate meeting, in the Dog and Duck, Barnsley, I asked Elvis and Bruce Lee what they thought about David Icke's allegations, they told me he's a fraud!

Peace

I do not think that David Icke would have established himself as he did if he had not taken in other conspiracies and intergrated them in his system.

I seem to remember that he started out with the shape-shifting nonsense. What is particularly nonsensical is that his list of lizards comprise all notable or powerful people. It seems a bit political to me. If somebody has money and power then that person must be a reptilian.

All his books and talks now embody the main concepts that most people are aware of - the general globalisation and move to the big brother society. 'The biggest secret' is not a bad book to read but it is very much a collection of ideas that have been circulating around.

I think that it would have been better if he had not held on to that reptilian notion of his. in my opinion, it is quite possible that he will drop it in the future.

For those who have seen shape-shifting with their very eyes (not on a youtube clip) , I would say that this is a totally different subject and is not a case of reptiles disguising as humans and preparing to take over the world.

I would like to update my previous comment, I still think David Icke is a Nutter, but after thinking it over, he is a very clever Nutter! Clever in the way he has amassed a huge following of people who buy, literally into this nonsense, DVD's, Books, Seminars etc etc! I found this quote and I think it sums up Mr David Icke,

uncyclopedia.wikia.com...

quote


Socrates once asked Agathon, "Since you produce crap, does that make you an asshole?"

Agathon answered, "We are like apple trees that drop turds instead of apples."



David Icke believes that if he can produce enough crap he will be rich. Richer. Richest.

Originally posted by Myrddin Wyllt
Firstly, If a stranger came up to you in the street and said he was the "Son of God", would you have a debate about this with him and his whacked out beliefs, or run away screaming "nutter". Yes, you'd run away or at the very least not even give him the time of day! After watching several of his videos that's my best advice to everyone, do not even give him the time of day!

The original question as to whether David Icke is a con man, here's my answer, David Icke said on national UK TV, that he is the "Son of God". He later retracted this to -

"He later said that he had been misinterpreted, and that he had used the term "the son of God" to mean an "aspect" of the Infinite consciousness"......(Wiki)...


Peace

Well actually he didn't state he was the son of god. The interviewer (Wogan) asked him if it was correct that other people had been reporting he (icke) was saying he was the son of god. He answered 'yes', as in 'yes other people have been reporting I've said that'. He was cut off by Wogan before he could explain the 'son of God' rumours.

Where most people get their opinions from about Icke is the media. Terry Wogan cut him off and wouldn't let him expand on the son of God business. Voila! All the tabloids the next day say Icke thinks he's the Jesus. People today still remember the headlines from all those years ago and take them as gospel. Christ conciousness and the concept of a divine spark existing in every human being (even Terry Wogan!), is not exactly the kind of subject matter that goes down well on prime time TV. Poking fun at and ridiculing those with different ideas was evidently just the ticket.

Yes he was a bit nutty at that time and he was having a spiritual awakening and possibly a breakdown which he would be the first to admit.

He's developed into a great speaker (on many more subjects than just 'The Lizards') and many people admire him because he has never been afraid to speak his truth. He believes in shape shifting interdimensional reptilians, fair enough I'm not conviced on that one myself but multiple dimensions theories are supported by maths and physics.

If you still think he's a nutter or a conman and don't find anything of value in anything he says then fine, that's your personal choice, each to their own I've never understood the bitterness and venom towards the man myself. I met one person who said Icke is dangerous, he hypnotises people at his talks and distracts them from real issues such as global warming and politics!

To the guy who said he should be sectioned, How responsible and proffesional it is of you to diagnose some one you've never met!

Anyone else going to London this weekend?

I was wondering about the sectioned comment. I was thinking it a bit harsh to slice someone up. Got it now.

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat

Originally posted by Myrddin Wyllt
Firstly, If a stranger came up to you in the street and said he was the "Son of God", would you have a debate about this with him and his whacked out beliefs, or run away screaming "nutter". Yes, you'd run away or at the very least not even give him the time of day! After watching several of his videos that's my best advice to everyone, do not even give him the time of day!

The original question as to whether David Icke is a con man, here's my answer, David Icke said on national UK TV, that he is the "Son of God". He later retracted this to -

"He later said that he had been misinterpreted, and that he had used the term "the son of God" to mean an "aspect" of the Infinite consciousness"......(Wiki)...


Peace

Well actually he didn't state he was the son of god. The interviewer (Wogan) asked him if it was correct that other people had been reporting he (icke) was saying he was the son of god. He answered 'yes', as in 'yes other people have been reporting I've said that'. He was cut off by Wogan before he could explain the 'son of God' rumours.

Where most people get their opinions from about Icke is the media. Terry Wogan cut him off and wouldn't let him expand on the son of God business. Voila! All the tabloids the next day say Icke thinks he's the Jesus. People today still remember the headlines from all those years ago and take them as gospel. Christ conciousness and the concept of a divine spark existing in every human being (even Terry Wogan!), is not exactly the kind of subject matter that goes down well on prime time TV. Poking fun at and ridiculing those with different ideas was evidently just the ticket.

Yes he was a bit nutty at that time and he was having a spiritual awakening and possibly a breakdown which he would be the first to admit.

He's developed into a great speaker (on many more subjects than just 'The Lizards') and many people admire him because he has never been afraid to speak his truth. He believes in shape shifting interdimensional reptilians, fair enough I'm not conviced on that one myself but multiple dimensions theories are supported by maths and physics.

If you still think he's a nutter or a conman and don't find anything of value in anything he says then fine, that's your personal choice, each to their own

I've never understood the bitterness and venom towards the man myself. I met one person who said Icke is dangerous, he hypnotises people at his talks and distracts them from real issues such as global warming and politics!

To the guy who said he should be sectioned, How responsible and proffesional it is of you to diagnose some one you've never met!

Why are David Icke supporters always saying "The reptile thing", are they embarrassed by this? This is a real point for me, if even his own supporters don't believe what he says about "The shape shifting Reptilian Royal Family of the UK", why are they prepared to believe everything else he says?

quote:
"Yes he was a bit nutty at that time and he was having a spiritual awakening and possibly a breakdown which he would be the first to admit."

yes, he was completely nuts at the time, possibly having a nervous breakdown, yes, and having a spiritual awakening... er no, how can you believe the ramblings of someone who had/ has mental health issues? You can't!

Spiritual awakening while undergoing a nervous breakdown, why would anyone believe him?

David Icke amused me with his stories initially, then I got bored with the same old rhetoric, backed up with ridiculous "Facts",

but, best of luck to him, If he can make himself lots of money and make a good living talking nonsense, then good for him!

I have seen lots of his interviews and dvd's on tv and read a fair bit of his books on the web. I'm just glad I've never actually spent money on a book or dvd by him and thereby adding to his ever growing bank account.

Peace

I've read a few things he wrote, watched a couple of his seminars. One thing is, he is really fluid with the info. He doesn't have to stop and think about it at all. I know its what he does for a living, but he is just so at ease with the entire subject.

What if the people and entities he talks about don't really know what role they play in the game. They may have advisors that help them with decisions and so on. Those people might be the ones that have some knowledge of the reptiles and the agenda. The important people that he talks about, heads of state, royal families, industry leaders, maybe they just do what they are led to do, being nothing to the wiser.

I don't know. Just a thought...

mstkn28

Is David Icke a con man?

Don't know, but I'll tell you what I do know

There are many views on Icke:

- He is only out to make money from his wild allegations;

Maybe, but what's wrong with that? Everyone has to make money. I'm getting a little tired of watching Goldman Sachs walk away with billions if not trillions of dollars while political activists get harassed if they make over a million.

- He is feeding an already overinflated ego;

I can't argue with that, unless he is a Buddhist and does not believe in an ego. He does say that "David Icke" is only a figment of his imagination, so you could argue he does not view it as ego. But for the record he is not a Buddhist and is a bit ignorant of their rules.

- He never renounced his wild assertion that he is the son of god. Did he?

Does he need to? I applaud his effort. I too am the son of God.

- His books are simply copied and pasted from his earlier books, and those are summaries of other people's conspiracy theories;

While they are not entirely other people's conspiracies, they are copied and pasted.

- He refuses to answer questions on his wild allegations, unless you pay him a tenner!

So did the philosopher Zeno, he would only talk about philosophy to wealthy people if they paid him money. It's a smart thing to do when you are constantly running into hecklers. You have to realize that not everyone is an avid Icke fan who asks him to explain his theories. Plus he explains them on tv. (edit: sorry, not tv. but internet. I forget how controlled tv is not having one). so people can at least hear them for free.

- A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, and Icke's knowledge is very patchy;

He's one of the only 'alien' 'truthers' that is really famous. Icke is able to tie a lot of conspiracies together, plus it is beyond question he is an international superstar.

- He is leading an easily lead section of the population astray with his wild, ill thought out theories;

Yes, but the easily led population will go anywhere, because they're easily led. These people are still signing up for the war for Christ's sake, so we need a son of God to put some common sense into them.

- His 'website headlines' are more hate fuelled than any of the people he criticises.

I find his website to be a money making scheme, I'll say that much. His website is useless in my opinion.

Does he want locking up?

He is the only person to call the Royal family a line of Reptilians without any type of legal discourse done against him. Some people get sued for simply denying a historical event, while this guy gets away with quite a bit.

Your thoughts...

Icke has a very sketchy story of how he became enlightened, basically he went to Africa and talked to someone there. I tried watching a video of Icke's African connection, and it is a little hard to grasp. I'm not discrediting the guy on his face, but let's be real here, it's not a whole lot of proof. Icke has a lot of other witness testimony that is sketchy, and his recent rantings about the moon are a little left field.

The only conspiracy Icke does not touch is the Holocaust theory. Take that however you need to take that, but that's a fact.



[edit on 11-5-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by mstkn28
I've read a few things he wrote, watched a couple of his seminars. One thing is, he is really fluid with the info. He doesn't have to stop and think about it at all. I know its what he does for a living, but he is just so at ease with the entire subject.

What if the people and entities he talks about don't really know what role they play in the game. They may have advisors that help them with decisions and so on. Those people might be the ones that have some knowledge of the reptiles and the agenda. The important people that he talks about, heads of state, royal families, industry leaders, maybe they just do what they are led to do, being nothing to the wiser.

I don't know. Just a thought...

mstkn28

that's it exactly. The royal family is unaware of what conspiracy theorists really say. There is no media attention given to them, so how could they know what's going on? Obama gets top secret filtered information on every subject, but with so many hands touching it before it gets to him, there are a million ways for it to be distorted, plus he has no time investigating the past, so he can't research things as well as we can.