posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:37 PM
I consider myself a logical person in every sense. When I come across something that is new to me or interests me, I take it upon myself to do a
little bit of research in the hope of learning something new while attacking all angles of the subject matter. Of course, not everybody will agree
with my beliefs or opinions, much like I will not agree with the opinions or beliefs of everybody else. Each person has a right to his or her own
standards, beliefs, and opinions. I am not attempting to discount the value of such things in any way.
However (you all knew this word was coming)...
I have recently become a slightly more active user of ATS and, in doing so, I have subjected myself to several "perceptions" of current events
(whether plausible and founded or not). One such "perception" is in regard to the world we all know and love (or hate). This "perception" is
held by the widely acclaimed, world renowned David Icke.
Let me again clarify that I am not discounting the perception itself, as his beliefs and views on the world have the possibility of being true or
correct, whether this possibility is large or small. What I am troubled by with this man and his claims, is the way he chooses to react to direct
questions that require direct answers. I have done a brief search of the ATS archives and came across some questions that were asked by ATS users.
Here are the questions and answers:
Q: ATS: One of the most disturbing theories I have read of your's is that of the "missing children". You mentioned satanic rituals and dark
government projects, can you elaborate on what these children are being used for? Is there any proof other than the missing children in themselves
that would support your theory?
A: David Icke: This is a big subject that needs a lot of explanation. I am currently compiling a book with an American woman who has a fantastic story
to tell about this. Yes there is evidence, tons of it, if only people would bother to look.
If only people would bother to look? If he knows where to look, why not show us and provide a better answer with at least a miniscule amount of
proof, rather than avoid doing so by saying, "No. You do it."
Q: ATS: mocken asks,Please inquire why there are few references or citations in the majority of his books that discuss aliens, and so on?
A: David Icke: Don�t understand the question.
How can you not understand the question? Although the user is speaking to ATS instead of Icke directly, it is easy enough to deduce that the user
wants to know why Icke doesn't use references or citations in the majority of his books that discuss aliens, etc. Icke replies in a roundabout,
avoiding manner. "Don't understand the question." Seems like he is playing dumb to me.
Q: ATS: Lost asks, David, time and time again you have stated that you can not prove your theories regarding reptilians etc. and also do not care
what others think. David, are you absolutley convinced of your theories, or do you still reserve some doubts. With such wild theories and no proof,
are you open to the idea that you could be wrong?
A: David Icke: I have written tens of thousands of words on the subject and talked to hundreds of people all over the world from very different walks
of life who have had experience of this phenomenon. Their accounts are remarkably consistent and then look at the ancient accounts of the reptilians
and shapeshifters that tell a similar story. So there is a great deal of evidence, but unless people experience the reptilians directly they are
always going to say there is no proof. The world not being flat was a wild theory once and, anyway, the reptilians, like the Illuminati, are only a
sub-plot in a much bigger story, as my next book will detail.
It seems to me as if Icke is yet again avoiding the use of references or documentation by generalizing his evidence. He then makes a ridiculous
parallel with flat world theory.