posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:39 PM
I would say that it is incorrect (not to mention rude and inflammatory) to call anyone a liar without proof that he is lying.
If you absolutely, positively "know" without a doubt that no non-human craft ever crash landed at Roswell or anywhere else, and I tell you that I
have absolute proof that the US military has knowledge of non-human intelligent beings and is in possession of at least one non-human body part ..
well, you'll call me a liar too. I'm not a liar. I know what I know, and if it doesn't fit into your understanding of reality you'll have no
choice but to call me either insane or a liar.
You don't know what Icke has seen, or been told by people he trusted and believed. I don't either, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the
doubt. There are so many possibilities that allow for him to be telling the truth. Not that what he says is the factual truth, but that HE believes it
. .which is all that's necessary for him not to be lying.
He could be having hallucinations and not be aware that they aren't real.
He could be honestly falling prey to the hoaxes of others.
He could be suffering from a mental disorder that sometimes makes it difficult or impossible to distinguish real memories from stories, vivid dreams,
and even TV programs or books. I knew a man who had it .. you could tell him a story about something and a few weeks later he might "remember" it as
a real experience.
He could be being deliberately given disinformation and false evidence as one of many projects to keep the public focused on his theories instead of
noticing other things that really are going on.
I could continue with more examples, but you should have the idea by now - there are a myriad of possible scenarios (including, as much as you don't
want to consider it, the one in which he's right!) that allow him to be telling the truth as HE sees it, and therefore not be a liar.
Of course, personally I tend to think that your primary purpose with the OP was to start an argument.