David Icke…..Ufology’s Worst Ambassador

reply to post by lifttheveil


One long-winded deflection and appeal-to-motive fallacy. MMN's motives are completely irrelevant. His motives do not make Icke's claims any more (or less) credible. Facts are facts and motives do not change them.

Originally posted by LiveForever8
So, who within Ufology is acceptable then?

It does not matter. Who MMN, or anyone else, finds credible among other researchers is irrelevant. The credibility, and opinions about thereof, other researchers does not make Mr. Icke's claims any more or less valid. Discussion of such is yet more deflection.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Lifttheveil.....

You have raised a series of interesting & challenging points that require a thoughtful reply.

When did that happen?

At which point is not free speech anymore, but insanity?

I also do not understand how the paedophile-satanists tie in with the Reptilians?

Like seriously, I think there is vast gap in what people understand as a conspiracy.

Ike does not do conspiracy. I do not even know how ignorant or uneducated you have to be to believe his ....his..... I will not even call them theories, hell knows what it is.

The fact that people pay for it says alot more about the customers than David Ike. Can't blame someone for making a buck when it seems to be made so easy for him

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Icke states the world is secretly being run by shape shifting reptilian ALIENS.

Therefore people associate Icke strongly with Ufology.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I disagree. In the UK anyway Icke ask most people what they think of David Icke and they will just say 'He's the bloke that said he was the Son of God'. Latterly he has become associated with conspiracy theories concerning the Illuminati and New World Order. I don't believe anyone's first answer would be that he was involved with Ufology (it may be different in other countries, I can't speak for those).

The 'alien' aspect is not at all emphasised in his works, rather the beings are said to be from the lower fourth dimension (whatever that might be). He may have once said that some come from Draco but it's not like he's constantly stating that.

Regardless, the fact that he may once have stated that some of these Lizards come from a different planet doesn't suddenly make him a Ufologist. Ufology is after all the study of Unidentified Flying Objects. And they are something I'm fairly sure Icke has never touched on in any of his works.

In my opinion he's just someone who is biased to believe in alternative explanations for events. If he reads two accounts of the same events one the Official version and the other the Conspiracy version he will believe the Conspiracy version regardless of any facts.

Yes he may be a fantasist or schizophrenic but a conman? I don't believe so. He seems too 'driven' to simply be in it for the money. Mental illness is far more likely an explanation of his behaviour. Or then again maybe, just maybe, like he implies, he's sane and the rest of the world is mad.

... or maybe not

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Lifttheveil.....

You have raised a series of interesting & challenging points that require a thoughtful reply.

When did that happen?

DoomsdayRex.....

Well, he sort of attacked everything I have done on ATS.....

So, as part of my "ATS catharsis" I thought....."I won't get cranky.....I'll stay really, really cool no matter what he says to me".

Youknow.....

Maybe I'm being a bit placid tonight.....

Maybe I should "fire up" a bit!

OK then.....

His points weren't "interesting & challenging" in the least!

He was off topic & he misrepresented my work on ATS in extreme!

There.....I feel much better!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by lifttheveil

 

One long-winded deflection and appeal-to-motive fallacy. MMN's motives are completely irrelevant. His motives do not make Icke's claims any more (or less) credible. Facts are facts and motives do not change them.

Well yes, and as I stated I don't follow Icke, I did read a lot of his earlier stuff then loss interest in him when he went all funny and I am not defending him at all, I guess I'm just bored seeing thread after thread (especially in The UFO forum and with a large % by MMN) that run along the lines of "Chemtrailers are people too" which was just a wee take of them and, well, we both read the same board so you know what I mean.

We have got a HOAX forum so do we really need to litter main sections with topics about Hoaxers or attacking certain areas of research, researchers and members when they are for serious study and discussion of topics?

Maybe... But I think... Maybe not!

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by LiveForever8
So, who within Ufology is acceptable then?

It does not matter. Who MMN, or anyone else, finds credible among other researchers is irrelevant. The credibility, and opinions about thereof, other researchers does not make Mr. Icke's claims any more or less valid. Discussion of such is yet more deflection.

I think the point was that it's hard for David Icke to damage Ufology's reputation when it is already filled with charlatans and is a joke to most people. The thread isn't about whether Icke's claims are valid but whether he is damaging Ufology.

As LiveForever8 and I have both pointed out Icke is not a Ufologist, he has never claimed to be a Ufologist, has certainly never presented himself as an Ambassador for Ufology and is not associated with Ufology in the public's mind (in the UK at least) so the premise of the thread fails right there.

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
The 'alien' aspect is not at all emphasised in his works, rather the beings are said to be from the lower fourth dimension (whatever that might be). He may have once said that some come from Draco but it's not like he's constantly stating that.

Whether they are from another planet or "lower fourth dimension", Icke's reptilians fit the definition of "alien".

Originally posted by MarrsAttax Ufology is after all the study of Unidentified Flying Objects. And they are something I'm fairly sure Icke has never touched on in any of his works.

Whether for right or for wrong, whether we agree with it or not, Icke is married to Ufology in the minds of most. We just have to deal with it.

In my opinion he's just someone who is biased to believe in alternative explanations for events. If he reads two accounts of the same events one the Official version and the other the Conspiracy version he will believe the Conspiracy version regardless of any facts.

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Yes he may be a fantasist or schizophrenic but a conman? I don't believe so...Mental illness is far more likely an explanation of his behaviour. Or then again maybe, just maybe, like he implies, he's sane and the rest of the world is mad.

Whether he is madman or a conman, I don't think it matters much. I think focusing on his mental state is a distraction. We should stick to cold facts and evidence.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Lifttheveil.....

You have raised a series of interesting & challenging points that require a thoughtful reply.

When did that happen?

DoomsdayRex.....

Well, he sort of attacked everything I have done on ATS.....

So, as part of my "ATS catharsis" I thought....."I won't get cranky.....I'll stay really, really cool no matter what he says to me".

Youknow.....

Maybe I'm being a bit placid tonight.....

Maybe I should "fire up" a bit!

OK then.....

His points weren't "interesting & challenging" in the least!

He was off topic & he misrepresented my work on ATS in extreme!

There.....I feel much better!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

He he, good and anticipated reply MMN

I was just about to reply to Rex's post and say you were just being sarcastic but you beat me to it

Anyway I'm glad that made you feel better, I was only really wondering why your on an attack on all areas of research on here, are you like a wannabe career debunk-er or something or did you get fed up with research and getting no answers that your kind of hitting out a bit in frustration? Only curious is all and I don't mean any offense as you are a good poster I was just curious on your angle?

Regards

Lifttheveil

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
I think the point was that it's hard for David Icke to damage Ufology's reputation when it is already filled with charlatans and is a joke to most people.

That might be true. But he certainly does not help either. And he may be among the worst offenders, if by reputation alone.

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
The thread isn't about whether Icke's claims are valid but whether he is damaging Ufology.

On the contrary, it is about his validity. If Icke were not a charlatan (of one sort or another), if his claims did have validity to them, it could not be said that he was damaging ufology.

reply to post by lifttheveil


Lifttheveil.....

I've done plenty of very detailed, serious work on here.....

I've tackled some subjects in a lighthearted manner.....

I've tried to inject a bit of humour.....

.....& 99.9% of the time I've stayed pretty dam polite.

So come on matey.....there's no need to take such a series of broad-based swipes at me!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by lifttheveil


Lifttheveil.....

I was just about to reply to Rex's post and say you were just being sarcastic but you beat me to it

Just so that you know.....

I was NOT being sarcastic at all. I intended to try to answer every point you made, politely & in detail.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by ReluctantShaman


I also do not understand how the paedophile-satanists tie in with the Reptilians?

well as far as i remember these reptilians feed on our fear energy but also have a thirst for virgin blood/sacrafices which is apparently satanic.

Something like that.

I'm sure i remember reading in one of his books that people like the queen are actually aliens who have been seen to shapeshift and consume live babies. You can always count on a bit of cannabalistic infanticide to stir up a discussion.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Frakkerface]

reply to post by lifttheveil


Lifttheveil.....

Look mate.....one more thing.....

I'm just bored seeing thread after thread (especially in The UFO forum and with a large % by MMN)

That is just a plain silly thing to say.

Go on to my profile page & have a look at the threads Ive started in the Aliens & UFOs forum.

To say I post "a large % of the threads in this forum is just so wrong, I can't believe you wrote that.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Whether for right or for wrong, whether we agree with it or not, Icke is married to Ufology in the minds of most. We just have to deal with it.

This is just supposition on your part. Could you be guilty of of extrapolating your own views onto the public at large ( I may be guilty of it as well).

Whether he is madman or a conman, I don't think it matters much. I think focusing on his mental state is a distraction. We should stick to cold facts and evidence.

What evidence? Evidence regarding what? The only evidence provided in the OP was a link to an article MMN disagreed with and the highlighting of the fact that Icke charges for his books and DVDs.

From this MMN concludes that Icke is damaging Ufology.

You have to admit that is a weak assertion.

Firstly, he's not a ufologist and I dispute that most people define him as such so how can he damage Ufology's reputation?

Secondly, the OP presupposes Ufology has a reputation to be damaged which is very arguable.

Thirdly, the OP could have dissected the linked article and discussed the evidence put forward by Icke and explained how it is nonsense but he didn't. He just makes an assertion that it is

a long, rambling, irrational dialogue that proceeds to defame many public figures in a most extraordinarily unfounded & derogative manner.

This is little more than MMN's personal viewpoint. No evidence there.

Fourthly, show me a Ufologist or Conspiracy Theorist who doesn't charge for their work. The idea that charging money for books is sufficient proof that one is a conman is fallacious.

I normally enjoy MMN's posts and have found him to be fair minded but in this instance he seems to be allowing his personal prejudices against David Icke cloud his usually well thought out arguments.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Nope, I still have to disagree with you I'm afraid

I don't think Icke has ever been an ambassador for Ufology.

I also don't see a problem with him making money from people interested in his theories. Icke damages people? How exactly?

I just don't see why you have singled out David Icke (probably because he is an easy target, re: his reptilian theory) but he is no different from the hundreds of other theorists - the majority of whom are more Ufology based than Icke ever has been.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
The thread isn't about whether Icke's claims are valid but whether he is damaging Ufology.

On the contrary, it is about his validity. If Icke were not a charlatan (of one sort or another), if his claims did have validity to them, it could not be said that he was damaging ufology.

If that were the case then the OP should have demonstrated how Icke's claims are invalid not simply taken it is a given. He also implies Icke is a conman thus bringing his motivations into the debate

Icke has extended his alien reptilian fantasies & undertaken this revolting & damaging campaign,in order to rip money off gullible people by developing & preying upon their paranoid concerns.

No evidence of this is provided. It is purely MMNs beliefs about Icke's personal motivations. It's possible to have invalid claims and not be a conman.

david icke , failed snooker commentator , charlatan,gullible, took some south american acid , hooks into NWo conspiracies as a business idea , makes a ton of money through having an english accent ( which to some makes you sound intelligent" and regurgitates von daniken ideas all the time ,

A trained public speaker and journo who took some acid , making money from books and tours ...surely not......

Is he still wearing turquoise?

Originally posted by gambon
makes a ton of money through having an english accent ( which to some makes you sound intelligent"

hahaha believe me, for an English person his accent doesn't sound intelligent at all. In fact, I would say that's one of this plus points, he sounds like a 'typical working class' person.