NationStates Jolt Archive

I just heard him in a radio interview, he sounds like an intelligent guy who has some thought provoking answers, he also makes some interesting and accurate points, if you've heard what he's had to say in depth then im interested in hearing your opinion on his beliefs (whether you agree with him or not).

If you dont know much about David Icke though and you plan to say some crap like 'Oh he's that guy who thinks there are shapeshifters!' then dont bother.

Discuss...

If you dont know much about David Icke though and you plan to say some crap like 'Oh he's that guy who thinks there are shapeshifters!' then dont bother.



Is that not accurate?

Isnt this the guy who belives that the Windsors are Lizard-like Shapeshifters?

Idiot.

Isnt this the guy who belives that the Windsors are Lizard-like Shapeshifters?

Idiot.

This is why i said this! Calling him an idiot is not a debate, it is just dismissing the issue. A University graduate doesn't spend decades researching a subject just to spout out rubbish that has no genuine substance and validity.
Be more Open minded.

If you dont know much about David Icke though and you plan to say some crap like 'Oh he's that guy who thinks there are shapeshifters!' then dont bother.

Isnt this the guy who belives that the Windsors are Lizard-like Shapeshifters?

Idiot.


You guys are not supposed to bring that stuff up. We should discuss his more mainstream views like... um...

This is why i said this!


Yah, I know what you said....so what?

Is this the guy or not?

If it is him, then who gives a crap about this guy...if he's gonna be a conspiracy theorist, thats fine...but at least pick a believeable one.

Hes an idiot.

Is this the guy or not?

I fairly certain that is the guy in question.

This is why i said this! Calling him an idiot is not a debate, it is just dismissing the issue. A University graduate doesn't spend decades researching a subject just to spout out rubbish that has no genuine substance and validity.
Be more Open minded.


If hes going to tell me about some kind of corruption in Parliament...I'd be willing to listen.

If he was going to tell me that Aliens built Stonehenge....I;d hear what he has to say....but if your telling me I should believe anything about the Royal Family of Britian being lizard-like shapeshifters.....and then tell me hes an educated fool...as if that was any better....then I really dont know what to say to you.

If hes going to tell me about some kind of corruption in Parliament...I'd be willing to listen.

If he was going to tell me that Aliens built Stonehenge....I;d hear what he has to say....but if your telling me I should believe anything about the Royal Family of Britian being lizard-like shapeshifters.....and then tell me hes an educated fool...as if that was any better....then I really dont know what to say to you.
David Icke doesn't make his arguments out of fin air, he bases them around cutting edge science. Basic species of Lizards on earth can mainpulate their DNA structure to change colour, agreed? - Take that scientific fact a few million years down the evolutionary path and a Lizard changing their shape aswell as colour doesn't seem so unpossible, does it?

David Icke doesn't make his arguments out of fin air, he bases them around cutting edge science. Basic species of Lizards on earth can mainpulate their DNA structure to change colour, agreed? - Take that scientific fact a few million years down the evolutionary path and a Lizard changing their shape aswell as colour doesn't seem so unpossible, does it?


A chameleon can do that, as well as some other lizards.
What proof, if any might he put forward to suggest that any of the Windsors are not human, but in fact, reptiles?

David Icke doesn't make his arguments out of fin air, he bases them around cutting edge science. Basic species of Lizards on earth can mainpulate their DNA structure to change colour, agreed? - Take that scientific fact a few million years down the evolutionary path and a Lizard changing their shape aswell as colour doesn't seem so unpossible, does it?

So... now you do want to talk about Lizards. Why were you playing so "hard to get" at first?

But seriously. My last girlfriend rabidly believed that crap and sent me a PDF of one of his books. He *is* the guy who believes that our capital governments are controlled by shapeshifting lizards, and correct me if I'm mixing conspiracy theories but I'm pretty sure he also said they have to drink blood to retain human form in *this dimension*. And they live in a giant subterranean nation.

Are we supposed to discount that and believe the "good" conspiracy theories like the Illuminati controlling the world, and that AIDS is actually a cover for a depopulation program where doctors just tell you you have aids and subject you to treatments designed to kill you slowly?

...Basic species of Lizards on earth can mainpulate their DNA structure to change colour...
They can?

Could you please name one or the particular types of lizard that can do that?


Hang on, looks like Backwoods has already supplied the asked for info...I knew some could change colours, but I had no notion that involved altering their DNA...I'm off to google 'cause I gotta learn more about that!

But seriously. My last girlfriend rabidly believed that crap and sent me a PDF of one of his books. He *is* the guy who believes that our capital governments are controlled by shapeshifting lizards, and correct me if I'm mixing conspiracy theories but I'm pretty sure he also said they have to drink blood to retain human form in *this dimension*. And they live in a giant subterranean nation.

Are we supposed to discount that and believe the "good" conspiracy theories like the Illuminati controlling the world, and that AIDS is actually a cover for a depopulation program where doctors just tell you you have aids and subject you to treatments designed to kill you slowly?

Hey! Nobody is right all the time!

They can?

Could you please name one or the particular types of lizard that can do that?


Im going to assume he meant pigmentation..?

Certainly he couldnt have meant DNA structure.

So... now you do want to talk about Lizards. Why were you playing so "hard to get" at first?I never said i didn't want to talk about lizards, i just meant that i wanted to keep the debate around scientific aspects of his theories.

I never said i didn't want to talk about lizard, i just meant that i wanted to keep it a scientific debate.

Then by all means, give us the science.

Im going to assume he meant pigmentation..?

Certainly he couldnt have meant DNA structure.
Ahh, actually that is somewhat of a relief, for a moment there my mind was boggling.... :eek:

Im going to assume he meant pigmentation..?

Certainly he couldnt have meant DNA structure.
Im pretty sure they have to manipulate their DNA structure to change their colour? The colours are very distinguished/different and are not caused by a rush of blood to the skin surface.

Ok..I'll play along...

Let's say that such a creature could have existed.
Hell..there even might be a dinosuar relative deep in the Congo....who knows?

So...Lets say that there are indeed a race of lizard-men, that can shapeshift...why would we knot have seen this before?
Certainly, such a creature must reproduce, and even rest, or sleep.
Even in a state of slumber these things must be able to retain thier assumed shape?

I doubt that.
Someome somewhere would have encountered such a creature, in its natural form.
Furthermore, these things probably arent cold blooded..as we've all seen the Windsors in inlcimate weather, havent we?
They didnt fall asleep in the snow did they?

Furthermore..again assuming these monsters were real...what evidence des he has to imply that the Winsdors are these things too?

Certainly, you must see how incredibly perposterous this really is?

David Icke doesn't make his arguments out of fin air, he bases them around cutting edge science. Basic species of Lizards on earth can mainpulate their DNA structure to change colour, agreed? - Take that scientific fact a few million years down the evolutionary path and a Lizard changing their shape aswell as colour doesn't seem so unpossible, does it?

So how does an ex footballer/football commentator/green activist have the authority to talk about cutting edge science?

And there is a big difference between changing colour and changing shape.

Is this not the same man who claimed to be the Son of God?

And I also believe he told us that the island across from where I live is either going to explode or just disappear. (Isle of Arran)

Im pretty sure they have to manipulate their DNA structure to change their colour? The colours are very distinguished/different and are not caused by a rush of blood to the skin surface.


Yes, but they do it by skin pigmentation, im sure.
I do not belive any living being can change its DNA structure, but Im no biologist.

Im pretty sure they have to manipulate their DNA structure to change their colour? The colours are very distinguished/different and are not caused by a rush of blood to the skin surface.

I see now why you find Icke persuasive.

So how does an ex footballer/football commentator/green activist have the authority to talk about cutting edge science?

And there is a big difference between changing colour and changing shape.


Like the assumption and reallocation of its own body mass?

If this things were exactly 150 lbs of lizard...how could it instantly take on more mass, to reach a total of 190lbs?

Furthermore....how could it reallocate its own mass to different areas of its body?

Uhm...maybe it cant, and they dont exist?

Be more Open minded.

An open, but undiscerning, mind is like an open sewer. Any old rubbish can fall into it.

A chameleon can do that, as well as some other lizards.
What proof, if any might he put forward to suggest that any of the Windsors are not human, but in fact, reptiles?

He has an eye witness who saw George Bush (the first) turn into a lizard and back again.

I never said i didn't want to talk about lizards, i just meant that i wanted to keep the debate around scientific aspects of his theories.

There is no science. Doesn't he claim he got a lot of his knowledge through new ages version of "divine revelation?"

Is this not the same man who claimed to be the Son of God?


I'll come to Icke's side of this. He claimed we all have the spirit of celestial being in us (like jesus). But the sound bite cuts off early making it sound he is claim he and he alone is like this.

Or something.

His excuses for not telling everyone how his theories worked on some Channel 5 show were poor. 'You'll edit me! It's true honest but I wont tell you, you'll edit me'

personally I think Channel 5 would make a killing by editing the full true story if he could tell it, not edit it and make him sound even worse

Im pretty sure they have to manipulate their DNA structure to change their colour? The colours are very distinguished/different and are not caused by a rush of blood to the skin surface.
I do not claim to know, but I am somewhat skeptical. Could you name one of the lizards that you believe can change their DNA?

He has an eye witness who saw George Bush (the first) turn into a lizard and back again.

MmmmmHmm...ya think this guy was ever given any money for his testimony?

Ok..I'll play along...

Let's say that such a creature could have existed.
Hell..there even might be a dinosuar relative deep in the Congo....who knows?

So...Lets say that there are indeed a race of lizard-men, that can shapeshift...why would we knot have seen this before?
Certainly, such a creature must reproduce, and even rest, or sleep.
Even in a state of slumber these things must be able to retain thier assumed shape?

I doubt that.
Someome somewhere would have encountered such a creature, in its natural form.
Furthermore, these things probably arent cold blooded..as we've all seen the Windsors in inlcimate weather, havent we?
They didnt fall asleep in the snow did they?

Furthermore..again assuming these monsters were real...what evidence des he has to imply that the Winsdors are these things too?

Certainly, you must see how incredibly perposterous this really is?
There has been thousands of eye witnesses who have come forward to make statements, mainly on 'conspiracy' websites, very professional and respectable people among them. But these cases will not make mainstream news because they seem 'crazy' in the staus quo of todays society and most people keep it to their self because they dont want to look silly. Imagine for a second you saw a person shapeshifting, would you go out and tell everyone you know? No, because they would think you need to be locked up in a mental assylum if you did.

Comparisons can be made to a few hundred years ago when the status quo was the Earth was flat, people were burnt at the stake if they thought it was round because it contradicted the status quo. Who's to say in a few hundred years people are looking back in a similar way?

His excuses for not telling everyone how his theories worked on some Channel 5 show were poor. 'You'll edit me! It's true honest but I wont tell you, you'll edit me'

personally I think Channel 5 would make a killing by editing the full true story if he could tell it, not edit it and make him sound even worse

I heard a 3-hour interview a few years back with Icke on Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM show. It was hugely entertaining and completely ridiculous.

I bet if you go on Limewire, you can find it.

I do not claim to know, but I am somewhat skeptical. Could you name one of the lizards that you believe can change their DNA?
http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/pics/aniclint.gif

Good enough proof for you?

Comparisons can be made to a few hundred years ago when the status quo was the Earth was flat, people were burnt at the stake if they thought it was round because it contradicted the status quo. Who's to say in a few hundred years people are looking back in a similar way?

What world do you live on? This never happened. Sailors (and many others) knew that the earth was round, you can observe the fact if you watch a ship sail out of port.

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/pics/aniclint.gif

Good enough proof for you?
Er, what is that supposed to be proof of?

I'm hoping that Great Britain will name the lizards that change their skin by changing their DNA, so far as my limited understanding of biology goes, I find it highly unlikely. :confused:

There has been thousands of eye witnesses who have come forward to make statements, mainly on 'conspiracy' websites, very professional and respectable people among them. But these cases will not make mainstream news because they seem 'crazy' in the staus quo of todays society and most people keep it to their self because they dont want to look silly. Imagine for a second you saw a person shapeshifting, would you go out and tell everyone you know? No, because they would think you need to be locked up in a mental assylum if you did.

Comparisons can be made to a few hundred years ago when the status quo was the Earth was flat, people were burnt at the stake if they thought it was round because it contradicted the status quo. Who's to say in a few hundred years people are looking back in a similar way?


Ok. You seem fairly rational.

I see where hes going with this (Icke).
"Thousands" of eyewitness...wich of course wont actually step forward.
Vague comparisons to ancient ignorance....

What I want to know, is this:

What peice of evidence convinced you?
When you heard this...maybe you thought it was funny, or cool?
What peice of incontrivertble proof did this man present to you, that made you a believer?

There has been thousands of eye witnesses who have come forward to make statements, mainly on 'conspiracy' websites, very professional and respectable people among them.

Then why is there not an ounce of proof beyond hear say to support his claims?

But these cases will not make mainstream news because they seem 'crazy' in the staus quo of todays society and most people keep it to their self because they dont want to look silly. Imagine for a second you saw a person shapeshifting, would you go out and tell everyone you know? No, because they would think you need to be locked up in a mental assylum if you did.


But if the testement of "thousands" of people are accurate. There would be at least an iota of evidence.

Though it is true absence of proof is not proof of absence, the shear scale of Icke's extraordinary claims would mean evidence supporting the claim would not be the hardest thing in the world to find.

Ah, I see there are indeed intelligent people in this forum = ) Great Britain, I know of David Icke and of many sinister things. I have some David Icke ebooks in .pdf format. I'd be happy to email you some files if you're missing some of his books. I guess the bottomline one asks oneself after learning the truth, the truth about Bohemian Grove, about the FEMA camps, about the real reason why Saddam had to go, about the illuminati AKA reptilians, about the 911 fraud and how it was all an inside job, about how the twin towers represent the number 11 and how it's all tied to the 11:11 movement and the real meaning behind the number 23, etc, the one question everyone comes to ask themselves once you learn the horrible horrible truth is "how do we defeat the NWO and the illuminati?"

SIMPLY, by activating your DNA. Find a way to activate your dna. You have dormant dna that the aliens have gentically and hyperdimensionally sealed and deactivated so you will become more animalistic and less spiritual and godlike. I can't really endorse any one dna activation system, there are plenty of them, and all of them good. Just do a google or yahoo search for "dna activation" and you'll have your answer. God bless and beware of the reptilians.

Namaste,
The Barrakan Legions

What world do you live on? This never happened. Sailors (and many others) knew that the earth was round, you can observe the fact if you watch a ship sail out of port.
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for thinking the world was round in 1600. Galileo and Copernicus were also nearly killed because of this belief aswell.

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for thinking the world was round in 1600. Galileo and Copernicus were also nearly killed because of this belief aswell.


No they werent.

Look them up again.

Close...but no cigar.

Ok. You seem fairly rational.

I see where hes going with this (Icke).
"Thousands" of eyewitness...wich of course wont actually step forward.
Vague comparisons to ancient ignorance....

What I want to know, is this:

What peice of evidence convinced you?
When you heard this...maybe you thought it was funny, or cool?
What peice of incontrivertble proof did this man present to you, that made you a believer?To be perfectly honest my first impressions of him was 'he's a nutcase' but after hearing him on radio presenting his views mainly from a scientific perspective i began to take more notice and realised he made some valid points. I am still however more swayed by the Erik Van Daniken theory but one things i am convinced of is that more than one race of aliens have been around earth for thousands of years, even before the times of the sumerians (who incidently wrote many passages about UFO's and Alien encounters 6,000 years ago, several include stories about a big flood which of course is repeated in biblical literature but with a religious slant).

Ah, I see there are indeed intelligent people in this forum = ) Great Britain, I know of David Icke and of many sinister things. I have some David Icke ebooks in .pdf format. I'd be happy to email you some files if you're missing some of his books. I guess the bottomline one asks oneself after learning the truth, the truth about Bohemian Grove, about the FEMA camps, about the real reason why Saddam had to go, about the illuminati AKA reptilians, about the 911 fraud and how it was all an inside job, about how the twin towers represent the number 11 and how it's all tied to the 11:11 movement and the real meaning behind the number 23, etc, the one question everyone comes to ask themselves once you learn the horrible horrible truth is "how do we defeat the NWO and the illuminati?"



Some of the theories are believable ie. the 9/11 fraud. I read an article in the paper last week about it all being a CIA job, mainly as an excuse to invade Iraq and seize the oil fields, and theres some very good proof (The towers went striaght down, should have been a lop sided fall, fire wasnt hot enough to melt the towers like it supposedly did, plane hitting the Pentagon suddenly swerved towards a new highly armoured part of the building, so only 100 odd were killed instead of a potention 1000s, also witnesses claim plane was a small aircraft)

But the Royal family, reptiles? Bit far really

No they werent.

Look them up again.

Close...but no cigar.Gordiano Bruno was: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/bruno.htm

Galileo and Copernicus NEARLY were, no thanks to religion.

To be perfectly honest my first impressions of him was 'he's a nutcase' but after hearing him on radio presenting his views mainly from a scientific perspective i began to take more notice and realised he made some valid points. I am still however more swayed by the Erik Van Daniken theory but one things i am convinced of is that more than one race of aliens have been around earth for thousands of years, even before the times of the sumerians (who incidently wrote many passages about UFO's and Alien encounters 6,000 years ago, several include stories about a big flood which of course is repeated in biblical literature but with a religious slant).


Many religions all have flood myths, so that really isnt much of a coincidence.

As for the rest of it...I asked you...this:
What peice of evidence convinced you?
When you heard this...maybe you thought it was funny, or cool?
What peice of incontrivertble proof did this man present to you, that made you a believer?

You didnt show me any proof that sold you...
You didnt show me any evidence.....all you did was say that you liked him.
So.."cutting edge science= you just like him?"

Gordiano Bruno was: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/bruno.htm

Galileo and Copernicus NEARLY were, no thanks to religion.


Galileo was convicted of Heresy by the Catholic Church, for believing that the Earth rotated around the sun...NOT becuase he professed the earth to be round.

It was a sad end for so great a man to die condemned of heresy. His will indicated that he wished to be buried beside his father in the family tomb in the Basilica of Santa Croce but his relatives feared, quite rightly, that this would provoke opposition from the Church. His body was concealed and only placed in a fine tomb in the church in 1737 by the civil authorities against the wishes of many in the Church. On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

Galileo was convicted of Heresy by the Catholic Church, for believing that the Earth rotated around the sun...NOT becuase he professed the earth to be round.



http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html
Whether it was because he said the earth was round or because he said the earth rotated round the sun is irrelevant, the point im trying to make is that it was against the 'status quo' at that time to have them beliefs.

Whether it was because he said the earth was round or because he said the earth rotated round the sun is irrelevant, the point im trying to make is that it was against the 'status quo' at that time to have them beliefs.


I know.I just wanted to clear that up.
However...you still havent answered my question.

Many religions all have flood myths, so that really isnt much of a coincidence.

As for the rest of it...I asked you...this:


You didnt show me any proof that sold you...
You didnt show me any evidence.....all you did was say that you liked him.
So.."cutting edge science= you just like him?"
I cant remember everything David Icke said off the top of my head but he referred to independant scientific research, which i will search the web for now to show you...

I cant remember everything David Icke said off the top of my head but he referred to independant scientific research, which i will search the web for now to show you...


Im not asking for a wealth of knowledge...

Im simply asking wich particular peice of evidence ws presented, that you thought was true enough to believe?

Many religions all have flood myths, so that really isnt much of a coincidence.Yes but the sumerians are the FIRST recorded human civilisation and the religions of the world didn't start writing about the big flood to several thousand years after Sumer had died off.

Yes but the sumerians are the FIRST recorded human civilisation and the religions of the world didn't start writing about the big flood to several thousand years after Sumer had died off.


so does this mean your ignoring my question?

Lizard people? Lizard people?!?! And you're taking this nut job seriously? :rolleyes:

Sounds just like the plot from V. He could at least have been original in his craziness, but no, he had to just steal from television:

http://www.weirdload.com/art/v-face.gif

I don't blame him, though - Diana was bitchy hotness:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/aliens/images/v1.jpg

http://www.stargods.org/V_Diana.jpg

David Icke...


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

oh, sorry...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

(he works for the discordians, you know)

Lizard people? Lizard people?!?! And you're taking this nut job seriously? :rolleyes:

Sounds just like the plot from V. He could at least have been original in his craziness, but no, he had to just steal from television:

http://www.weirdload.com/art/v-face.gif

I don't blame him, though - Diana was bitchy hotness:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/aliens/images/v1.jpg

http://www.stargods.org/V_Diana.jpg

That show is where famous serial killer Freddy Kreuger got his start!

That show is where famous serial killer Freddy Kreuger got his start!

Robert Englund had been in tonnes of stuff (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000387/) before V.

David Icke...


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

oh, sorry...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

(he works for the discordians, you know)
This debate was based around science and not music chords, ignorance is bliss.

Backwoodsquatches, i have only heard him twice in radio interviews so i cant remember much of the details so i have mailed someone who knows more about David Icke's work than me to answer your questions.

This debate was based around science and not music cords, ignorance is bliss.

Backwoodsquatches, i have only heard twice once on a radio interview so i cant remember much of the details so i have mailed someone who knows more about David's work than me though to answer your questions.


So, what you're telling me is, you heard this guy once or twice and decided that Lizard People are ruling the EARTH?


Seriously?

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for thinking the world was round in 1600. Galileo and Copernicus were also nearly killed because of this belief aswell.

There is nothing there to suggest that Giordan Bruno was executed in believing the world was round. Galileo was tried for heresy because he believed the solar system to be heliocentric. Copernicus was not nearly executed, though he did supress his own manuscript (iirc).

Try again.

Whether it was because he said the earth was round or because he said the earth rotated round the sun is irrelevant, the point im trying to make is that it was against the 'status quo' at that time to have them beliefs.

Enjoy shifting the goal posts much?

But it wasn't for going against the "status quo," it was for going against the establish authority. Or do you claim that murderers get imprisoned for "going against the status quo"?

I cant remember everything David Icke said off the top of my head but he referred to independant scientific research, which i will search the web for now to show you...

Well I went to his website, and unsuprisingly, it is full of his mumbo-jumbo ramblings. I say unsurprising since I have been there various times and it is always the same.

Robert Englund had been in tonnes of stuff (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000387/) before V.


Dont you get technical with me and quote IMDB!!

I dont know who this Robert Englund is, I was talking about the famous serial killer Freddy Kreuger!

So, what you're telling me is, you heard this guy once or twice and decided that Lizard People are ruling the EARTH?


Seriously?
I never said i believed in all his theories, i think he makes some valid points based around scientific facts and research, which shouldn't be dismissed.

I never said i believed everything he believes in, i said he makes some valid points based on scientific research, which shouldn't be dismissed.


Ultimately concluding that the earth is ruled by lizard people?

Thats like going to church twice and walking out a Christian.

This debate was based around science

Really, I thought it was based around junk science, junk history and a crackpot conspiracy theorist with no solid evidence to back up his claims.

ignorance is bliss.
If you say so.

I never said i believed in all his theories, i think he makes some valid points based around scientific facts and research, which shouldn't be dismissed.

Odd that you cannot seem to remember any of the valid points based around scientific facts and research isn't it :confused:

Odd that you cannot seem to remember any of the valid points based around scientific facts and research isn't it :confused:

Yeah, you'd think such things would stick around in one's mind...

Why am i getting battered from all sides here? I am looking at David Icke's theories from a scientific perspective, i dont believe in things that dont originate in logic and i certainly dont take things seriously without questioning them intently.

I am not David Icke's promotor, i have no bias either way, i merely wanted to start a debate on the scientific aspects of his theories.

Let's give this topic a bit of perspective for a second. His theory is no more insane than some Christian's belief that the world was created 2,000 years ago or some muslims belief that blowing themselves up around innocent people will give them 72 virgins in heaven.

Which theory seems more insane now?

Im pretty sure they have to manipulate their DNA structure to change their colour? The colours are very distinguished/different and are not caused by a rush of blood to the skin surface.

A lot of color changing creatures have pigmentation that is concentrated at points in cells, so you can't see them except for a very small dark specle. When it wants to change color the individual cells redistribute the pigmentation.

To be perfectly honest my first impressions of him was 'he's a nutcase' but after hearing him on radio presenting his views mainly from a scientific perspective i began to take more notice and realised he made some valid points. I am still however more swayed by the Erik Van Daniken theory but one things i am convinced of is that more than one race of aliens have been around earth for thousands of years, even before the times of the sumerians (who incidently wrote many passages about UFO's and Alien encounters 6,000 years ago, several include stories about a big flood which of course is repeated in biblical literature but with a religious slant).

His views have never been related in a scientific perspective. Pseudo-science is as close as he ever gets.

Why am i getting battered from all sides here? I am looking at David Icke's theories from a scientific perspective, i dont believe in things that dont originate in logic and i certainly dont take things seriously without questioning them intently.

I am not David Icke's promotor, i have no bias either way, i merely wanted to start a debate on the scientific aspects of his theories.

Let's give this topic a bit of perspective for a second. His theory is no more insane than some Christian's belief that the world was created 2,000 years ago or some muslims belief that blowing themselves up around innocent people will give them 72 virgins in heaven.

Which theory seems more insane now?

If your theory needs to be compared to Christianity or Islam to seem less loony, then you're in trouble.

Why am i getting battered from all sides here? I am looking at David Icke's theories from a scientific perspective, i dont believe in things that dont originate in logic and i certainly dont take things seriously without questioning them intently.

I am not David Icke's promotor, i have no bias either way, i merely wanted to start a debate on the scientific aspects of his theories.

Let's give this topic a bit of perspective for a second. His theory is no more insane than some Christian's belief that the world was created 2,000 years ago or some muslims belief that blowing themselves up around innocent people will give them 72 virgins in heaven.

Which theory seems more insane now?

Crackpots are crackpots.

You say you want to scientifically debate this issue?
Great..provide some basis of science.
Thus far..all Ive heard is utter nonsense, scientifically speaking.

You say youve questioned this intently....fine.
What basis do you support his claims?

What possible proof, scientifically speaking does he have to support any of this, let alone specific individuals?

If your theory needs to be compared to Christianity or Islam to seem less loony, then you're in trouble.
Hello have you not been reading the posts, when did i ever say it was my theory?

If you cant discuss this topic without insulting it then YOU'VE got problems...

Hello have you not been reading the posts, when did i ever say it was my theory?

If you cant discuss this topic without insulting it then YOU'VE got problems...

Lizard people! This topic is an insult to sanity itself.

I never said i believed in all his theories, i think he makes some valid points based around scientific facts and research, which shouldn't be dismissed.


I concur. We should not dismiss the scientific research. Please present the scientific research so it can be analyzed, rather than merely mentioning the existence of the research.

I just heard him in a radio interview
Are we to understand that you've never read any of his work, then?
David Icke doesn't make his arguments out of fin air, he bases them around cutting edge science. Basic species of Lizards on earth can mainpulate their DNA structure to change colour, agreed?
Not quite. On a side note, is this the cutting edge science you are speaking of?
Im pretty sure they have to manipulate their DNA structure to change their colour? The colours are very distinguished/different and are not caused by a rush of blood to the skin surface.
Because this bullshit doesn't do much for your case.
Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for thinking the world was round in 1600. Galileo and Copernicus were also nearly killed because of this belief aswell.
Ah, enter the appeal to an irrelevant period of history, forgoing the opportunity to present evidence for the supposition that he may be right because he sounds stupid.
I cant remember everything David Icke said off the top of my head but he referred to independant scientific research, which i will search the web for now to show you...
So why did you start a debate about the scientific merits of his theories when you can't even vaguely remember what they are?
Why am i getting battered from all sides here? I am looking at David Icke's theories from a scientific perspective, i dont believe in things that dont originate in logic and i certainly dont take things seriously without questioning them intently.

I am not David Icke's promotor, i have no bias either way, i merely wanted to start a debate on the scientific aspects of his theories.
Your persistence in backing his testimonies with which you have limited experience and fail to provide any evidence for makes you come across as a promoter.

Why am i getting battered from all sides here? I am looking at David Icke's theories from a scientific perspective, i dont believe in things that dont originate in logic and i certainly dont take things seriously without questioning them intently.

If you are trying to get us to look at Icke's theories from a scientific perspective, post some scientific evidence. I've been to his site, where scientific evidence is extremely thin on the ground.

I am not David Icke's promotor, i have no bias either way, i merely wanted to start a debate on the scientific aspects of his theories.

There are none

Let's give this topic a bit of perspective for a second. His theory is no more insane than some Christian's belief that the world was created 2,000 years ago or some muslims belief that blowing themselves up around innocent people will give them 72 virgins in heaven.

Which theory seems more insane now?

Even though the Christian and Muslim beliefs you mention are bonkers, they seem quite sane when compared to David Icke's "shape-shifting lizard people rule the world and came here from outer space." theory.

Are we to understand that you've never read any of his work, then?

Not quite. On a side note, is this the cutting edge science you are speaking of?

Because this bullshit doesn't do much for your case.

Ah, enter the appeal to an irrelevant period of history, forgoing the opportunity to present evidence for the supposition that he may be right because he sounds stupid.

So why did you start a debate about the scientific merits of his theories when you can't even vaguely remember what they are?

Your persistence in backing his testimonies with which you have limited experience and fail to provide any evidence for makes you come across as a promoter.
We could argue all day, but i've got other things to do. I have already made my points and im not going to repeat them to someone who cant be bothered to read through earlier messages.

I cant remember the scientific research David Icke has used to explain some of his theories so stop quizzing me for it. Someone who has read a lot of his books and remembers this research has told me he will post on this thread later, so withhold your judgement until then...

We could argue all day, but i've got other things to do. I have already made my points and im not going to repeat them to someone who cant be bothered to read through earlier messages.

I cant remember the scientific research David Icke has used to explain some of his theories so stop quizzing me for it. Someone who has read a lot of his books and remembers this research has told me he will post on this thread later, so withhold your judgement until then...

I await with baited breath :rolleyes:

so the british royal family is really made up of lizard people.....

which must mean that the other royal houses of europe are made of lizard people too, as they are all interrelated.....

but what about those royals who have married utter commoners AND have successfully had children with them? (not to mention the voluminous numbers children produced in non-marital unions) you DO know that the different species are not fertile with each other eh?

i mean, i havent ever had sex with a giant lizard myself (i'd consider the komodo dragon except that they have the unfortunate habit of eating people) but i DO know that such a coupling would never lead to children.

perhaps mr icke has been watching too much star trek.

Well..

Here were are, 24 hours later....

Seems that "research" and "evidence" never showed up.

It also seems the founder of this thread, couldnt defend such outrageous claims.

I dont think its surprising.

Well..
Here were are, 24 hours later....
Seems that "research" and "evidence" never showed up.
It also seems the founder of this thread, couldnt defend such outrageous claims.
I dont think its surprising.

He was probably one of the lizard people out to disseminate lies and misinformation about Icke, and make you think that this is all a bunch of loony crap.

<_<
>_>

Tricksy, they are, those lizard people.

This debate was based around science and not music chords, ignorance is bliss.

Backwoodsquatches, i have only heard him twice in radio interviews so i cant remember much of the details so i have mailed someone who knows more about David Icke's work than me to answer your questions.

Kallisti

Kallisti

καλλίστῃ?

His last name says it all. *ICK* Or should that be hick?

I have this awesome property in Florida that I just know you'd love to buy. 200,000 acres for only 1 million dollars! Its called the Everglades, its paradise man, perfect place to build a house.

David Icke is the kind of man I would kick when he's down.

Well..

Here were are, 24 hours later....

Seems that "research" and "evidence" never showed up.

It also seems the founder of this thread, couldnt defend such outrageous claims.

I dont think its surprising.
I wish you actually read what i said and properly processed what i wrote before you typed your message. Let me repeat it again anyway, i dont have enough of the information to do the evidence justice. I mailed another person on NS who has read a lot of David Icke's work and he said he would put it on this thread, the ball's out of my court...

David Icke is the kind of man I would kick when he's down.
What you wrote says more about your charcter than David Icke's...

I wish you actually read what i said and properly processed what i wrote before you started bitchin at me. Let me repeat it again anyway, i dont have enough of the information to do the eviudence justice. I mailed another person on NS who has read a lot of David Ike's work and he said he would put it in this thread, the ball's out if my court...


You started this thread, and you wantd everyone to take this seriously.
Dont get mad at me, becuase you couldnt back up anything you said with proof.
In fact, the hell with proof...you couldnt even tell me wich of his theories you believed in enough to make him sound like he knew what he is talking about.

I gave you every opportunity, to further your cuase, you have done nothing but give up, and "put the ball in someone elses court".

Apparently, you listened to him a couple of times, and decided he was correct in his wild accusations, that defy logic as we know it.

Then, you made this thread, wanting to debate the merits of his claims.

We refuted them.

I asked you time and again, to present the science that you claim exists.

You have provided nothing.

That means you couldnt even look them up online, and post us a damn link.


Dont get angry becuase your debating an issue you cant support.
The shortcoming is yours, and not mine.

You started this thread, and you wantd everyone to take this seriously.
Dont get mad at me, becuase you couldnt back up anything you said with proof.
In fact, the hell with proof...you couldnt even tell me wich of his theories you believed in enough to make him sound like he knew what he is talking about.

I gave you every opportunity, to further your cuase, you have done nothing but give up, and "put the ball in someone elses court".

Apparently, you listened to him a couple of times, and decided he was correct in his wild accusations, that defy logic as we know it.

Then, you made this thread, wanting to debate the merits of his claims.

We refuted them.

I asked you time and again, to present the science that you claim exists.

You have provided nothing.

That means you couldnt even look them up online, and post us a damn link.


Dont get angry becuase your debating an issue you cant support.
The shortcoming is yours, and not mine.

You shapeshifting squatch son of a ......

You shapeshifting squatch son of a ......


Flattery will get you no where.

unless its accompanied by a monetary bribe.

Im cheap..but not easy.

Flattery will get you no where.

...

A Squatch by any other shape would smell as sweet.

A Squatch by any other shape would smell as sweet.


Ever see Harry and the Hendersons?

Us Squatches have a particular funk to us.....

Ever see Harry and the Hendersons?

Us Squatches have a particular funk to us.....

In Florida, they're called "skunk-apes". That doesn't sound like a compliment.

In Florida, they're called "skunk-apes". That doesn't sound like a compliment.


Skunk Bud apes.....its cuz the florida chapter of the USAW Union are all potheads.

Good people...although its hard to prove they exist.
Kinda like Lizard people.

We could argue all day, but i've got other things to do. I have already made my points and im not going to repeat them to someone who cant be bothered to read through earlier messages.

I cant remember the scientific research David Icke has used to explain some of his theories so stop quizzing me for it. Someone who has read a lot of his books and remembers this research has told me he will post on this thread later, so withhold your judgement until then...

Your points were:
a) You've listened to him on the radio twice.
b) He sounded very sciency.
c) Lizards change their DNA to change colour.
d) Someone else who's actually read his work will come on to explain it.

I read the entire thing, beginning to end. You don't seem to have read a thing (I'm including David Icke's works in this generalization). Anytime someone uses a word longer than six letters you hop in with "I can't remember" and "someone I know who knows [that moron]'s work better than me will come talk about it". I'd like to say I'm abandoning this entire thread as flamebait, but it's too hard to resist the opportunity to see the village idiot in its new modern habitat.

I had a friend who was a rabid supporter of this twaddle and would often throw up bits of "evidence" as to why the lizards thing was true. If you read "Beyond The Matrix" by Icke, closely followed by Schopenhauer's "On The Art of Always Being Right" then you see the pathetic techniques he uses to convince you without saying anything of substance. He continually throws in quotes by scientists, philosophers and historians simply to have them quoted in his book so he can give them intellectual weight, although the quotes are wrenched out of context.

To say he's spent "decades researching" is nonsense because he's changed his mind so many times over the past few years that he's ended up with a different view to the one his exhibited on the Wogan chatshow in the 80s.

As far as being university educated- so what? Many an intelligent man has been an absolute nutter.

He simply takes quite plausible, maybe a little far fetched but possible ideas and then adds his own twist without evidence and misusing quotes and research from elsewhere. The world may well be run by a network or corporation hell bent on world domination, but it doesn't really mean that they have to be transdimensional lizards who need to keep us performing rituals so that we can produce the correct vibrations to draw them from their subterranean lair. Good grief.

You started this thread, and you wantd everyone to take this seriously.
Dont get mad at me, becuase you couldnt back up anything you said with proof.
In fact, the hell with proof...you couldnt even tell me wich of his theories you believed in enough to make him sound like he knew what he is talking about.

I gave you every opportunity, to further your cuase, you have done nothing but give up, and "put the ball in someone elses court".

Apparently, you listened to him a couple of times, and decided he was correct in his wild accusations, that defy logic as we know it.

Then, you made this thread, wanting to debate the merits of his claims.

We refuted them.

I asked you time and again, to present the science that you claim exists.

You have provided nothing.

That means you couldnt even look them up online, and post us a damn link.


Dont get angry becuase your debating an issue you cant support.
The shortcoming is yours, and not mine.
1, I didn't say i thought he was correct in all his beliefs, i said he made some valid points which shouldn't be ignored.

2, I haven't read any of his books so i cant present the evidence which i heard him briefly talking about in the 2 radio interviews.

3, I will give you the link to the radio interviews, so that you can listen to him and then make up your own mind.

Here's a couple of links:http://www.mininova.org/tor/85083
http://www.torrentreactor.net/view.php?id=5157678

And also all the interviews he has done in a few days here: http://www.ickedownload.com

Your points were:
a) You've listened to him on the radio twice.
b) He sounded very sciency.
c) Lizards change their DNA to change colour.
d) Someone else who's actually read his work will come on to explain it.

I read the entire thing, beginning to end. You don't seem to have read a thing (I'm including David Icke's works in this generalization). Anytime someone uses a word longer than six letters you hop in with "I can't remember" and "someone I know who knows [that moron]'s work better than me will come talk about it". I'd like to say I'm abandoning this entire thread as flamebait, but it's too hard to resist the opportunity to see the village idiot in its new modern habitat.
People usually patronise others to deflect attention from their own inadequates lives, which is probably why this offensive post is your ONLY post.

although the quotes are wrenched out of context.
In your opinion his quotes are out of context, but fortunately freedom of speech still exsits and people can present scientific views from a different perspective.

In your opinion his quotes are out of context, but fortunately freedom of speech still exsits and people can present scientific views from a different perspective.


Yes, even those that have no actual basis in science....like Icke's.

Yes, even those that have no actual basis in science....like Icke's.
So i take it you've looked into David Icke's theories enough to make that sweeping statement.

You have asked for a debate on the purported scientific merits of the revelations of David Icke. However, nobody is allowed to criticise Icke or call him a crackpot, and whenever one of Icke's points is demonstrated to be nonsensical, you simply declare that you don't believe in every aspect of his theories. Generally speaking, you refuse to take any substantive part in the debate you have asked for. Icke is not here. If you agree with some of his viewpoints and want to discuss them, you will have to present them yourself.

The consensus of the comments on this thread seems to be that David Icke is either crazy, stupid or aiming to deceive. You can either agree or present evidence that he isn't. Simply telling everyone they are biased because they doubt the sanity of a man who called the Queen Mother a twelve-foot alien paedophile lizard from the lower fourth dimension doesn't cut it.

Science involves testing theories. The number one requirement of any scientific theory is that it lay itself open to refutation. A theory can be thought to be strong if it could easily be proven wrong by counter evidence, but nonetheless such evidence has not appeared. For example, the laws of thermodynamics could be refuted by the construction of a perpetual motion machine (with no external energy source), but none has ever been built. But how can anyone disprove Icke's claims that various anonymous people have told him they personally watched various celebrities and politicians transform themselves into lizards as some sort of party trick?

Science does not involve merely using vaguely scientific-sounding language, or snip-quoting recognised scientists whom we know did not share Icke's particular viewpoint about gigantic alien lizards.

Having read carefully through what you have written, I can only find one thing that resembles scientific evidence, which you phrased in two ways:

Basic species of Lizards on earth can mainpulate their DNA structure to change colour, agreed? - Take that scientific fact a few million years down the evolutionary path and a Lizard changing their shape aswell as colour doesn't seem so unpossible, does it?

Im pretty sure they have to manipulate their DNA structure to change their colour? The colours are very distinguished/different and are not caused by a rush of blood to the skin surface.
Firstly, and I say this with the backing of a university education in biology and a lifelong interest in evolutionary theory and zoology - lizards do not "manipulate their DNA structure". It never ever happened. All animals that change colour do so through mundane chemical or physical reactions - moving pigments around for example. Chameleon colour change, for instance, works in a strikingly similar way to an LCD computer screen. Electrical (nervous) impulses cause pigment particles to flood or clump, causing individual cells to change colour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon#Change_of_color
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/857252824.Zo.r.html

Here is a sample of some of Icke's writing that I think reflects what you are getting at:

"He believed there was, to use his own phrase, a 'morphogenetic field' which transmitted to the DNA of the lizard people and aligned the cell structure to the reptilian genetic blueprint. The more reptilian genes a person carries the easier it is for this communication, or rather control, to take place. And the ones with the cell structure most aligned to the reptilian blueprint are the Elite families that run the world to this day." (Icke, discussing the hallucinations of an habitual LSD abuser).

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/et042.html

Please understand that DNA just doesn't work that way. If all the DNA in your body were to suddenly change into, say, a gecko's DNA, this would not instantly change the composition of your cells. It would mean that the DNA would produce different proteins and respond to different stimuli, so that the functions and composition of the cell and its contents would change over a period of hours, although the gross morphology (ie general shape) or your body would not change because that morphology has already been established over months and years (gestation, infancy, puberty).

How would the DNA suddenly change structure in the first place? By means of a magic wand?

Secondly, even if lizards could "manipulate their DNA structure to change their colour", this would not be evidence that gigantic, extradimensional lizard men are capable of shape-changing or that they currently rule the world. All it would do is refute one of the dozens of objections to such a theory that immediately spring to mind. But it doesn't even do that, because it is not true.

This is the essence of ideas like that of Icke and, yes, Van Danniken (apologies to the teenage me, who wanted so much for Van Danniken to be right). There is only so much theoretical superstructure one can construct upon a flimsy evidentiary foundation. The Ickes follow the pattern:
1. Build an elaborate fantasy - the bigger the better, because the goal is to overwhelm the target's credulity.
2. Present some carefully chosen historical or pseudo-scientific claims that don't directly contradict the fantasy. Even weave some sensible observations in amongst the nonsense.
3. Appear to refute the inevitably objections that are brought against the fantasy, preferably with word games or more untestable or fantastic gobbledigook. Or simply incorporate your critics in the conspiracy theory.

This is what leads you to a defence of Icke that boils down to:
A. Many people throughout history have said things that seemed absurd.
B. Some of those people turned out to be right.
C. What David Icke is saying today seems absurd.
Therefore, David Icke will turn out to be right.

Of course, most of the absurd-seeming things said through the ages have turned out to be rubbish. For every scientist persecuted for making an approximately correct astronomical observation, hundreds of people were claiming that they could turn lead into gold or cure haemophilia with herbs, that they had bonked the devil or chatted with the Virgin Mary, that they had seen a person change into a lizard or that they had seen a cat change into a goat. They were all wrong, though not on quite the scale of David Icke.

In other words, you have to accept that the fact that Icke's ideas seem nonsensical to everyone else does not necessarily make them true!

This debate was based around science and not music chords...

i think he makes some valid points based around scientific facts and research, which shouldn't be dismissed. I am looking at David Icke's theories from a scientific perspective
This thread is a bit like Salt'n'Peppa's song "Let's Talk About Sex". They keep talking about talking about sex, but never actually do talk about sex itself. You keep claiming that you are debating the matter on "scientific facts and research" but where is it?

Don't make Salt'n'Peppa's mistake: please present some meat to go with all this seasoning.

That means you couldnt even look them up online, and post us a damn link.


Come on, be nice. It isn't as if he has his own website.

Oh wait.

http://www.davidicke.com/

Come on, be nice. It isn't as if he has his own website.

Oh wait.

http://www.davidicke.com/


Good God, the man has a euro-mullet. This explains everythingthing. (You can take trash out of the trailer parker, but you can't take the trailer park out of the trash)

I just heard him in a radio interview, he sounds like an intelligent guy who has some thought provoking answers, he also makes some interesting and accurate points, if you've heard what he's had to say in depth then im interested in hearing your opinion on his beliefs (whether you agree with him or not).

If you dont know much about David Icke though and you plan to say some crap like 'Oh he's that guy who thinks there are shapeshifters!' then dont bother.

Discuss...


im openly conspiring to kidnap him and feed him to komodo dragons

im openly conspiring to kidnap him and feed him to komodo dragons
Good luck with that, let me know how you get on...

Damn, I missed this conversation :( It seems like its kinda wrapped up, but I'd like to put my two cents in anyway, while I'm browsing the forums.

David Icke is insane. I've read most of his books (and enjoyed them) and he seems to lack the ability to differentiate between a metaphor derived from hallucinogenic experiences, and reality, which is a tell-tale sign of schizophrenia, but the fact of the matter is, he seems like an incredibly nice guy. Unless he goes home, and starts hitting pictures of Reptillians with baseball bats, and screaming wildly, and yelling to himself how he will destroy the Repillians and their agenda, I can't see why people have a problem with him.

Weak minded people will absorb his theories, and believe them to the fullest extent, and act on them in an unwavering sense. Intelligent people will read his books, do their own research, and come out knowing a little more than they did going in, and being quite astounded by the power of the human mind to create stories around basic psychological concepts. Ignorant people will decide he is a total crackpot, and never read any of his books. That homeless guy on the corner is a crackpot, but a man that has the ability to get a book published is merely insane and delusional.

You have asked for a debate on the purported scientific merits of the revelations of David Icke. However, nobody is allowed to criticise Icke or call him a crackpot, and whenever one of Icke's points is demonstrated to be nonsensical, you simply declare that you don't believe in every aspect of his theories. Generally speaking, you refuse to take any substantive part in the debate you have asked for. Icke is not here. If you agree with some of his viewpoints and want to discuss them, you will have to present them yourself.

The consensus of the comments on this thread seems to be that David Icke is either crazy, stupid or aiming to deceive. You can either agree or present evidence that he isn't. Simply telling everyone they are biased because they doubt the sanity of a man who called the Queen Mother a twelve-foot alien paedophile lizard from the lower fourth dimension doesn't cut it.

Science involves testing theories. The number one requirement of any scientific theory is that it lay itself open to refutation. A theory can be thought to be strong if it could easily be proven wrong by counter evidence, but nonetheless such evidence has not appeared. For example, the laws of thermodynamics could be refuted by the construction of a perpetual motion machine (with no external energy source), but none has ever been built. But how can anyone disprove Icke's claims that various anonymous people have told him they personally watched various celebrities and politicians transform themselves into lizards as some sort of party trick?

Science does not involve merely using vaguely scientific-sounding language, or snip-quoting recognised scientists whom we know did not share Icke's particular viewpoint about gigantic alien lizards.

Having read carefully through what you have written, I can only find one thing that resembles scientific evidence, which you phrased in two ways:


Firstly, and I say this with the backing of a university education in biology and a lifelong interest in evolutionary theory and zoology - lizards do not "manipulate their DNA structure". It never ever happened. All animals that change colour do so through mundane chemical or physical reactions - moving pigments around for example. Chameleon colour change, for instance, works in a strikingly similar way to an LCD computer screen. Electrical (nervous) impulses cause pigment particles to flood or clump, causing individual cells to change colour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon#Change_of_color
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/857252824.Zo.r.html

Here is a sample of some of Icke's writing that I think reflects what you are getting at:

"He believed there was, to use his own phrase, a 'morphogenetic field' which transmitted to the DNA of the lizard people and aligned the cell structure to the reptilian genetic blueprint. The more reptilian genes a person carries the easier it is for this communication, or rather control, to take place. And the ones with the cell structure most aligned to the reptilian blueprint are the Elite families that run the world to this day." (Icke, discussing the hallucinations of an habitual LSD abuser).

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/et042.html

Please understand that DNA just doesn't work that way. If all the DNA in your body were to suddenly change into, say, a gecko's DNA, this would not instantly change the composition of your cells. It would mean that the DNA would produce different proteins and respond to different stimuli, so that the functions and composition of the cell and its contents would change over a period of hours, although the gross morphology (ie general shape) or your body would not change because that morphology has already been established over months and years (gestation, infancy, puberty).

How would the DNA suddenly change structure in the first place? By means of a magic wand?

Secondly, even if lizards could "manipulate their DNA structure to change their colour", this would not be evidence that gigantic, extradimensional lizard men are capable of shape-changing or that they currently rule the world. All it would do is refute one of the dozens of objections to such a theory that immediately spring to mind. But it doesn't even do that, because it is not true.

This is the essence of ideas like that of Icke and, yes, Van Danniken (apologies to the teenage me, who wanted so much for Van Danniken to be right). There is only so much theoretical superstructure one can construct upon a flimsy evidentiary foundation. The Ickes follow the pattern:
1. Build an elaborate fantasy - the bigger the better, because the goal is to overwhelm the target's credulity.
2. Present some carefully chosen historical or pseudo-scientific claims that don't directly contradict the fantasy. Even weave some sensible observations in amongst the nonsense.
3. Appear to refute the inevitably objections that are brought against the fantasy, preferably with word games or more untestable or fantastic gobbledigook. Or simply incorporate your critics in the conspiracy theory.

This is what leads you to a defence of Icke that boils down to:
A. Many people throughout history have said things that seemed absurd.
B. Some of those people turned out to be right.
C. What David Icke is saying today seems absurd.
Therefore, David Icke will turn out to be right.

Of course, most of the absurd-seeming things said through the ages have turned out to be rubbish. For every scientist persecuted for making an approximately correct astronomical observation, hundreds of people were claiming that they could turn lead into gold or cure haemophilia with herbs, that they had bonked the devil or chatted with the Virgin Mary, that they had seen a person change into a lizard or that they had seen a cat change into a goat. They were all wrong, though not on quite the scale of David Icke.

In other words, you have to accept that the fact that Icke's ideas seem nonsensical to everyone else does not necessarily make them true!


This thread is a bit like Salt'n'Peppa's song "Let's Talk About Sex". They keep talking about talking about sex, but never actually do talk about sex itself. You keep claiming that you are debating the matter on "scientific facts and research" but where is it?

Don't make Salt'n'Peppa's mistake: please present some meat to go with all this seasoning.
This is the type of reply i was looking for when i started the thread, intelligent, well thought out points which question some of David Icke's theories from a scientific perspective...

Although your arguments are very logical with todays science, in a hundred years time a lot of the current science material willl have probably been re-written and maybe David Icke's work will then have a lot more credibility?

Because a lot of David Icke's theories are circumstancial it is virtually impossible to prove them conclusively, but if they were proven conclusively then we wouldn't be debating them!

I have enjoyed discussing this subject field, even with my limted knowledge on it and the verbal abusive i got. :D

A question re trhe OP's assertion that David Icke is a university graduate: Why is this not in his autobiography at his site (http://www.davidicke.com/icke/about.html)?

As a matter of fact, as I understand his statements there, he is a high school drop-out...

He also seems to be quite anti-education.

Witness these quotes from his autobiography linked above:
I wanted to be a professional soccer player for as long as I could remember and I achieved that by leaving school to play for Coventry City and Hereford United in the English league.
...school had bored me rigid and I left to play soccer before taking any exams. (Thank-you, God) I would do my learning on my terms, in my time, and the "educational" system barely touched me. I rejected it all with a sort of inner knowing that it was not relevant to me.

As for David Icke's beliefes, all I can say is a man who believes AIDS is not caused by HIV (http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/icke-aids.html), channeling and mediums, the illuminati, and a reptile conspiracy (http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles3/obsessed.html) is not someone I am going to trust as a source of any criticism of science.

Oh, and just to pint it out, as nobody else seems to have, the "he's a university graduate" bit is a nice little appeal to authority (http://skepdic.com/authorty.html) (attempting to judge a belief by its origin rather than by the arguments for and against the belief).

Alright, let's treat this essay with 100ml of 2.0M Literary Criticism. I find that's usually enough to start singing holes in anything with a high enough bullshit content to react.

Sample is taken from Icke's own website (http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/icke-aids.html), and is taken to be a representative sample of his work. This may be in dispute; however, it was a randomly-taken sample and thus hopefully good enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

AIDS:
The Great Con Trick
by David Icke


AIDS: The Great Con Trick HIV does NOT cause Aids. HIV does not cause anything. A staggering statement given the hype and acceptance by the scientific establishment and, through them, the public that the HIV virus is the only cause of Aids. HIV is a weak virus and does not dismantle the immune system. Nor is Aids passed on sexually. There are two main types of virus. Using the aeroplane analogy, you could call one of these virus strains a "pilot" virus. It can change the nature of a cell and steer it into disease. This usually happens very quickly after the virus takes hold. Then there is the "passenger" virus which lives off the cell, goes along for the ride, but never affects the cell to the extent that it causes disease.

HIV is a passenger virus!

Let's start here, at "A staggering statement... ...of Aids." It should be immediately possible to detect here a strong strain of Icke's own hype; have a dig at the Establishment and while people are busy thinking "Yeah, the Establishment does suck!" sneak in a wholly unsubstantiated claim; "HIV is a weak virus..."

His virology is weak. It is possible for two viruses to coexist, this is true; however, it is not statistically possible that nobody would have ever contracted one without the other unless they had existed independently a long time ago and had, only 20 years ago, formed a symbiotic relationship with the benefit that they both now could infect humans without having done so before that.

An analogy would be the famous mutualistic Oxpecker/Rhinoceros symbiosis, which I shall alter to make fit. The logical consequences of Icke's claim parallel this:

1. The oxpecker lived its life eating one kind of fly, A, while the rhinoceros was plagued by a different kind of fly, B.
2. One day an oxpecker decided to eat fly C, which it had never before eaten, off the back of a rhinoceros, which had never before been plagued by fly C, and so a symbiotic relationship formed in which the young of the oxpecker instinctively knew to pick fly C off the back of the rhinoceros and would continue doing so ad infinitum.

This is not how symbitoic relationships form. It is logically possible, but I hope you can see how absurd it looks.

So how on earth did it become the big bogy man virus of the world? The person who announced that HIV caused Aids was an American, Doctor Robert Gallo. He has since been accused of professional misconduct, his test has been exposed as fraudulent, and two of his laboratory executives have been convicted of criminal offences. Tens of millions of people are tested for HIV antibodies every year and Dr Gallo, who patented his "test", gets a royalty for every one. Luc Montagnier, Gallo's partner in the HIV-causes-Aids theory, has since admitted in 1989: "HIV is not capable of causing the destruction of the immune system which is seen in people with Aids". Nearly 500 scientists across the world agree with him. So does Dr Robert E Wilner, author of the book 'The Deadly Deception. The Proof That Sex And HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause Aids'.

Almost exclusively ad hominem attacks on the discoverer of the virus/disease relationship, as well as a quote from 1989, after five years of research into a heretofore-unseen disease. Twenty-five years of hard research on, it is safe to start drawing different conclusions from the vast, vast, vast swathes of available evidence which have emerged since then.

Note: It is very easy to say "Someone knew this was true even back then! A good example would be "Even the ancient Greeks knew the world was round!" This does not lend the theory any scientific credence, though the evidence they used (shadow trickery, features of horizons) might.

Icke presents this ad hominem backup without presenting any of the evidence they purport to. A better writer would say "As Dr. Wilner, author of this book, states, HIV cannot cause AIDS because..."

Dr Wilner even injected himself with the HIV virus on a television chat show in Spain to support his claims. Other doctors and authors come to the same conclusions, among them Peter Duesberg PhD and John Yiamouyiannis PhD, in their book, 'Aids: The Good News Is That HIV Doesn't Cause It. The Bad News Is "Recreational Drugs" And Medical Treatments Like AZT Do'. That's a long title, but it sums up the situation. People are dying of Aids because of the treatments used to "treat" Aids!

Falsified thus: long before AZT people were dying of AIDS, and in sub-Saharan Africa where no AZT is available for thousands of miles people still die of it.

It works like this. Now it is accepted by the establishment and the people that HIV causes Aids, the system has built this myth into its whole diagnosis and "treatment". You go to the doctor and you are told your HIV test was positive(positive only for the HIV antibodies, by the way, they don't actually test for the virus itself). Because of the propaganda, many people already begin to die emotionally and mentally when they are told they are HIV positive. They have been conditioned to believe that death is inevitable. The fear of death leads them to accept, often demand, the hyped-up "treatments" which are supposed to stop Aids occurring. (They don't.) The most famous is AZT, produced by the Wellcome organisation, owned, wait for it, by the Rockefellers, one of the key manipulating families in the New World Order.

Here he starts his explanation with another stab at the Establishment, stabs which continue througout his explanation and indeed his whole essay, making the validity of the statement "the Establishment sucks" and "HIV does not cause AIDS" isometric in the mind of the reader. This is one of Icke's favourite tricks. He goes on to make a pointless gesture to people's ignorance with the "they only test for antibodies!" statement (so what if they do?), and utterly ignores a sizable number of people who aren't afraid of death, including the "bug chasing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_chasing)" community of people who seek infection as a badge of honour, and who still die young and emaciated of the infections of compromised immune systems.

As for drugs which kill the patient, hell, much worse things than AZT have got out there, are regularly used. The MRI scan is the current opiate of the masses, reassuring people they can be seen into in high resolution without ever being exposed to the "dangerous radiation" of X-rays. They always leave out the "Nuclear" on the front of its name, and moreover, the stronger the MRI the higher the image resolution, but the more unknown effects (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18324660.400) it could begin to have. Besides which, even Thalidomide is in (highly-controlled) use now, as a treatment for leprosy and other disorders, but obviously not in pregnant women.

Not to dismiss the risks of AZT. Read on.

AZT was developed as an anti-cancer drug to be used in chemotherapy, but it was found to be too toxic even for that! AZT's effect in the "treatment" of cancer was to kill cells - simple as that - not just to kill cancer cells , but to kill cells, cancerous and healthy. The question, and this is accepted even by the medical establishment, was: would AZT kill the cancer cells before it had killed so many healthy cells that it killed the body? This is the drug used to "treat" HIV. What is its effect?

It destroys the immune system, so CAUSING Aids. People are dying from the treatment, not the HIV.Aids is simply the breakdown of the immune system, for which there are endless causes, none of them passed on through sex. That's another con which has made a fortune for condom manufacturers and created enormous fear around the expression of our sexuality and the release and expansion of our creative force.

It is true that everyone who takes AZT dies young, for the simple reason that they also have AIDS. However, AZT does not kill cells; it prevents cell division. Moreover, it is neither the first nor the worst drug in the field of chemotherapy, and radiotherapy (which, being much simpler than the molecular engineering needed to refine drugs, has been perfected much more quickly) used to be pretty damn dangerous too. However, doctors are required by law to explain the consequences of HIV double or triple-cocktail treatment, as it is true that the drugs' side effects can be terrible.

However, back on topic, Icke here leaps from an ad rem (for want of a better term) attack on the nature of the drug itself to claim that AZT destroys the immune system. I repeat: AZT does not destroy cells, but merely prevents cell reproduction, the aim of which in HIV treatment is to prevent the virus replicating by inhibiting the action of reverse-transcriptase.

"Aids is simply the breakdown of the immune system, for which there are endless causes, none of them passed on through sex." This claim I shall deal with later.

What has happened since the Great Aids Con is that now anyone who dies from a diminished immune system is said to have died of the all encompassing term, Aids. It is even built into the diagnosis. If you are HIV positive and you die of tuberculosis, pneumonia, or 25 other unrelated diseases now connected by the con men to "Aids", you are diagnosed as dying of Aids. If you are not HIV positive and you die of one of those diseases you are diagnosed as dying of that disease, not Aids. This manipulates the figures every day to indicate that only HIV positives die of Aids.

This is a lie.

Tuberculosis infection is very low in the Western world. Pneumonia is difficult to catch without being in hospital already or, more traditionally, out in the snow, soaking wet, near a source of the disease - and, moreover, is most definitely easy to fight off with penicillin and white cells, if the patient was healthy to begin with. That patients without spleens and those proven to be immunocompromised in other ways than HIV infection are at higher risk of catching pneumonia is a testament to the validity of the link between pneumonia deaths in otherwise healthy young adult males (as a control group) and their HIV infection.

Moreover, I've never heard of anyone without HIV/AIDS dying of a common cold, and I've never heard of isolated cases of influenza being deadly to, again, young and otherwise healthy adult males. You say this:

1. If HIV is present in a person and they die of catching the common cold/influenza, their death is attributed to AIDS.
2. HIV has no effect on the immune system.
3. Therefore HIV has nothing to do with their death of the common cold/influenza.

I put it to you that since the number of young adult males who died of the common cold or influenza without immunocompromisation is insignificantly small, it is so highly unlikely as to be incredible that HIV infection has no effect on the likelihood of a young adult male dying of a cold or 'flu.

There is also an interesting point demonstrated here, which is that Mr. Icke is relying on his reader not understanding what "AIDS" acutally means. Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome means just that; it is not "AZT Side-Effect Immunodeficiency Syndrome." In this regard AIDS is actually logically linked to HIV, by being defined as "immunodeficiency caused by HIV infection".

Many people who die from Aids are not HIV positive and the reason that the figures for Aids deaths have not soared as predicted is that the overwhelming majority of people diagnosed HIV positive have never developed Aids.

A much more plausible reason for their not soaring is the unprecedentedly huge publicity campaign about the dangers of HIV/AIDS making people more cautious. Similarly, I ask: what about those who have HIV who have developed AIDS? If it is caused solely by "anti-AIDS" treatments, why do people die of otherwise insignificant infections who have HIV? Also, why then have HIV patients who have never contracted AIDS not show up unknown in the preliminary medical testing for the hundreds of professions which require AIDS testing, including, but not limited to, the medical profession itself, the police, the fire service, and even such mundane things as work on offshore oil rigs and cruise liners?

Why?

Because HIV has nothing whatsoever to do with Aids.

Anything that breaks down the immune system causes Aids and that includes so-called recreational drugs. The vast majority of Aids deaths in the United States involve homosexuals and this perpetuates the myth that it has something to do with sex. But homosexuals in the US are among the biggest users of drugs which genuine doctors have linked to Aids. Prostitutes who take drugs often get Aids, prostitutes who do not take drugs invariably do not get Aids. The rise in the Aids figures in the United States corresponds perfectly with the increase in the use of drugs - most of which are made available to people on the streets by elements within the US Government, including Bill Clinton and George Bush. In Africa, the breakdown of the immune system, now known as Aids, is caused by ill health - lack of good food, clean water and the general effects of poverty. Haemophiliacs do not die from HIV-infected blood, they die, as they did before the Aids scam, from a quirk in their own immune system. Their immune system locks into foreign proteins in the infused blood and on rare occasions it can become confused during this process and attack itself. Their immune system, in effect, commits suicide. HIV is irrelevant to that. Yet how many people today who have been diagnosed HIV positive are having their lives blighted by the fear that the symptoms of Aids will start any moment?

Okay, here I'm going to ask for evidence for this entire series of quick-fire claims:

1. Which recreational drugs cause immune deficiency?
1b. Why have cannabis and ecstacy in particular, which have both been heavily studied, not been shown to do this?
1c. In fact, if the pharm companies are conspiring to sell more drugs, why are they not making a killing selling anti-retrovirals to recreational drug users?

2. Please provide any kind of support for your "prostitute" claim. Please take into account the fact that many prostitutes are supporting a drug habit, and that since HIV is blood-borne even you cannot deny that it is shared by infected needles, which are not a feature of "recreational drugs". Also, explain which "recreational drugs" require needles out of these: cannabis, amphetamines, ecstasy, cocaine, amyl nitrates and related subtances (other drugs than these are to be considerd not recreational but hard drugs, the high use of which among the homosexual population is wildly less than the much higher incidence of HIV/AIDS).

3. Provide evidence for the claim that the US Administration has anything to do with disseminating drugs to the citizens of the United States. Also, please provide evidence that this is true of HIV sufferers everywhere in the world.

4. Explain why HIV infection is so rampant in sub-Saharan Africa, and what this means in relation to the also-rampant prevalence of AIDS. Are the two linked?

5. Explain why millions of haemophiliacs survive blood transfusions perfectly well because, as well you no doubt know, Mr. Icke, the blood-group problem was solved decades ago with the A/B/AB/O categorisation. Explain also why when people, hameophiliacs or otherwise, are given the wrong type of blood they do not develop symptoms in any way similar to AIDS, but instead die quickly with entirely different symptoms.

AZT is the killer. There is not a single case of AZT reversing the symptoms of Aids. How can it? It's causing them, for goodness sake. The Aids industry is now worth billions of pounds a year and makes an unimaginable fortune for the drug industry controlled by the Rockefellers and the rest of the Global Elite. For more detailed information, I strongly recommend, 'Aids: The Good News Is HIV Doesn't Cause It. The Bad News Is "Recreational Drugs" And Medical Treatments Like AZT Do' It is published by Health Action Press, 6439 Taggart Road, Delaware, Ohio, 43015.

"AZT is the killer... ...can it?" This can also be explained by the claim that AIDS is as yet unstoppable. Put simply, this is similar to claiming that "Morphine is the killer. There is not a single case of morphine reversing the symptoms of cancer. How can it? It's causing them, for goodness' sake!" Because a drug combats some of the symptoms of a disease - morphine suppresses the pain suffered by terminal cancer sufferers - does not mean it fights the disease itself. Similarly, before antibiotics cholera could be treated by making sure the patient remained hydrated with huge amounts of water to replace the masses lost to diarrhoea, but this did not fight the disease, only the symptom. The immune system eventually kills cholera, given time.

It is true that AIDS is making a killing for the drug companies, and the drug companies have been proven to be decidedly ruthless in the past. However, the two are not linked.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what you asked for, you who started this thread. You asked for scientific consideration and evaluation of Icke's theories. Here's one. Now you do the maths.

Alright, let's treat this essay with 100ml of 2.0M Literary Criticism. I find that's usually enough to start singing holes in anything with a high enough bullshit content to react.

Sample is taken from Icke's own website (http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/icke-aids.html), and is taken to be a representative sample of his work. This may be in dispute; however, it was a randomly-taken sample and thus hopefully good enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-snip-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what you asked for, you who started this thread. You asked for scientific consideration and evaluation of Icke's theories. Here's one. Now you do the maths.

:D

Bring on the smackdown.

I've been away from Uni too long. Could feel my skillz starting to slip. Needed something to critique. This absurd thread got in the way.

Alright, let's treat this essay with 100ml of 2.0M Literary Criticism. I find that's usually enough to start singing holes in anything with a high enough bullshit content to react.

Sample is taken from Icke's own website (http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/icke-aids.html), and is taken to be a representative sample of his work. This may be in dispute; however, it was a randomly-taken sample and thus hopefully good enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Let's start here, at "A staggering statement... ...of Aids." It should be immediately possible to detect here a strong strain of Icke's own hype; have a dig at the Establishment and while people are busy thinking "Yeah, the Establishment does suck!" sneak in a wholly unsubstantiated claim; "HIV is a weak virus..."

His virology is weak. It is possible for two viruses to coexist, this is true; however, it is not statistically possible that nobody would have ever contracted one without the other unless they had existed independently a long time ago and had, only 20 years ago, formed a symbiotic relationship with the benefit that they both now could infect humans without having done so before that.

An analogy would be the famous mutualistic Oxpecker/Rhinoceros symbiosis, which I shall alter to make fit. The logical consequences of Icke's claim parallel this:

1. The oxpecker lived its life eating one kind of fly, A, while the rhinoceros was plagued by a different kind of fly, B.
2. One day an oxpecker decided to eat fly C, which it had never before eaten, off the back of a rhinoceros, which had never before been plagued by fly C, and so a symbiotic relationship formed in which the young of the oxpecker instinctively knew to pick fly C off the back of the rhinoceros and would continue doing so ad infinitum.

This is not how symbitoic relationships form. It is logically possible, but I hope you can see how absurd it looks.



Almost exclusively ad hominem attacks on the discoverer of the virus/disease relationship, as well as a quote from 1989, after five years of research into a heretofore-unseen disease. Twenty-five years of hard research on, it is safe to start drawing different conclusions from the vast, vast, vast swathes of available evidence which have emerged since then.

Note: It is very easy to say "Someone knew this was true even back then! A good example would be "Even the ancient Greeks knew the world was round!" This does not lend the theory any scientific credence, though the evidence they used (shadow trickery, features of horizons) might.

Icke presents this ad hominem backup without presenting any of the evidence they purport to. A better writer would say "As Dr. Wilner, author of this book, states, HIV cannot cause AIDS because..."



Falsified thus: long before AZT people were dying of AIDS, and in sub-Saharan Africa where no AZT is available for thousands of miles people still die of it.



Here he starts his explanation with another stab at the Establishment, stabs which continue througout his explanation and indeed his whole essay, making the validity of the statement "the Establishment sucks" and "HIV does not cause AIDS" isometric in the mind of the reader. This is one of Icke's favourite tricks. He goes on to make a pointless gesture to people's ignorance with the "they only test for antibodies!" statement (so what if they do?), and utterly ignores a sizable number of people who aren't afraid of death, including the "bug chasing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_chasing)" community of people who seek infection as a badge of honour, and who still die young and emaciated of the infections of compromised immune systems.

As for drugs which kill the patient, hell, much worse things than AZT have got out there, are regularly used. The MRI scan is the current opiate of the masses, reassuring people they can be seen into in high resolution without ever being exposed to the "dangerous radiation" of X-rays. They always leave out the "Nuclear" on the front of its name, and moreover, the stronger the MRI the higher the image resolution, but the more unknown effects (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18324660.400) it could begin to have. Besides which, even Thalidomide is in (highly-controlled) use now, as a treatment for leprosy and other disorders, but obviously not in pregnant women.

Not to dismiss the risks of AZT. Read on.



It is true that everyone who takes AZT dies young, for the simple reason that they also have AIDS. However, AZT does not kill cells; it prevents cell division. Moreover, it is neither the first nor the worst drug in the field of chemotherapy, and radiotherapy (which, being much simpler than the molecular engineering needed to refine drugs, has been perfected much more quickly) used to be pretty damn dangerous too. However, doctors are required by law to explain the consequences of HIV double or triple-cocktail treatment, as it is true that the drugs' side effects can be terrible.

However, back on topic, Icke here leaps from an ad rem (for want of a better term) attack on the nature of the drug itself to claim that AZT destroys the immune system. I repeat: AZT does not destroy cells, but merely prevents cell reproduction, the aim of which in HIV treatment is to prevent the virus replicating by inhibiting the action of reverse-transcriptase.

"Aids is simply the breakdown of the immune system, for which there are endless causes, none of them passed on through sex." This claim I shall deal with later.



Tuberculosis infection is very low in the Western world. Pneumonia is difficult to catch without being in hospital already or, more traditionally, out in the snow, soaking wet, near a source of the disease - and, moreover, is most definitely easy to fight off with penicillin and white cells, if the patient was healthy to begin with. That patients without spleens and those proven to be immunocompromised in other ways than HIV infection are at higher risk of catching pneumonia is a testament to the validity of the link between pneumonia deaths in otherwise healthy young adult males (as a control group) and their HIV infection.

Moreover, I've never heard of anyone without HIV/AIDS dying of a common cold, and I've never heard of isolated cases of influenza being deadly to, again, young and otherwise healthy adult males. You say this:

1. If HIV is present in a person and they die of catching the common cold/influenza, their death is attributed to AIDS.
2. HIV has no effect on the immune system.
3. Therefore HIV has nothing to do with their death of the common cold/influenza.

I put it to you that since the number of young adult males who died of the common cold or influenza without immunocompromisation is insignificantly small, it is so highly unlikely as to be incredible that HIV infection has no effect on the likelihood of a young adult male dying of a cold or 'flu.

There is also an interesting point demonstrated here, which is that Mr. Icke is relying on his reader not understanding what "AIDS" acutally means. Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome means just that; it is not "AZT Side-Effect Immunodeficiency Syndrome." In this regard AIDS is actually logically linked to HIV, by being defined as "immunodeficiency caused by HIV infection".



A much more plausible reason for their not soaring is the unprecedentedly huge publicity campaign about the dangers of HIV/AIDS making people more cautious. Similarly, I ask: what about those who have HIV who have developed AIDS? If it is caused solely by "anti-AIDS" treatments, why do people die of otherwise insignificant infections who have HIV? Also, why then have HIV patients who have never contracted AIDS not show up unknown in the preliminary medical testing for the hundreds of professions which require AIDS testing, including, but not limited to, the medical profession itself, the police, the fire service, and even such mundane things as work on offshore oil rigs and cruise liners?



Okay, here I'm going to ask for evidence for this entire series of quick-fire claims:

1. Which recreational drugs cause immune deficiency?
1b. Why have cannabis and ecstacy in particular, which have both been heavily studied, not been shown to do this?
1c. In fact, if the pharm companies are conspiring to sell more drugs, why are they not making a killing selling anti-retrovirals to recreational drug users?

2. Please provide any kind of support for your "prostitute" claim. Please take into account the fact that many prostitutes are supporting a drug habit, and that since HIV is blood-borne even you cannot deny that it is shared by infected needles, which are not a feature of "recreational drugs". Also, explain which "recreational drugs" require needles out of these: cannabis, amphetamines, ecstasy, cocaine, amyl nitrates and related subtances (other drugs than these are to be considerd not recreational but hard drugs, the high use of which among the homosexual population is wildly less than the much higher incidence of HIV/AIDS).

3. Provide evidence for the claim that the US Administration has anything to do with disseminating drugs to the citizens of the United States. Also, please provide evidence that this is true of HIV sufferers everywhere in the world.

4. Explain why HIV infection is so rampant in sub-Saharan Africa, and what this means in relation to the also-rampant prevalence of AIDS. Are the two linked?

5. Explain why millions of haemophiliacs survive blood transfusions perfectly well because, as well you no doubt know, Mr. Icke, the blood-group problem was solved decades ago with the A/B/AB/O categorisation. Explain also why when people, hameophiliacs or otherwise, are given the wrong type of blood they do not develop symptoms in any way similar to AIDS, but instead die quickly with entirely different symptoms.



"AZT is the killer... ...can it?" This can also be explained by the claim that AIDS is as yet unstoppable. Put simply, this is similar to claiming that "Morphine is the killer. There is not a single case of morphine reversing the symptoms of cancer. How can it? It's causing them, for goodness' sake!" Because a drug combats some of the symptoms of a disease - morphine suppresses the pain suffered by terminal cancer sufferers - does not mean it fights the disease itself. Similarly, before antibiotics cholera could be treated by making sure the patient remained hydrated with huge amounts of water to replace the masses lost to diarrhoea, but this did not fight the disease, only the symptom. The immune system eventually kills cholera, given time.

It is true that AIDS is making a killing for the drug companies, and the drug companies have been proven to be decidedly ruthless in the past. However, the two are not linked.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what you asked for, you who started this thread. You asked for scientific consideration and evaluation of Icke's theories. Here's one. Now you do the maths.
*Applaudes*

A very good post, welcome to the debate. :)

Nice try. Thanks for the welcome, but you can't just post "Hi" without answering any of my points and expect me not to notice. Your slipperiness has been noted more than once already here.

Nice try. Thanks for the welcome, but you can't just post "Hi" without answering any of my points and expect me not to notice. Your slipperiness has been noted more than once already here.
Unfortunately mate, my name isn't Mr Icke and i dont 100% believe or disbelive his theories, i am still undecided.

I haven't seen anyone shapeshifting but just because i haven't i am not going to be ignorant and rule out that they exist. :cool:

Alright - but do you accept, based on the evidence I have just provided, that the man is a master of spurious argumentation, spin and downright lies? I do believe that is what I have proven, to a certain extent. I await others' replies to verify how convincingly I have done so.

Although your arguments are very logical with todays science, in a hundred years time a lot of the current science material willl have probably been re-written and maybe David Icke's work will then have a lot more credibility?

Hasn't this absurd claim already been dealt with?

Hasn't this absurd claim already been dealt with?
This is why that post is BEFORE New Watenho's post, think before you type!

I'll come to Icke's side of this. He claimed we all have the spirit of celestial being in us (like jesus). But the sound bite cuts off early making it sound he is claim he and he alone is like this.

Come to think of it, Jesus himself was descended from a reptilian bloodline. The bloodline of Jesse has been referred to as the "serpent's root" in the bible. A great, great, great,..., great grandmother of Jesus was named, "Nehushta," which is similar to "Nehushtan" - the brass serpent that Moses made and which Jesus was likened to in John 3:14, and which was destroyed when the people started worshipping it. The serpent in the Garden of Eden told the first humans that they would not die, and then gave them knowledge of good and evil; Jesus essentially did the same things. The serpent was cursed to go on his belly all of his days, and to bruise the heel of the woman's seed, which in turn would bruise his head. Judas (a Greek word meaning "Judah") was said to have raised his heel against Jesus after eating the bread given to him by Jesus (by the way, isn't it odd that Satan would have entered into Judas after he ate the bread given to him by Jesus?). Jesus said that if he was lifted up from the earth, he would draw all men to him. Coincidence?

Therefore, if one can believe the bible, one has to consider the possibility that there are people who have descended from reptilian bloodlines - just like Jesus did.

Unfortunately mate, my name isn't Mr Icke and i dont 100% believe or disbelive his theories, i am still undecided.

I haven't seen anyone shapeshifting but just because i haven't i am not going to be ignorant and rule out that they exist. :cool:

There are lots of things that people say exist that I have yet to see. But not having seen shape shifting lizard people doesn't give credence to the claim they exist and that the queen of England is one.

I thought i would bring this thread back and add something new to the mix. :D

The scientific aspects have been discussed to a decent extent and now i think we should discuss the Historical aspects of Reptilians to either disprove or add credence to his theories.

There are numerous cultures over the last few thousand years that have depicted Reptilians in text so reports of Reptilian shapeshifters are by no means just made by todays "nut cases".

There are cultures all accross the planet through the ages who have recorded contact with Reptilians.

In The Americas...
The Mayan god Gucumatz was described as a "serpent of wisdom" who enlightened humankind, as was his Aztec counterpart Quetzalcoatl.

The Hopi refer to a race of Reptilians called the Sheti, or Snake-Brothers, who live underground. The Cherokee and other Native American peoples also refer to Reptilian races.

Europe...
Cecrops, the legendary first King of Athens was said to have been half man, half snake. The ancient Titans and Gigantes were sometimes depicted as winged man-like beings with serpents instead of legs, for example on a fresco on a temple in Pergamum. In these images from Pergamum, some of which depict the gigantomachy, one sees the giant Klyteios with huge serpents in place of legs.

Boreas (Aquilon to the Romans) was the Greek god of the cold north wind, described by Pausanias as a winged man with serpents for legs.

The European dragon dates back to ancient depictions on various archaeological artifacts. An early instance in literature was the dragon that guarded the Golden Fleece in the Voyage of the Argonauts. In the Middle Ages, tales of dragons seem to have become even more common. The dragon in Europe, as a rule, was not conceived as having a humanoid form, and would not qualify as an instance of a reptilian humanoid unless explicitly described as humanoid.

In the middle ages down to modern times, the Devil was often conceived as a humanoid with reptilian characteristics, as were demons in general.

India...
In Indian scriptures and legends the Naga are reptilian beings said to live underground and interact with human beings on the surface. In some versions, these beings were said to have once lived on a continent in the Pacific Ocean that sank beneath the waves. Indian texts also refer to a reptilian race called the "Sarpa". The Syrictæ (Greek : Skiritai, Latin: Sciritae) of India were a tribe of men with snake-like nostrils in place of noses and bandy serpentine legs.

Asia...
The Chinese and Japanese speak throughout their history of Lóng (dragons), conceived of in both physical and non-physical forms, but rarely depicted in humanoid form, though they may assume a non-reptilian human form. The Japanese have tales of Kappa, a basically reptilian humanoid.

The first Emperor of China, Huang-Ti, was said to be part Dragon. It was also said that his mother was impregnated by a beam of light emanating from the star Alpha Draconis.

In China and Japan...
Underwater realms where the Dragon Kings and their descendents live are referred to, as well as the lineage of humans from a race of 'Dragons'.

Middle East...
In the Middle East, Reptilian beings ranging from certain Jinn to Dragons and Serpent-Men have been spoken of since ancient times. In one of the apocryphal books purporting to be the lost Book of Jasher, a serpent race is described.

Africa...
In Africa, the Zulu shamans claim to bear extensive esoteric knowledge of a race of reptilians who they say control the Earth--called the Chitahuri. They also claim to have accounts of a Reptilian race who created Blacks and used them to work their gold mines, extremely similar to the accounts allegedly described in the Sumerian tablets.

The ancient Egyptian god Sobek was portrayed as a man with the head of a crocodile.

Australia...
Proponents hold that in Australia the aborigines speak of a reptilian race that lives underneath the Earth and governs over men. The Aborigines have spoken of going into the Earth where these beings resided. There they claim there is extensive technology. The Aborigines say that they are descended from a race of dragon-humans that once lived on an enormous continent that spanned the entire Pacific ocean, and that most of it sank beneath the waves in ancient times, but that Australia is a remnant of it, and this is why there are so many reptilian animals there.

They also hold that an Astral "dreamtime" exists outside of physical reality, which is the foundation of physical reality. Crocodile spirits and other reptilian entities inhabit this "dreamtime", and can be summoned through sound, such as via the Didgeridoo.

Need i go on?

As you can see there is a lot of historical support for such beings having existed, or is the fact that such similar accounts occured from every corner of the Earth coincidence and were all the thousands of texts wrote by hallucinogenic nut cases?

Remember i neither 100% believe or disbelieve David Icke's theories and i am only doing this to raise a debate, so discuss...

I am still however more swayed by the Erik Van Daniken theory.
I remember Van Daniken. There used to be a documentary by him about the supposed signs of alien visits on Earth. His arguments were so ridiculous that this docu made for an excellent comedy. The episode that amused me the most was when Van Daniken presented to the camera an ancient statuette of a man which showed the exact number of ribs a human being has, and asked dramatically: "How could they acquire such detailed knowledge thousands of years before the X-rays were discovered?":D

I thought i would bring this thread back and add something new to the mix. :D

The scientific aspects have been discussed to a decent extent and now i think we should discuss the Historical aspects of Reptilians to either disprove or add credence to his theories.

There are numerous cultures over the last few thousand years that have depicted Reptilians in text so reports of Reptilian shapeshifters are by no means just made by todays "nut cases".

There are cultures all accross the planet through the ages who have recorded contact with Reptilians.

In The Americas...
The Mayan god Gucumatz was described as a "serpent of wisdom" who enlightened humankind, as was his Aztec counterpart Quetzalcoatl.

The Hopi refer to a race of Reptilians called the Sheti, or Snake-Brothers, who live underground. The Cherokee and other Native American peoples also refer to Reptilian races.

Europe...
Cecrops, the legendary first King of Athens was said to have been half man, half snake. The ancient Titans and Gigantes were sometimes depicted as winged man-like beings with serpents instead of legs, for example on a fresco on a temple in Pergamum. In these images from Pergamum, some of which depict the gigantomachy, one sees the giant Klyteios with huge serpents in place of legs.

Boreas (Aquilon to the Romans) was the Greek god of the cold north wind, described by Pausanias as a winged man with serpents for legs.

The European dragon dates back to ancient depictions on various archaeological artifacts. An early instance in literature was the dragon that guarded the Golden Fleece in the Voyage of the Argonauts. In the Middle Ages, tales of dragons seem to have become even more common. The dragon in Europe, as a rule, was not conceived as having a humanoid form, and would not qualify as an instance of a reptilian humanoid unless explicitly described as humanoid.

In the middle ages down to modern times, the Devil was often conceived as a humanoid with reptilian characteristics, as were demons in general.

India...
In Indian scriptures and legends the Naga are reptilian beings said to live underground and interact with human beings on the surface. In some versions, these beings were said to have once lived on a continent in the Pacific Ocean that sank beneath the waves. Indian texts also refer to a reptilian race called the "Sarpa". The Syrictæ (Greek : Skiritai, Latin: Sciritae) of India were a tribe of men with snake-like nostrils in place of noses and bandy serpentine legs.

Asia...
The Chinese and Japanese speak throughout their history of Lóng (dragons), conceived of in both physical and non-physical forms, but rarely depicted in humanoid form, though they may assume a non-reptilian human form. The Japanese have tales of Kappa, a basically reptilian humanoid.

The first Emperor of China, Huang-Ti, was said to be part Dragon. It was also said that his mother was impregnated by a beam of light emanating from the star Alpha Draconis.

In China and Japan...
Underwater realms where the Dragon Kings and their descendents live are referred to, as well as the lineage of humans from a race of 'Dragons'.

Middle East...
In the Middle East, Reptilian beings ranging from certain Jinn to Dragons and Serpent-Men have been spoken of since ancient times. In one of the apocryphal books purporting to be the lost Book of Jasher, a serpent race is described.

Africa...
In Africa, the Zulu shamans claim to bear extensive esoteric knowledge of a race of reptilians who they say control the Earth--called the Chitahuri. They also claim to have accounts of a Reptilian race who created Blacks and used them to work their gold mines, extremely similar to the accounts allegedly described in the Sumerian tablets.

The ancient Egyptian god Sobek was portrayed as a man with the head of a crocodile.

Australia...
Proponents hold that in Australia the aborigines speak of a reptilian race that lives underneath the Earth and governs over men. The Aborigines have spoken of going into the Earth where these beings resided. There they claim there is extensive technology. The Aborigines say that they are descended from a race of dragon-humans that once lived on an enormous continent that spanned the entire Pacific ocean, and that most of it sank beneath the waves in ancient times, but that Australia is a remnant of it, and this is why there are so many reptilian animals there.

They also hold that an Astral "dreamtime" exists outside of physical reality, which is the foundation of physical reality. Crocodile spirits and other reptilian entities inhabit this "dreamtime", and can be summoned through sound, such as via the Didgeridoo.

Need i go on?

As you can see there is a lot of historical support for such beings having existed, or is the fact that such similar accounts occured from every corner of the Earth coincidence and were all the thousands of texts wrote by hallucinogenic nut cases?

Remember i neither 100% believe or disbelieve David Icke's theories and i am only doing this to raise a debate, so discuss...

No one has replied to this post.

I guess ignoring issues is the best way to deal with something that you cant answer.

Ok, let me take another angle, a debate would be welcome. :)

I have come accross some interesting facts, all of these statisitcs have come from an official source, the Burke's Peerage which is an Aristocratical library based in Britain. (www.burkes-peerage.net)

Make of the information what you will.

Out of the 43 Presidents of the United States, 34 have been genetically related to Englands King Alfred the 1st and Charlemagne the great Monarch of France.

20 of those 34 US Presidents are genetically related too Englands King Edward the 3rd who has thousands of blood connections to Prince Charles.

Since the First Presidential Election in the United States in 1789, the winner of every Election has been the Candidate with the most British and European Royal genes.

I am not sure whether or not this is just a coincidence, although the statistics do question my previous thought that any citizen of the United States could in theory become the President.

What do you think?

I guess no-one can think of an argument to such solid facts. :rolleyes:

Imagine for a second you saw a person shapeshifting, would you go out and tell everyone you know?

No... you'd see where they went home to, go get a video camera, and tape them doing it again....

Anyone NOT think GB is a troll?

Ok, let me take another angle, a debate would be welcome. :)

I have come accross some interesting facts, all of these statisitcs have come from an official source, the Burke's Peerage which is an Aristocratical library based in Britain. (www.burkes-peerage.net)

Make of the information what you will.

Out of the 43 Presidents of the United States, 34 have been genetically related to Englands King Alfred the 1st and Charlemagne the great Monarch of France.

20 of those 34 US Presidents are genetically related too Englands King Edward the 3rd who has thousands of blood connections to Prince Charles.

Since the First Presidential Election in the United States in 1789, the winner of every Election has been the Candidate with the most British and European Royal genes.

I am not sure whether or not this is just a coincidence, although the statistics do question my previous thought that any citizen of the United States could in theory become the President.

What do you think?

Show a link to the specific statistics?

I thought i would bring this thread back and add something new to the mix. :D

The scientific aspects have been discussed to a decent extent and now i think we should discuss the Historical aspects of Reptilians to either disprove or add credence to his theories.

There are numerous cultures over the last few thousand years that have depicted Reptilians in text so reports of Reptilian shapeshifters are by no means just made by todays "nut cases".

This is a slight leap of reason, no?

There are cultures all accross the planet through the ages who have recorded contact with Reptilians.

I think you mean "There are cultures all across the planet through the ages which have reptiles in their mythology."



<snip>

Need i go on?

Just what do you think you are "proving?"

You could do exactly the same thing for mammals, or birds, or insects even.

Oh yeah, it also considered good manners not to plagerise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_humanoid

As you can see there is a lot of historical support for such beings having existed,

Learn to differentiate mythology from history.

or is the fact that such similar accounts occured from every corner of the Earth coincidence

When you look at them they are not all that similar. Beyond observing and extrapolating reptile behaviour.

Remember i neither 100% believe or disbelieve David Icke's theories and i am only doing this to raise a debate, so discuss...

OFFS, take a stand why don't you.

I just heard him in a radio interview, he sounds like an intelligent guy ....

Discuss...
Never heard of him. Plus, I hate threads that order me to "Discuss!" :p

No... you'd see where they went home to, go get a video camera, and tape them doing it again....

Anyone NOT think GB is a troll?
Dont be so rude, if you cant say anything constructive and can only send insults because your two close minded to imagine the concept of Reptilians then dont bother readng the thread.

David Icke doesn't make his arguments out of fin air, he bases them around cutting edge science. Basic species of Lizards on earth can mainpulate their DNA structure to change colour, agreed? - Take that scientific fact a few million years down the evolutionary path and a Lizard changing their shape aswell as colour doesn't seem so unpossible, does it? Question: if you were an alien lizard, why would you masquerade as the Royal Family, of all people?

When a thread like this comes up, I am obliged to put out a recruiting drive for my project.

We propose to kidnap Mr Icke and spirit him away to the islands where the Komodo Dragons live.

Our goal is to feed him, alive, to the Komodo Dragons.

Isn't it wierd how everyone who has replied so far ignores the information that points out that every US President who has been elected is genetically related to European Royalty!

This is a blatant case of ignore what you cant explain. lol

Isn't it wierd how everyone who has replied so far ignores the information that points out that every US President who has been elected is genetically related to European Royalty!

This is a blatant case of ignore what you cant explain. lol

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Also, you haven't given any information about the geneology of every US President. You have simply asserted it to be true. And the website you supply doesn't help much either. eg For Grover Cleveland link (http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/contents/book/america/fhp/apf/fhp-APF-CLEVELAND-22-BIO.asp):

All it says is:

GROVER CLEVELAND

CLEVELAND, (STEPHEN) GROVER; b Caldwell, Essex Co, New Jersey, 18 March 1837; clerk in store at Clinton, New York, assist teacher New York Institute for the Blind 1853-54, began studying law with Rogers, Bowen & Rogers, Buffalo, New York, 1855, admitted to New York Bar 1859, managing clerk Rogers, Bowen & Rogers 1859, Ward Supervisor Buffalo 1862, Assist Dist Atty Erie Co, New York, 1863-65 (unsuccessful candidate for Dist Atty 1865), formed law firm with Isaac K. Vanderpoel 1865, Sheriff Erie Co, New York, 1870-74, Mayor Buffalo 1882-83, Govr New York 1883-85, 22nd President (D) of the USA 1885-89, unsuccessful presidential candidate 1888, practised law New York 1889-93, 24th President of the USA 1893-97, apptd Henry Stafford Little Lectr in Public Affairs at Princeton 1899, Tstee Princeton 1901, Memb Tstee Ctee looking after majority of stock of Equitable Life Assur Co 1905, Rebate Referee Equitable Life and Mutual and New York Life Insur Cos, Pres Assoc of Presidents of Life Insur Cos 1907; author: Principles and Purposes of Our Form of Govt (1892), Writings and Speeches of Grover Cleveland (1892), Self-Made Man in American Life (1897), Independence of the Executive (1900), Presidential Problems (1904), Fishing and Shooting Sketches (1906), Good Citizenship (1908), Addresses-State Papers (1909), Venezuelan Boundary Controversy (1913) and Letters of Grover Cleveland (1933); Grove Cleveland acknowledged as his (and paid for the upbringing of) a child born to Maria Halpin (b 1838; m 1st 18--- ---, who d before 1871; m 2nd after 1874 ---; d in or after 1895), of Pennsylvania, shop assistant:

E J. and H. G. Cleveland, in The Genealogy of the Cleveland and Cleaveland Families (3 vols, 1899), claim for the family an origin in northeast England, where the North Yorkshire Moors contain a range called the C...

Which doesn't help anything as far as I can see.

(And no, I will not subscribe just to se if you are telling the truth).

Or maybe you have simply found a page on the burkes-peerage site that my mead addled brain has missed.

Though that begs the question. Why not just link directly too it?


::EDIT:: Looking at the the G. Washington family essay, there is no evidence that he is related to Alfred the Great, Charlamagne or any English/British King.

So what is worse, making stuff up or ignoring stuff that has been made up?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Also, you haven't given any information about the geneology of every US President. You have simply asserted it to be true. And the website you supply doesn't help much either. eg For Grover Cleveland link (http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/contents/book/america/fhp/apf/fhp-APF-CLEVELAND-22-BIO.asp):

All it says is:

GROVER CLEVELAND

CLEVELAND, (STEPHEN) GROVER; b Caldwell, Essex Co, New Jersey, 18 March 1837; clerk in store at Clinton, New York, assist teacher New York Institute for the Blind 1853-54, began studying law with Rogers, Bowen & Rogers, Buffalo, New York, 1855, admitted to New York Bar 1859, managing clerk Rogers, Bowen & Rogers 1859, Ward Supervisor Buffalo 1862, Assist Dist Atty Erie Co, New York, 1863-65 (unsuccessful candidate for Dist Atty 1865), formed law firm with Isaac K. Vanderpoel 1865, Sheriff Erie Co, New York, 1870-74, Mayor Buffalo 1882-83, Govr New York 1883-85, 22nd President (D) of the USA 1885-89, unsuccessful presidential candidate 1888, practised law New York 1889-93, 24th President of the USA 1893-97, apptd Henry Stafford Little Lectr in Public Affairs at Princeton 1899, Tstee Princeton 1901, Memb Tstee Ctee looking after majority of stock of Equitable Life Assur Co 1905, Rebate Referee Equitable Life and Mutual and New York Life Insur Cos, Pres Assoc of Presidents of Life Insur Cos 1907; author: Principles and Purposes of Our Form of Govt (1892), Writings and Speeches of Grover Cleveland (1892), Self-Made Man in American Life (1897), Independence of the Executive (1900), Presidential Problems (1904), Fishing and Shooting Sketches (1906), Good Citizenship (1908), Addresses-State Papers (1909), Venezuelan Boundary Controversy (1913) and Letters of Grover Cleveland (1933); Grove Cleveland acknowledged as his (and paid for the upbringing of) a child born to Maria Halpin (b 1838; m 1st 18--- ---, who d before 1871; m 2nd after 1874 ---; d in or after 1895), of Pennsylvania, shop assistant:

E J. and H. G. Cleveland, in The Genealogy of the Cleveland and Cleaveland Families (3 vols, 1899), claim for the family an origin in northeast England, where the North Yorkshire Moors contain a range called the C...

Which doesn't help anything as far as I can see.

(And no, I will not subscribe just to se if you are telling the truth).

Or maybe you have simply found a page on the burkes-peerage site that my mead addled brain has missed.

Though that begs the question. Why not just link directly too it?


::EDIT:: Looking at the the G. Washington family essay, there is no evidence that he is related to Alfred the Great, Charlamagne or any English/British King.

So what is worse, making stuff up or ignoring stuff that has been made up?

I have made nothing up, i cant give you the link because you are not registered so the page wont be displayed, i will however try and find a free site that allows you to read this information.

I have made nothing up, i cant give you the link because you are not registered so the page wont be displayed, i will however try and find a free site that allows you to read this information.

So in other words. You are not making the facts up because you know the information exists, even though you haven't seen the information, and you cannot access the information?

Ah, I see there are indeed intelligent people in this forum = ) Great Britain, I know of David Icke and of many sinister things. I have some David Icke ebooks in .pdf format. I'd be happy to email you some files if you're missing some of his books. I guess the bottomline one asks oneself after learning the truth, the truth about Bohemian Grove, about the FEMA camps, about the real reason why Saddam had to go, about the illuminati AKA reptilians, about the 911 fraud and how it was all an inside job, about how the twin towers represent the number 11 and how it's all tied to the 11:11 movement and the real meaning behind the number 23, etc, the one question everyone comes to ask themselves once you learn the horrible horrible truth is "how do we defeat the NWO and the illuminati?"

SIMPLY, by activating your DNA. Find a way to activate your dna. You have dormant dna that the aliens have gentically and hyperdimensionally sealed and deactivated so you will become more animalistic and less spiritual and godlike. I can't really endorse any one dna activation system, there are plenty of them, and all of them good. Just do a google or yahoo search for "dna activation" and you'll have your answer. God bless and beware of the reptilians.

Namaste,
The Barrakan Legions

This is a joke, right? If not, I don't think my little remaining faith in humanity could take it. I'll be resigned to cycism and pessimistic remarks forever.

No one has replied to this post.

I guess ignoring issues is the best way to deal with something that you cant answer.

Don't tempt me. Don't tempt me again.

After I've once already annihilated (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9454175&postcount=107) the credibility of the man proposing such ridiculous theories, you would seek to present the "evidence" that a bunch of different cultures have similar myths? Please. God managed to make His way across most of the known world on a wing and, aheh, a prayer, and I'm willing, no, sure that if you gave me a few hours to find the most reliable possible sources to cite I could show you plenty of "evidence" for the existence of vampires, mutated into the Irish banshee, the Romanian strigoii, the Lamia, Malaysian vampire-like things with totally unpronouncable names, the kitsune and the Japanese Gods' blood-lust kamaitachi.

Moreover, it's hardly fucking surprising that the American Presidents and the royal families of Europe are mostly interrelated; this is how aristocracies always work. And do you know why? Because they want to keep their power and their money (and sometimes "dignity", "honour" and "birthrights") in the family! But people like Icke miss out on an important facet of the developments of such upper-societies: these people often hate each other, which makes genuine tightly-packed world-pwning conspiracy very difficult. What do you seek to prove by showing the distant interrelation of all the children of the European aristocracies, other than what you do prove, which is that the powerful always seek to maintain their power?

Don't tempt me. Don't tempt me again.

After I've once already annihilated (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9454175&postcount=107) the credibility of the man proposing such ridiculous theories, you would seek to present the "evidence" that a bunch of different cultures have similar myths? Please. God managed to make His way across most of the known world on a wing and, aheh, a prayer, and I'm willing, no, sure that if you gave me a few hours to find the most reliable possible sources to cite I could show you plenty of "evidence" for the existence of vampires, mutated into the Irish banshee, the Romanian strigoii, the Lamia, Malaysian vampire-like things with totally unpronouncable names, the kitsune and the Japanese Gods' blood-lust kamaitachi.

Moreover, it's hardly fucking surprising that the American Presidents and the royal families of Europe are mostly interrelated; this is how aristocracies always work. And do you know why? Because they want to keep their power and their money (and sometimes "dignity", "honour" and "birthrights") in the family! But people like Icke miss out on an important facet of the developments of such upper-societies: these people often hate each other, which makes genuine tightly-packed world-pwning conspiracy very difficult. What do you seek to prove by showing the distant interrelation of all the children of the European aristocracies, other than what you do prove, which is that the powerful always seek to maintain their power?

Dont you find all this royal inter-breeding a bit odd?

Here's some information on the genetic links.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b305/The_Infidel_0/bushtree.gif

and this..

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b305/The_Infidel_0/royalgen.gif


EDIT: Let me enlarge those. lol

Ok, you can save and zoom in using windows picture until i can find another way of making them bigger.

Care to cite your sources?

The second one looks very dubious since it covers large stretches of history where accurate information is very sketchy.

The first one is rather annoying since it only gives one parent. And at a few times one is forced to rely upon "wikis" to variefy the names.

Dont you find all this royal inter-breeding a bit odd?

Nope. How much medieval and early modern period history do you know?

Dont be so rude, if you cant say anything constructive and can only send insults because your two close minded to imagine the concept of Reptilians then dont bother readng the thread.

I wasn't rude. 'Troll' is a technical term, for someone who spawns posts just looking for responses... it is not an insult, unless you take it as one.

And, to be honest, I find this whole thread somewhat... well, trollish.

Not that that matters, of course... it's just my opinion, based on the fact that you seem to be generating some, well... weird posts (chameleons change colour by altering their own DNA?)

Also - if you read my post, it was TWO separate elements... the 'troll' comment, and a response to the 'if you tell people you see lizards, you will be thought crazy' idea. Thus, it was not 'only insults'.

I can IMAGINE Reptilian lifeforms. Sure - that is within my grasp. However, I am not willing to go that extra mile, and start saying people ARE reptilians, without some pretty good evidence.

I think that is 'sensible', rather than 'close minded'... but, to each, their own.

I wasn't rude. 'Troll' is a technical term, for someone who spawns posts just looking for responses... it is not an insult, unless you take it as one.

Isn't that what everyone does on a FORUM?

And, to be honest, I find this whole thread somewhat... well, trollish.

Of course you would, you made that quite clear in your first post.

Not that that matters, of course... it's just my opinion, based on the fact that you seem to be generating some, well... weird posts (chameleons change colour by altering their own DNA?)

Ok, i apologise for a lot of those posts that i made a few months ago, i was talking on a lot of whims when i first started this thread, again sorry. :)

I can IMAGINE Reptilian lifeforms. Sure - that is within my grasp. However, I am not willing to go that extra mile, and start saying people ARE reptilians, without some pretty good evidence.

That is not what even David Icke is proposing (to my knowledge), as i understand his hypothesis, he thinks there are a race of reptilian humanoids, who can move through the dimensions and shapeshift from one form to the other. If i have got that wrong then someone with more knowledge on his theories please correct me.

Also, if there was quote 'pretty good evidence' then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

I think that is 'sensible', rather than 'close minded'... but, to each, their own.

Fair enough, i repsect your opinion, i just hope you respect my right to have mine, even if it contradicts your own. :)

Isn't that what everyone does on a FORUM?



Of course you would, you made that quite clear in your first post.



Ok, i apologise for a lot of those posts that i made a few months ago, i was talking on a lot of whims when i first started this thread, again sorry. :)



That is not what even David Icke is proposing (to my knowledge), as i understand his hypothesis, he thinks there are a race of reptilian humanoids, who can move through the dimensions and shapeshift from one form to the other. If i have got that wrong then someone with more knowledge on his theories please correct me.

Also, if there was quote 'pretty good evidence' then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?



Fair enough, i repsect your opinion, i just hope you respect my right to have mine, even if contradicts your own. :)

Everyone has the right to their freedom of speech... and I'll defend that right with my life.

That doesn't mean I will always think what is said is WORTH my dying for...

......

Out of the 43 Presidents of the United States, 34 have been genetically related to Englands King Alfred the 1st and Charlemagne the great Monarch of France.

20 of those 34 US Presidents are genetically related too Englands King Edward the 3rd who has thousands of blood connections to Prince Charles.

.....

Show a link to the specific statistics?
Slightly circumstancial, but you might find these two interesting:

http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/04-09-29-02.all.html
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

It seems as though the most recent common ancester of all living humanity is likely to be within historical times, and that the most recent common ancester of all Western Europeans may well have lived around 1000AD. That is: that all of us with that heritage share a ancester, who lived at that time. (Coincidentally enough, around the time of Alfred and Charlemagne.)

Now, put that together with the enhanced and particular survival characteristics of royals and their descendants mentioned by previous posters, and it looks to me not at all unlikely that these statistics could be true - perhaps even an understatement. But that would be a simple matter of probability, not anything to do with lizards or otherwise.


(In passing, Burke's is neither 'official' nor scientific. Its findings are predicated on the assumption of unswerving and continuing faithfulness within all the pairings documented. Call me cynical, but that seems something of a heroic assumption to me.)

Slightly circumstancial, but you might find these two interesting:

http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/04-09-29-02.all.html
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

It seems as though the most recent common ancester of all living humanity is likely to be within historical times, and that the most recent common ancester of all Western Europeans may well have lived around 1000AD. That is: that all of us with that heritage share a ancester, who lived at that time. (Coincidentally enough, around the time of Alfred and Charlemagne.)

Now, put that together with the enhanced and particular survival characteristics of royals and their descendants mentioned by previous posters, and it looks to me not at all unlikely that these statistics could be true - perhaps even an understatement. But that would be a simple matter of probability, not anything to do with lizards or otherwise.


(In passing, Burke's is neither 'official' nor scientific. Its findings are predicated on the assumption of unswerving and continuing faithfulness within all the pairings documented. Call me cynical, but that seems something of a heroic assumption to me.)

I wanted to see where GB was pulling stats from, I saw nothing matching what was posted, when I followed the link.

Regarding your point... I agree with your findings... indeed, pretty much everyone in the western world can probably claim 'relation' to a given monarch of a thousand years ago... which is why I wanted GB's source - I wanted to see whether the 'degree' of relation was considered.

That is not what even David Icke is proposing (to my knowledge), as i understand his hypothesis, he thinks there are a race of reptilian humanoids, who can move through the dimensions and shapeshift from one form to the other. If i have got that wrong then someone with more knowledge on his theories please correct me.

Also, if there was quote 'pretty good evidence' then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?


Is that a quote from him? "Move through the dimensions"? Does he - do you - even know what dimensions are? They're not alternate realities; they're features of this one. We have three of them in space, a fourth, which is time, and Christ knows how many others, the toys of bleeding-edge theoretical physics.

I do hope I don't have to go into why shapeshifting in the way he proposes is so blatantly biologically impossible, somewhere on a par with, for example, "Vitamin B17" (which, for reference, isn't a vitamin) Amygdalin preventing cancer (http://www.kjay.com/03/) or the Philosopher's Stone (http://www.evolutionsuperfood.com/001/) curing all human fucking ills and being available for £37/pack (one of these is directly accessible from Icke's front page; the other is on the same website as another link from his front page).

The man is only slightly more morally fucking acceptable than the people he hangs round with, whose sites he links to, and then only because he's just spreading bizarre but generally harmless lies to try to sell books, instead of evilly insidious "miracle cures" purporting to stop you getting cancer or make your life better. These people are snakes, they're fucking vultures, creating fear, nurturing it, and preying on it amongst the ignorant. As I showed before Icke and his kin rely on their audience's ignorance so that they can tentatively "connect" a few facts with elisive lies - in order to sell books.

I recommend Francis Wheen's How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered The World for some more examples.

P.S. Yes, I am attacking David Icke, but it's not ad hominem to attack someone's credibility on the basis that they're a liar; it's a very relevant piece of information to the matter at hand.

I wanted to see where GB was pulling stats from, I saw nothing matching what was posted, when I followed the link.

Regarding your point... I agree with your findings... indeed, pretty much everyone in the western world can probably claim 'relation' to a given monarch of a thousand years ago... which is why I wanted GB's source - I wanted to see whether the 'degree' of relation was considered.
Indeed.

I posted partly to point out that the two facts, far from being remarkable (if true) and therefore supporting evidence for the theory, were actually fairly commonplace. And partly because I found the most recent common ancester bit quite interesting (being sad like that), and thought I'd share ....

These people are snakes, they're fucking vultures, creating fear, nurturing it, and preying on it amongst the ignorant. As I showed before Icke and his kin rely on their audience's ignorance so that they can tentatively "connect" a few facts with elisive lies - in order to sell books.


Which is rather ironic if you have heard Icke speak.

Looking at David Icke's theory from a comedy aspect for a second, follow the instructions on this link. :P

http://www.rubytooth.com/media/15762/

Slightly circumstancial, but you might find these two interesting:

http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/04-09-29-02.all.html
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

It seems as though the most recent common ancester of all living humanity is likely to be within historical times, and that the most recent common ancester of all Western Europeans may well have lived around 1000AD. That is: that all of us with that heritage share a ancester, who lived at that time. (Coincidentally enough, around the time of Alfred and Charlemagne.)

Now, put that together with the enhanced and particular survival characteristics of royals and their descendants mentioned by previous posters, and it looks to me not at all unlikely that these statistics could be true - perhaps even an understatement. But that would be a simple matter of probability, not anything to do with lizards or otherwise.


(In passing, Burke's is neither 'official' nor scientific. Its findings are predicated on the assumption of unswerving and continuing faithfulness within all the pairings documented. Call me cynical, but that seems something of a heroic assumption to me.)

I understand what you mean it makes sense, i just find 33 Presidents being genetically related to just 2 people, King Alfred the Great and Charlemagne a bit weird. :)

Your probably right, after all Charlemagne was around 1,100 years ago, so he's going to have millions of relations!

Just bumping the thread to give an interesting link, some of the pics might make you think that maybe there is some credibility. ;) (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/reptile_glowing%2799_full.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo_et.htm&h=150&w=217&sz=13&tbnid=Ox7-va_zU44J:&tbnh=69&tbnw=101&hl=en&start=2&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dreptilian%2Balien%2Bphoto%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D) Please no insults. :p :D

Just bumping the thread to give an interesting link, some of the pics might make you think that maybe there is some credibility. ;) (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/reptile_glowing%2799_full.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo_et.htm&h=150&w=217&sz=13&tbnid=Ox7-va_zU44J:&tbnh=69&tbnw=101&hl=en&start=2&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dreptilian%2Balien%2Bphoto%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D) Please no insults. :p :D

Hey! Didn't someone find any of that information was interesting? :eek:

Free your mind. :p :D

Idiot

I really must thank-you old chap. This thread has given me some excellent comedic relief from my essay on the Napoleonic Wars. I feel less stressed now, especially laughing at your evidence. The fact that many US Presidents and some monarchists are related to two single people doesn't mean they are lizard people. It just means they are rather interbred, which is what happened during the Middle Ages and before.

I'd also wonder why, if all the Royal Family are indeed lizards, why there haven't been any lizard/human babies from marriages with royals with commoners? There have been thousands of these marriages...and I don't remember the papers screaming out about lizards. Or perhaps they were changed at birth by pod people? Or perhaps the Illuminati took the mutants to their secret moonbase and gave them to the NWO and then replaced them with clones made from the aliens seen on the moon?

Maybe we're fighting them from Area 51? Thats it - wasn't an alien ship that crashed there, it was a Lizard-shapeshifter spaceship! The Americans took the technology, and then in the sixties landed on the moon to fight them - Neil Armstrong wasn't just an astronaut, he was a ninja! He fought the lizard shapeshifters alongside Buzz Aldrin, then seduced the Orion Slavegirls on the Moon, kicked Kirks ass, sipped Earl Grey with Picard, and then planted the American flag there...whilst having an alien grow in his chest!

It all makes perfect sense!

Idiot
Excuse me, when did i insult you?

I really must thank-you old chap. This thread has given me some excellent comedic relief from my essay on the Napoleonic Wars. I feel less stressed now, especially laughing at your evidence. The fact that many US Presidents and some monarchists are related to two single people doesn't mean they are lizard people. It just means they are rather interbred, which is what happened during the Middle Ages and before.

I'd also wonder why, if all the Royal Family are indeed lizards, why there haven't been any lizard/human babies from marriages with royals with commoners? There have been thousands of these marriages...and I don't remember the papers screaming out about lizards. Or perhaps they were changed at birth by pod people? Or perhaps the Illuminati took the mutants to their secret moonbase and gave them to the NWO and then replaced them with clones made from the aliens seen on the moon?

Maybe we're fighting them from Area 51? Thats it - wasn't an alien ship that crashed there, it was a Lizard-shapeshifter spaceship! The Americans took the technology, and then in the sixties landed on the moon to fight them - Neil Armstrong wasn't just an astronaut, he was a ninja! He fought the lizard shapeshifters alongside Buzz Aldrin, then seduced the Orion Slavegirls on the Moon, kicked Kirks ass, sipped Earl Grey with Picard, and then planted the American flag there...whilst having an alien grow in his chest!

It all makes perfect sense!

Well, im glad to have brought a bit of light relief to your life. :)