DI's new book

[beetzart]

He has written countless books (of which I have read about 90% of) and is always very keen to promote how many millions of words they contain. And yet nothing has been proved! Not yet maybe. All the books seem to follow a distinct pattern. Re-wording of previous ideas then a bit about infintie love, then a new idea.

To put this in context:

In the early part of the 20th century Einstein wrote a short scientific paper on Brownian motion; on why pollen grains appear to become excited in water. This proved the existence of atoms.

Simples:)

Also, his theories of relativity where quite short as well. They got straight to the point.

[i_am]

and your point is?

[moving finger]

Rutherford provided the first physical demonstration of the existence of atoms, although the idea that pbjects were made up of much smaller particles has been around since Ancient Greece. Einstein's work expanded on existing theories by providing a mechanism of deducing atomic mass & size.

I think the OP's point is that DI waffles a lot, and waffles a lot about stuff that other people have already waffled a lot about.

[beetzart]

Rutherford provided the first physical demonstration of the existence of atoms, although the idea that pbjects were made up of much smaller particles has been around since Ancient Greece. Einstein's work expanded on existing theories by providing a mechanism of deducing atomic mass & size.

I think the OP's point is that DI waffles a lot, and waffles a lot about stuff that other people have already waffled a lot about.

Correct, Einstein nailed it.

[subl1minal]

Rutherford provided the first physical demonstration of the existence of atoms, although the idea that pbjects were made up of much smaller particles has been around since Ancient Greece. Einstein's work expanded on existing theories by providing a mechanism of deducing atomic mass & size.

I think the OP's point is that DI waffles a lot, and waffles a lot about stuff that other people have already waffled a lot about.

And he waffles about what others have waffled about, in order for you to understand what he's waffling about. Simple.

[beetzart]

And he waffles about what others have waffled about, in order for you to understand what he's waffling about. Simple.

At 700 pages a time, at £20 a go:rolleyes:

Quality not quanity

[curtisrascist]

I didnt read all the comments.

But when david says in his new book bout his teeth falling out in a dream i had a bloody pang cos when i awakey poopoo i had the same dreams.

Just waiting for the old fella to pop his clogs now

But

the book is awesome.

[beldazar]

At 700 pages a time, at £20 a go:rolleyes:

Quality not quanity

Your'e a bit petty really.....Give the guy a sodding break! :(

[pegcityevolve]

So you have not even read his latest one? By the way, most of everything gets discussed on the forums here by around 40,000 members in a matter of time - the lot of us don't even have to buy diddly squat.

[i_am]

ya just gotta laugh at this mindset.

David is a researcher not a scientist, a dot connector. You can say, 'yeah that makes sense' or you can totally disregard it. Your call!!

People whinge because he gives an overview from other books to introduce and explain what he is on about. What would you have him do for new readers? Go off on a tangent without any explanation so they have no idea wtf he is talking about? No dot connection? Or perhaps you would prefer he told you to buy his other books to find out the background?

[beldazar]

Well said I-am :)

[beetzart]

Your'e a bit petty really.....Give the guy a sodding break! :(

You're probably right but I feel a tad conned that's all. I started to read Icke when my life was at a real low. I suffered the death of a very close family member I was in a mess and I started looking for something that could explain things that I could use as a means to blame. Blimey, I don't need to take responsibilty for my actions when I can blame the illuminati do I? It's all the governments fault not mine; such was the relief I went into Ickey overdrive and read his stuff night after night.

Then something clicked. Everytime he brought a new book out I thought this could be the one where it finally all falls into place. Then again Eli Lilly are never going to make, say, an antidepressent that only needs to be taken for a month and your depression can be cured forever (I don't think they could if they wanted to but you see my point). Nothing ever fell into place. Each new book was a carbon copy of the previous and my enthusiasm wained.

After a breakdown last summer I decided to turn my life around for the better. So this year I started a degree with the Open University in science, with the aim to gain a degree in molecular science. I fucking love it. It has answered more questions for me in five months then Icke did in seven years.

Now I feel cheated by Icke, although it was my decision to turn to his books and my fault for trying to use them as a means to find a way out of my misery. But, I still admire his strong personality and charisma. He is a very brave man to stand above others and say what he does, even if it doesn't add up for me anymore.

[beldazar]

You're probably right but I feel a tad conned that's all. I started to read Icke when my life was at a real low. I suffered the death of a very close family member I was in a mess and I started looking for something that could explain things that I could use as a means to blame. Blimey, I don't need to take responsibilty for my actions when I can blame the illuminati do I? It's all the governments fault not mine; such was the relief I went into Ickey overdrive and read his stuff night after night.

Then something clicked. Everytime he brought a new book out I thought this could be the one where it finally all falls into place. Then again Eli Lilly are never going to make, say, an antidepressent that only needs to be taken for a month and your depression can be cured forever (I don't think they could if they wanted to but you see my point). Nothing ever fell into place. Each new book was a carbon copy of the previous and my enthusiasm wained.

After a breakdown last summer I decided to turn my life around for the better. So this year I started a degree with the Open University in science, with the aim to gain a degree in molecular science. I fucking love it. It has answered more questions for me in five months then Icke did in seven years.

Now I feel cheated by Icke, although it was my decision to turn to his books and my fault for trying to use them as a means to find a way out of my misery. But, I still admire his strong personality and charisma. He is a very brave man to stand above others and say what he does, even if it doesn't add up for me anymore.

That was a very open and honest post :)

I have found things the other way round personally.
I needed help at one stage and learnt a lot from a 12 step group, then I took psychology A level and learnt a bit more about myself. Then recently with DI's account of the 'reptilian brain', yet more recovery!!! I have discovered that Ickes teaching is more help for me and never would I have thought in a million years that 'some bloke' spouting off about conspiracies would be tied to some sort of self-healing, lol

You did it the opposite way round and put faith in DI for help? I never thought DI would ever attract that type of person :D

Did you read I -Am's post about making the book for people new to this? It's easily understood. For someone randomly picking up the book in a charity shop say, wouldn't be able to make much sense of it if he misses out the repeated parts as it helps to put it together. They would probably stop reading half-way through.
I guess us that buy more than one would either accept it or not buy it, nobody forces you to :rolleyes:

I'm glad to hear you are getting yourself sorted but to reach out to one person to solve all your problems just won't work, you take what you need from them and just 'go with the flow'

By the way, the recommended time to be on anti-depressants is no more than 6 WEEKS, I learnt that from the course and felt furious as to why doctors keep people on them for much longer.
I know why now :mad:

[energi]

By the way, the recommended time to be on anti-depressants is no more than 6 WEEKS, I learnt that from the course and felt furious as to why doctors keep people on them for much longer.
I know why now :mad:

I think it's mentioned in the "instructions" that follows with certain medicines (at least it is in Sweden) you just have to read the fine print :p. Licensed doctors oughta mention this when discussing medications with one's patient?

People popping anti-depressants, and most of all over-the-counter painkillers, as if it was candy oughta re-think their actions before their brain chemistry turns to shit.

[beldazar]

People popping anti-depressants, and most of all over-the-counter painkillers, as if it was candy oughta re-think their actions before their brain chemistry turns to shit.


lol, know what you mean! I mentioned having a slight headache to a friend today and immediately she said to go get some pills. It was a slight headache FFS! :rolleyes: :)

[beetzart]

That was a very open and honest post :)

I have found things the other way round personally.
I needed help at one stage and learnt a lot from a 12 step group, then I took psychology A level and learnt a bit more about myself. Then recently with DI's account of the 'reptilian brain', yet more recovery!!! I have discovered that Ickes teaching is more help for me and never would I have thought in a million years that 'some bloke' spouting off about conspiracies would be tied to some sort of self-healing, lol

You did it the opposite way round and put faith in DI for help? I never thought DI would ever attract that type of person :D

Did you read I -Am's post about making the book for people new to this? It's easily understood. For someone randomly picking up the book in a charity shop say, wouldn't be able to make much sense of it if he misses out the repeated parts as it helps to put it together. They would probably stop reading half-way through.
I guess us that buy more than one would either accept it or not buy it, nobody forces you to :rolleyes:

I'm glad to hear you are getting yourself sorted but to reach out to one person to solve all your problems just won't work, you take what you need from them and just 'go with the flow'

By the way, the recommended time to be on anti-depressants is no more than 6 WEEKS, I learnt that from the course and felt furious as to why doctors keep people on them for much longer.
I know why now :mad:

Thank you:)

I feel angry at myself for putting all my faith into one man's work. Especially as his work is rather poorly written, sorry, but it is.:(

I suppose the reason why scholars don't tear him to pieces is because it would be a waste of time. What self respecting scientist would want to sift through thousands of pages of ad infinitum?

I once wrote an email to him when I was consumed by his work. Did I get a reply, did i hell:mad:

[energi]

lol, know what you mean! I mentioned having a slight headache to a friend today and immediately she said to go get some pills. It was a slight headache FFS! :rolleyes: :)

Rest/sleep and lots of water [assuming that it isn't tainted with fluoride and coming from a clean tap] is more than enough for headaches and colds anyway. I never bother with pills, vitamins and stuff.

[joya]

And he waffles about what others have waffled about, in order for you to understand what he's waffling about. Simple.

mmmmm waffles

[joya]

He has written countless books (of which I have read about 90% of) and is always very keen to promote how many millions of words they contain. And yet nothing has been proved! Not yet maybe. All the books seem to follow a distinct pattern. Re-wording of previous ideas then a bit about infintie love, then a new idea.

To put this in context:

In the early part of the 20th century Einstein wrote a short scientific paper on Brownian motion; on why pollen grains appear to become excited in water. This proved the existence of atoms.

Simples:)

Also, his theories of relativity where quite short as well. They got straight to the point.

you know, I kind of agree.

I was disappointed in the amount of so-called "new" information. I've read numerous Icke books and after this last one I've starting to become a bit turned off and much much more skeptic. Maybe the over-abundance of self-proclaimed "whistleblowers" and "truth-seekers" -- and their disparate views / information -- has made me jaded. heh.

Still though, I appreciate Icke for offering fresh perspectives to our current state of being -- and there SEEMS a lot of truth in what he writes. However, it just seems like the same information being repackaged in different way.

[starshine]

The more one talks about the Icke book the more I am waiting for the next book.
Must be the best £20 Beezer has spent in his life.

[leo40]

you know, I kind of agree.

I was disappointed in the amount of so-called "new" information. I've read numerous Icke books and after this last one I've starting to become a bit turned off and much much more skeptic. Maybe the over-abundance of self-proclaimed "whistleblowers" and "truth-seekers" -- and their disparate views / information -- has made me jaded. heh.

Still though, I appreciate Icke for offering fresh perspectives to our current state of being -- and there SEEMS a lot of truth in what he writes. However, it just seems like the same information being repackaged in different way.

May I suggest to do some research on where this so called new information came from? I found it very curious that DI does not credir his sources.
Do a search on "densities". Where did that come from?
The "new" book seems to me a cut and paste job.

[spitalwings]

May I suggest to do some research on where this so called new information came from? I found it very curious that DI does not credir his sources.
Do a search on "densities". Where did that come from?
The "new" book seems to me a cut and paste job.



That's called dot connecting now. Wake up.

[camreeno]

He has written countless books (of which I have read about 90% of) and is always very keen to promote how many millions of words they contain. And yet nothing has been proved! Not yet maybe. All the books seem to follow a distinct pattern. Re-wording of previous ideas then a bit about infintie love, then a new idea.

To put this in context:

In the early part of the 20th century Einstein wrote a short scientific paper on Brownian motion; on why pollen grains appear to become excited in water. This proved the existence of atoms.

Simples:)

Also, his theories of relativity where quite short as well. They got straight to the point.Well how were they not proven? If we take the reptilian humanoid theory and take a look at it based on what he has said in his books, I think he presents a convincing argument that it's all true. This also depends on what you call evidence (he relies on anecdotal and consistencies in mythology for instance), whereas some people might rely more on strict physical evidence that can be tested in a laboratory. The truth is you don't need the latter to prove something as fact. After all, it's just a theory that the earth is solid and we don't have physical evidence to prove it. It's just speculation.

There are many things we probably believe that have precarious evidence, so it would be ridiculous to point this question at Icke and no one else. And we also have to look at the so-called debunking and if they really debunk Icke's evidence. And is mainstream science a trustworthy authority in their say on what's true and what's not? After all it wasn't until many years went by when they finally started to believe the continental drift theory (only until they had radar and they could see the obvious ridges below the oceans), and close to that no one would have believed in DNA. So if some mainstream science guy comes up and says "reptilians don't exist" you have to ask yourself if he's basing that on just his gut reactions or actual research.

Icke proves all his major points sufficiently. I think the fact that mythologies from around the world all speak of an advanced serpent race descending down and giving mankind knowledge is very good evidence. Unless you'll just dismiss that as "coincidence" which is ridiculous once you consider that the Chinese and the Mayans were separated by an ocean and can't reach each other and tell each other the same stories. So how do you explain the constant theme? Why is the serpent worshipped in so many ancient cultures? Why is there a serpent that temps Adam and Eve in the bible, and not another animal? You see this everywhere and if the debunkers can give a logical explanation that would be good, but for the time being I'm with Icke.

And how do you explain how people from around the world report people shifting from a human to reptilian form and back, and why are there so many consistencies with their stories? Surely they would goof up and give bogus stories that throw off the consistency. And why do we have confidants of Princess Diana admitting that Icke is right (read the Biggest Secret)? And why do dragons represent royalty and power around the world? Coincidence I'm guessing? Do you think there's just some space in human psychology reserved for revering snakes and lizards for no real reason other than they're "scary" and "mystifying" creatures? This is your theory so it would be hypocritical to call Icke's theory crazy.

And besides, Icke is far from being the only one who defends the reptilian thing. Why to tribes in Africa believe it's true when they predate Icke's work by thousands of years? (including Credo Mutwa and the Zulus) What about Stewart Swerdlow? Arizona Wilder? Cathy O'Brien? If it's such a crazy theory than why is there so much consistency in how they describe reptilians?