Should Icke acknowledge the work of others?

[baron von lotsov]

I watched some of the free video that he did at the recent by-election and it seemed to take a long time to get started. After about 10 minutes of trying to sell his books I skipped into the middle of it and caught him actually talking information! It was quite good in fact at that point and he was talking about the Second World War and Prescott Bush and that financing business.

Unfortunately he then spoilt it by incorrectly telling the audience it was he who had first alerted people to this in his books of course. Actually that was blatantly untrue since it was Anthony Sutton who alerted people to it in the various books he had written, I have one of them and it’s a massive book. After writing it and getting kicked out of the establishment for it he was interviewed in a Dutch documentary, indeed it was this that really sealed his fate from once being a highly respected establishment historian. Mr Icke is doing us all a disservice by claiming it was he, it wasn't and the man who did paid a heavy price, a prominent career as a top university professor in fact.

Honesty and respect for your peers goes a long way in persuading people of your case. Dr John Coleman is another man who Icke should be giving credit to and he was at it even while Icke was still at the BBC and in the Green Party.

[lightworks]

I watched some of the free video that he did at the recent by-election and it seemed to take a long time to get started. After about 10 minutes of trying to sell his books I skipped into the middle of it and caught him actually talking information! It was quite good in fact at that point and he was talking about the Second World War and Prescott Bush and that financing business.

Unfortunately he then spoilt it by incorrectly telling the audience it was he who had first alerted people to this in his books of course. Actually that was blatantly untrue since it was Anthony Sutton who alerted people to it in the various books he had written, I have one of them and it’s a massive book. After writing it and getting kicked out of the establishment for it he was interviewed in a Dutch documentary, indeed it was this that really sealed his fate from once being a highly respected establishment historian. Mr Icke is doing us all a disservice by claiming it was he, it wasn't and the man who did paid a heavy price, a prominent career as a top university professor in fact.

Honesty and respect for your peers goes a long way in persuading people of your case. Dr John Coleman is another man who Icke should be giving credit to and he was at it even while Icke was still at the BBC and in the Green Party.
john coleman a fucking towering mountain of a man...a veritable genius
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=john+coleman+comittee+of+300&search_type=&aq=f

[red_ram]

I've just started watching this, and I'll look further into his work. Looks like a great speaker.

[tinmenace]

Should Icke acknowledge the work of others?


Uh, he does. His books are full of references to other people's research and work.


:confused:

[blane777]

Baron have you actually read any of Davids work ? for FUCKS sake most of his sources are from other people and still you want to join the bash David people what the hell is wrong ?

[xxdinoxkarenxx]

Uh, he does. His books are full of references to other people's research and work.


:confused:

I was thinking the same thing

[zarah]

Baron have you actually read any of Davids work ? for FUCKS sake most of his sources are from other people and still you want to join the bash David people what the hell is wrong ?

Oh, come on..he's entitled to make an observation..sychophancy doesn't help anyone.

[blane777]

Oh, come on..he's entitled to make an observation..sychophancy doesn't help anyone.

Observations are fine but comments made on a partial one are not.

[zarah]

Observations are fine but comments made on a partial one are not.

According to who? I dont agree with the OP, but this whole attitude of not being free to opine negatively about David isn't beneficial to anyone. We yak on about the importance of freedom of expression ..except when we don't agree with what's being said, which is farcical in my opinion.

Im not trying to be argumentative or anything I just don't think that censorship is constructive.

[blane777]

According to who? I dont agree with the OP, but this whole attitude of not being free to opine negatively about David isn't beneficial to anyone. We yak on about the importance of freedom of expression ..except when we don't agree with what's being said, which is farcical in my opinion.

Im not trying to be argumentative or anything I just don't think that censorship is constructive.

We have guidelines and rules on this forum.Members,casual users and moderators alike have to abide by these and its not my personal choice to make it so.

Censorship on this forum is pretty liberal if you ask me.look at the forum rules its not asking alot is it ?

[zarah]

I watched some of the free video that he did at the recent by-election and it seemed to take a long time to get started. After about 10 minutes of trying to sell his books I skipped into the middle of it and caught him actually talking information! It was quite good in fact at that point and he was talking about the Second World War and Prescott Bush and that financing business.

Unfortunately he then spoilt it by incorrectly telling the audience it was he who had first alerted people to this in his books of course. Actually that was blatantly untrue since it was Anthony Sutton who alerted people to it in the various books he had written, I have one of them and it’s a massive book. After writing it and getting kicked out of the establishment for it he was interviewed in a Dutch documentary, indeed it was this that really sealed his fate from once being a highly respected establishment historian. Mr Icke is doing us all a disservice by claiming it was he, it wasn't and the man who did paid a heavy price, a prominent career as a top university professor in fact.

Honesty and respect for your peers goes a long way in persuading people of your case. Dr John Coleman is another man who Icke should be giving credit to and he was at it even while Icke was still at the BBC and in the Green Party.

Ive noticed that David, when he's orating, doesn't always give credit to those who came up with the ideas first..but he does in his books and I would imagine being pushed for time as one is on the public stage, he assumes that those listening either are aware of other authors or will do their own research.. or perhaps he's more concerned with getting the message out to as many people as he can. Whatever the reasons Id lay money on it not being a deliberate attempt to steal glory..

[zarah]

We have guidelines and rules on this forum.Members,casual users and moderators alike have to abide by these and its not my personal choice to make it so.

Censorship on this forum is pretty liberal if you ask me.look at the forum rules its not asking alot is it ?

Ive read them..and I still cant see where OP contravenes anything. Your initial post seemed more based on your personal opinion rather than concern that any rules were breached..still..Im being pedantic, we're all entitled to get mad at stuff.

[Mo0n5tar]

It's true to an extent, he does referance peoples work and even collaborates with researchers and radio hosts and certainly used to, but he doesnt acknowledge Jordan Maxwell and they had a business relationship of some description in the past which i'm sure involved discussing info at an early stage of David's career, and there are a few others I can think of which also don't get a mention in his references.

The truth is that anyone who reads the work of Coleman, Sutton, Guillen, Springmeir, Mullins and so on would have the store of knowledge needed to write a similar book to most of David's, if they wrote without trying to mass market the book they could probably write a book better than the truth shall set you free, and that would be a good read.

[baron von lotsov]

Baron have you actually read any of Davids work ? for FUCKS sake most of his sources are from other people and still you want to join the bash David people what the hell is wrong ?



Look, I have just said exactly what is wrong, I even gave the time point in the video of the thing that was said. It's somewhere between 7 - 10 minutes and you can check it yourself where he mentions Prescott Bush. He lied to put it quite bluntly, he did not just omit the source he told the audience he was the first to expose this.

If you want to investigate it is not difficult!

· Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917-1930 (1968)
· Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1930-1945 (1971)
· Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1945-1965 (1973)
· National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (1973)
· What Is Libertarianism? (1973)
· Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (1974, 1999) (Online version) (Online Russian version)
· Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (1976, 1999) (Online version)
· Wall Street and FDR (1976, 1999) (Online version)
· The War on Gold: How to Profit from the Gold Crisis (1977)
· Energy: The Created Crisis (1979)
· The Diamond Connection: A manual for investors (1979)
· Trilaterals Over Washington - Volume I (1979; with Patrick M. Wood)
· Trilaterals Over Washington - Volume II (1980; with Patrick M. Wood)
· Gold vs Paper: A cartoon history of inflation (1981)
· Investing in Platinum Metals (1982)
· Technological Treason: A catalog of U.S. firms with Soviet contracts, 1917-1982 (1982)
· America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (1983, 1986, 2002) (Online version)
· How the Order Creates War and Revolution (1985) (Online Russian version)
· How the Order Controls Education (1985)
· The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986) (Online version)
· The Two Faces of George Bush (1988)
· The Federal Reserve Conspiracy (1995) (Online Russian version (as Vlast' dollara))
· Trilaterals Over America (1995) (Online version) (Online Russian version)

On line edition can be found here:

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/

Published in 1986

Icke on the otherhand was doing this around that time:


He found a job with a local newspaper in Leicester and became a reporter, moving on to local sports presenter for BBC South's Programme South Today. He appeared on the first episode of British television's first national breakfast show BBC Breakfast Time presenting the sports news until 1985.[11] He later became part of BBC Sport's presentation team, often as a stand-in host on Grandstand and snooker programmes. He worked with the BBC team at the 1988 Olympic Games, leaving later that year to become an activist for the Green Party.[12] He rose swiftly to the position of national media spokesperson.

He wrote his first book in 1989, It Doesn't Have To Be Like This, an outline of his views on the environment and his political philosophy.

David Icke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Anders Lindman]

Dr John Coleman is another man who Icke should be giving credit to and he was at it even while Icke was still at the BBC and in the Green Party.

I started watching a lecture by John Coleman. Interesting info. One thing I don't agree with is that he said that free trade is piracy, and that Adam Smith is to blame.

"Smith is also known for his explanation of how rational self-interest and competition, operating in a social framework which ultimately depends on adherence to moral obligations, can lead to economic well-being and prosperity. His work helped to create the modern academic discipline of economics and provided one of the best-known rationales for free trade."

Adam Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Piracy is a lack of moral obligations, so I don't think Coleman has interpreted Adam Smith's ideas correctly.

[baron von lotsov]

What context does Coleman say free trade is piracy? As I recall I thought he was talking about things like GATT, which of course is not free in the least. A free market only works when no player is large enough to affect the overall market, else it becomes an oligopoly.

[tinmenace]

Ive noticed that David, when he's orating, doesn't always give credit to those who came up with the ideas first..

I haven't noticed others doing it either...so no foul there, I suppose

...or perhaps he's more concerned with getting the message out to as many people as he can. Whatever the reasons Id lay money on it not being a deliberate attempt to steal glory..

Agreed! :)



.

[baron von lotsov]

I can't believe this. For the third time, it was a deliberate lie, not an oversight. He knows damn well where the info came from and he did not research it all himself. Look at that link I posted on Sutton's book, it is incredibly detailed research. I just checked the chapter on jet engines. Go and look for yourself for once in your lives you blind believers. There were lots of people before him and likely there will be lots of people after him. All he can say that is unique I suppose is his lizard theory stuff. No one else did that before him as far as I am aware but most other stuff has been done before. Just because they don't sell these books in WH Smiths does not mean they don't exist.

[curly]

no i don't think everyone should waste too much time blowing smoke up each others arses,so long as the info gets out that's all that matters i don't think too many researchers are in this to have their egos enhanced.Be interesting when the majority have that info.

[baron von lotsov]

I'm sorry but the one thing I can't stand is dishonesty and as soon as I spotted that I pretty much ditched watching the rest of the video. Now lets suppose he was honest and he made clear others have also come to the same conclusions. Anthony Sutton is no one you can laugh at really, he was an intellectual heavy weight and highly respected. If the populace could see this they would not think Icke was out on a limb. Lies are essentially a case of courting evil. Once you tell one lie you have to tell another one to cover that one until you end up a fully disreputable charlatan and doing the devil's work for him. A bit of humility is the way to do it. It's basic respect, whether you think the audience will spot it or not. A lie is always found out sooner or latter and confronting lies with more lies is shooting yourself in the foot.

[Anders Lindman]

What context does Coleman say free trade is piracy? As I recall I thought he was talking about things like GATT, which of course is not free in the least. A free market only works when no player is large enough to affect the overall market, else it becomes an oligopoly.

Coleman talked about how the British Empire used free trade as piracy, and that Adam Smith was to blame, and that today the U.S. should have borders against trade with other nations.

It's perhaps true that what was called free trade in the past was in reality piracy. I suspect that first they used 'free trade' as a cover term for piracy, and when they could no longer use outright piracy they started with trade agreements which also were cover ups for continued piracy.

GATT is not free trade. NAFTA is not free trade. I wonder if there EVER has been real free trade in the world.

[curly]

I'm sorry but the one thing I can't stand is dishonesty and as soon as I spotted that I pretty much ditched watching the rest of the video. Now lets suppose he was honest and he made clear others have also come to the same conclusions. Anthony Sutton is no one you can laugh at really, he was an intellectual heavy weight and highly respected. If the populace could see this they would not think Icke was out on a limb. Lies are essentially a case of courting evil. Once you tell one lie you have to tell another one to cover that one until you end up a fully disreputable charlatan and doing the devil's work for him. A bit of humility is the way to do it. It's basic respect, whether you think the audience will spot it or not. A lie is always found out sooner or latter and confronting lies with more lies is shooting yourself in the foot.

Sorry mate i would never have heard of sutton if it wasn't for icke and what do the populace know about him.I think your worrying about nothing.

[ajaydean]

to me its a bit nit picky to insist that all research has to be acknowledged to the originator! we are all equal in that we are of this universe. anyone who really gets ickes message knows that it is a colection of information taken from many sources, telling us the nature of our true selves and the nwo that is planned for us. in my eyes david icke is an engaging character who is powered by his passion for these facts...hes not on an ego trip, and neither am i or you when you pass on this literally eye opening truth we have learned. we are all human and sometimes humans make mistakes. we are all prophets if we make people aware! and why do we want to tell? because these facts resonate inside us and make us aware of the prison state and our potential, dont you think?

[cafe beelzebub]

Sorry mate i would never have heard of sutton if it wasn't for icke and what do the populace know about him.I think your worrying about nothing.

He's just drawing attention to himself, like always... he thinks he's better than everyone one else you see

[john white]

He does

Your title is slander Baron

But you justify it to yourself as getting people to read the info you want them to read, don't you?

I don't disagree that Colemans work was extraordinary btw

BUT

Your title is slander and you know it, hardly innocent hey Baron?

[zarah]

He does

Your title is slander Baron

But you justify it to yourself as getting people to read the info you want them to read, don't you?

I don't disagree that Colemans work was extraordinary btw

BUT

Your title is slander and you know it, hardly innocent hey Baron?

Oh God, I can't help being a pedant!! It's bloody annoying being me, and apologies for getting on your last nerve.

Anyway, the title is 'Should David Icke acknowledge other people's work?', as it doesn't then go on to say whether he does or doesn't, it's techincally a question rather than a negative statement which would be libellous, (because it's using a medium other than speech).

And yup, Coleman's work was extraordinary...totally agree.

[i_am]

I can't believe this. For the third time, it was a deliberate lie, not an oversight. He knows damn well where the info came from and he did not research it all himself. Look at that link I posted on Sutton's book, it is incredibly detailed research. I just checked the chapter on jet engines. Go and look for yourself for once in your lives you blind believers. There were lots of people before him and likely there will be lots of people after him. All he can say that is unique I suppose is his lizard theory stuff. No one else did that before him as far as I am aware but most other stuff has been done before. Just because they don't sell these books in WH Smiths does not mean they don't exist.

'As far you are aware' now that is the key isn't it?

I have said on a number of occasions, I had already read all of that stuff before ever hearing the name David Icke. I have no idea who the authors were as I was more interested in the information than following any researcher. Nothing has changed there.

So when I first read David's references to the reptilians, it was no great revelation to me. It was nothing I had not already read.

Maybe David read some of the same sources? He does not claim to have discovered all these thing. He simply connects dots and does a damn fine job of that imho of course.

[kweli]

Oh, come on..he's entitled to make an observation..sychophancy doesn't help anyone.

According to who? I dont agree with the OP, but this whole attitude of not being free to opine negatively about David isn't beneficial to anyone. We yak on about the importance of freedom of expression ..except when we don't agree with what's being said, which is farcical in my opinion.

Im not trying to be argumentative or anything I just don't think that censorship is constructive.

Thanks for speaking out on this issue Zarah.. it takes a brave person to do that around here, and I note it's not the first time you've spoken out on this very matter, I applaud you and wholly agree with what you saying.

The sycophantic behaviour displayed by some here is really damaging and only serves to give a unbalanced view.. do we really want a forum full of yes people? Only people that agree with everything DI says and does; Is that what this place is about?


We have guidelines and rules on this forum. Members,casual users and moderators alike have to abide by these and its not my personal choice to make it so.

Censorship on this forum is pretty liberal if you ask me.look at the forum rules its not asking alot is it ?

You are joking right? Again.. that only applies if you don't step out of line, if you stay in the safe zone with the rest of the yes people. If I was allowed I would post a whole bunch of PMs (plus naughty points) sent to me by the moderating team that would blow that fallacy right out the window!

I don't agree with everything Baron says but I think he raises a valid point. Let's just spin this on its head. Say Baron set up this conference that he's been discussing recently - then during his presentation he started spouting the research of David Icke and passing it off as his own.. how would people feel? would that be ok?

[limelady]

Well I would hate to be considered an Ickeophant (hehe....new word! :D) because I do feel people have a right to voice any and all concerns regarding David's research.

I'm just not so sure David deliberately passes work off as his own, as much as he tends to make statements that would lead one to assume this information is already well known enough not to have to make references to the source information at all. He's been doing this a goodly amount of time now and I'm not trying to make excuses on his behalf, but maybe he just forgets sometimes? I know I probably would. :o

His books are pretty well referenced, but I guess when you are speaking to a live audience it could well be distracting or even disrupting to your train of thought to state references all the way through .....he does tend to pull a HUGE amount of information together to makes his own points, but over all, isn't this a good thing rather than a negative? :confused:

[bill23]

questioning david icke doesnt make u friends on this website. youll just get ridiculed for it.

[kweli]

Well I would hate to be considered an Ickeophant (hehe....new word! :D) because I do feel people have a right to voice any and all concerns regarding David's research.

Sorry limelady.. I have no intention of stirring up trouble here; I like you, I get good vibes from you.. and appreciate the wisdom of your posts. But your posts in the following thread (and those of Forum advisor Montag) directed at los nomo show that even you (at times) disregard the right to freedom of speech. There's plenty more examples of this kind of reaction from the moderation team all over the forum, and it only serves to encourage other members to act in the same way imo.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29635&page=10

Here's what the man himself says in regards to this issue - taken from todays (sun 13th July) DI's latest headlines page; it's in response to the article in the following link. Which I totally disagree with btw.

'I think he likes me ...


This is an article from Truthseeker (sic) claiming to expose me for what I really am: an egotistical Illuminati frontman. It is written by someone I have never heard of to my knowledge and in terms of untruths per word it may well have qualified to appear in this Summer's Olympics.

People who have known me this last 20 years and understand the massive financial struggles and often staggering levels of personal abuse that I have taken will be shaking their heads in utter disbelief that one human being could be so wrong about another.

But he is entitled to his opinion - the right to be wrong, even this wrong, has to be defended because, if it isn't, that means someone is deciding what can be expressed and what cannot on the basis of what is considered 'right' and 'wrong'.

I just hope that this man, whoever he is, manages to be at least slightly more accurate in his other research than he does in this diatribe about me. You can't win ... such people say you are making lots of money (seriously not true) and yet when you give your work away for free you are only doing it for the Illuminati.

If he bothered to actually watch the video he would see that I make the point that David Davis may well have no knowledge whatsoever of how he is being used, and what his family background has to do with what he is doing now is beyond me.

I mean, I come from a 'working class' background and if my mother didn't go to my father's factory to get his pay packet on a Thursday lunchtime we didn't eat that night. But look how I turned out ... an egotistical, money-grabbing, Illuminati agent, it would appear ...

All I can do is laugh. I've heard it all before and will do so many times again before I get out of this crazy, crazy 'world'.'

Read on: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8956

[hirschfelder]

If people like David Icke were obliged to provide references during talks, the talks would be stop-start boring

His books are properly sourced and referenced and that's good enough

I notice the OP, Baron Von Lotsov, is trying to plan his own conference. If he's going to credit other people every time he refers to an idea that didn't originate from himself, he's going to have a very long and tedious talk on his hands

[kweli]

If people like David Icke were obliged to provide references during talks, the talks would be stop-start boring

His books are properly sourced and referenced and that's good enough

I notice the OP, Baron Von Lotsov, is trying to plan his own conference. If he's going to credit other people every time he refers to an idea that didn't originate from himself, he's going to have a very long and tedious talk on his hands

I think many of you are missing Barons point. It's not the fact that he didn't credit other researchers - rather that he claimed the research as his own. Isn't that what's being said?

[hirschfelder]

I think many of you are missing Barons point. It's not the fact that he didn't credit other researchers - rather that he claimed the research as his own. Isn't that what's being said?

Yeah but I couldn't find the bit in the talk where Icke does what Baron alleges, so I just assumed Baron was being a drama queen and deliberately making out Icke was doing this, rather than simply trying to deliver a coherent and well-paced talk

[Mo0n5tar]

Look at how Jordan Maxwell will introduce HIS information, he will emphasise his own ignorance, he says he is not an expert in anything and that he knows how much he DOESN'T know, he is a humble man, there is wisdom in his words, he has decades of experience researching the Occult.

Also Tsarion, he will introduce himself by crediting his predecessors, and especially his mentor Jordan Maxwell, without whom Tsarion would be nothing (in his own words), this shows a respect for his forebears and the information others have collated.

Now look at how Icke came on the scene, proclaiming his DIVINITY, and how he was chosen to be a spiritual change agent, chosen by God to convey a most important message for the good of humanity, get my drift>?

Read the article Kweli posted!
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8956

[tinmenace]

I think many of you are missing Barons point. It's not the fact that he didn't credit other researchers - rather that he claimed the research as his own. Isn't that what's being said?

QUOTE=crossx

If I said that the sky is blue, would you condemn me for plagiarism?


If I think that something is true, cannot I say it because somebody already said it before?






.

[marpat]

Yes he should. If they are fighting for the same truths and against the same systems then why not? is there not strength in numbers? to deny others the fruits of their work looks arrogant and will stop co-operation between other groups with sharing similar interests.

[mercuryrapids]

To be honest, in his talks, David seems to say "I was saying this years ago" kind of stuff, which is not the same as claiming he came up with the ideas. When he talks about subjects that others have researched as well, he often says something like, "I have spoken about this, as others have..." sometimes mentioning names, sometimes not.

That's how I see it anyway... :)

[hirschfelder]

To be honest, in his talks, David seems to say "I was saying this years ago" kind of stuff, which is not the same as claiming he came up with the ideas. When he talks about subjects that others have researched as well, he often says something like, "I have spoken about this, as others have..." sometimes mentioning names, sometimes not.

That's how I see it anyway... :)

That's how I see it too. Other than a vague allusion to something in the OP, I don't see anyone pointing out any other examples and certainly nothing that compromises the information he's giving

I suppose we all fit into one of 2 camps. Most of us, hopefully, are interested in the history and machinations of what may well be a global conspiracy and we want to arm ourselves with knowledge, for whatever that's worth

Then you have this angst-ridden fringe of people who are more interested in the characters delivering this information than the information itself. People like MickeyJayStoned and Baron among many others. People more concerned with something they think David Icke might have said 20 years ago than the 20 years worth of information he's subsequently given

[baron von lotsov]

to me its a bit nit picky to insist that all research has to be acknowledged to the originator!

For the forth time I'll say it again. I'm not saying everything he says should be referenced, I'm unhappy because he falsely claimed something as his own discovery when it was copied. That's wrong, in whatever language you choose to express it in.

[baron von lotsov]

'As far you are aware' now that is the key isn't it?

I have said on a number of occasions, I had already read all of that stuff before ever hearing the name David Icke. I have no idea who the authors were as I was more interested in the information than following any researcher. Nothing has changed there.

So when I first read David's references to the reptilians, it was no great revelation to me. It was nothing I had not already read.

Maybe David read some of the same sources? He does not claim to have discovered all these thing. He simply connects dots and does a damn fine job of that imho of course.


Hmm, very interesting and certainly news to me. It's such a great shame though you can't remember who mentioned lizards before Icke as I would love to know where he got these ideas from. Please have another think about it and see if you can remember.

[edelweiss pirate]

I watched some of the free video that he did at the recent by-election and it seemed to take a long time to get started. After about 10 minutes of trying to sell his books I skipped into the middle of it and caught him actually talking information! It was quite good in fact at that point and he was talking about the Second World War and Prescott Bush and that financing business.

Unfortunately he then spoilt it by incorrectly telling the audience it was he who had first alerted people to this in his books of course. Actually that was blatantly untrue since it was Anthony Sutton who alerted people to it in the various books he had written, I have one of them and it’s a massive book. After writing it and getting kicked out of the establishment for it he was interviewed in a Dutch documentary, indeed it was this that really sealed his fate from once being a highly respected establishment historian. Mr Icke is doing us all a disservice by claiming it was he, it wasn't and the man who did paid a heavy price, a prominent career as a top university professor in fact.

Honesty and respect for your peers goes a long way in persuading people of your case. Dr John Coleman is another man who Icke should be giving credit to and he was at it even while Icke was still at the BBC and in the Green Party.

I agree Baron, it did take Icke a while to warm up...when he was in full swing he was unstoppable and oddly at times, seemed to be channeling Bill Hicks.... Kewl! I guess he did mention his books but better that he do it at the start rather than spoil it all at the end with a cheesy plug.

It was great, free-Icke shows... Let's have more!

Also Baron this guy Anthony Sutton, I'm researching him right now, but wasn't his book published by 'The Hoover Institute at Stanford University'.... I don't quite know what to make of that...

[baron von lotsov]

Well I would hate to be considered an Ickeophant (hehe....new word! :D) because I do feel people have a right to voice any and all concerns regarding David's research.

I'm just not so sure David deliberately passes work off as his own, as much as he tends to make statements that would lead one to assume this information is already well known enough not to have to make references to the source information at all. He's been doing this a goodly amount of time now and I'm not trying to make excuses on his behalf, but maybe he just forgets sometimes? I know I probably would. :o

His books are pretty well referenced, but I guess when you are speaking to a live audience it could well be distracting or even disrupting to your train of thought to state references all the way through .....he does tend to pull a HUGE amount of information together to makes his own points, but over all, isn't this a good thing rather than a negative? :confused:


You should take a look at whom Anthony Sutton was. In many ways he was the complete reverse of Icke. He was a rather humble man; he has been described as the perfect English gentleman by those that knew him. He spent the last days of his life playing cat and mouse with the authorities and once had the CIA turn up on his doorstep complaining to him that he was a particularly difficult man to find! Even they somehow seemed to have respect for him.

Now it's more common courtesy that anything to respect the fact it was he who was the original person to uncover much of the WW2 business. Icke would only be doing himself a favour by quoting him. People can laugh and dismiss Icke as a clown but no one has ever managed that with Anthony Sutton. The authorities could only pretend he didn't exist after he started publishing stuff that blew their legitimacy completely out of the water. That's the difference.

[nessa felagund]

Hi everyone, I've been watching this thread with interest.

So I went and looked up what the US law says about fair use and this is what I found accourding to the U.S. Copyright Office:

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

So David Icke is free to express any ideas or information that he chooses in his own style and manner. As long as he is not taking that information directly (whether through quoting, paraphrasing, or summarizing) from another author. Who's to say he didn't research the same sources and come to the same conclusions independently?

Here is a link to the page where I found this information.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[baron von lotsov]

Yeah but I couldn't find the bit in the talk where Icke does what Baron alleges, so I just assumed Baron was being a drama queen and deliberately making out Icke was doing this, rather than simply trying to deliver a coherent and well-paced talk

It was about half way through, one hour and approx 20 minutes and where he mentions Prescott Bush. I don't really want to trawl though it again and give you the exact time reference because I was somewhat put off by it and don't fancy listening to it all again. Besides I rarely watch videos on the web and only if they are of exceptional interest due to the fact my ISP is stingy with my download limit.

[baron von lotsov]

I agree Baron, it did take Icke a while to warm up...when he was in full swing he was unstoppable and oddly at times, seemed to be channeling Bill Hicks.... Kewl! I guess he did mention his books but better that he do it at the start rather than spoil it all at the end with a cheesy plug.

It was great, free-Icke shows... Let's have more!

Also Baron this guy Anthony Sutton, I'm researching him right now, but wasn't his book published by 'The Hoover Institute at Stanford University'.... I don't quite know what to make of that...

Yes he started off as an establishment historian, I suppose a bit like David Irving who wrote books that were to be used in schools, and of course Carroll Quigely was another one and he was right in with the elite and knew many as personal friends. Although Sutton wasn't so much in with them but a person that they had employed since they do like to have all the brains on their side. The trouble with that is there is something quite paradoxical and it is that the elite need brains, their system would have no respect or authority without them but in order to develop these brains it is necessary for them to be freethinking.

Take a look around Balliol College in Oxford and something will surprise you. The future elite are not brainwashed in anything like the same way as the rest of us. They are allowed free thought since they must be or else they would not have the intellectual stamina to rule and people would get the better of them. Now some are controlled by pride and prestige and of course money. Sutton was not like that, he was the opposite of that and this is what caused them so much trouble. This freethinking paradox still exists; indeed it will always exist, so it's interesting to see how it can cause them trouble.

[baron von lotsov]

Hi everyone, I've been watching this thread with interest.

So I went and looked up what the US law says about fair use and this is what I found accourding to the U.S. Copyright Office:



So David Icke is free to express any ideas or information that he chooses in his own style and manner. As long as he is not taking that information directly (whether through quoting, paraphrasing, or summarizing) from another author. Who's to say he didn't research the same sources and come to the same conclusions independently?

Here is a link to the page where I found this information.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Copyright law is not the whole law. It specifies what you can't do and it is to do with copying some intellectual property, normally in written form and hence the name. What Icke did was to make a false statement and claim someone else's research as his own. Now the man in question is dead so he can't exactly stand up for himself and what Icke is doing is probably not illegal anyway. That does not make it right by default.

[onourwayto2012]

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8956
This article is indeed ridiculous.

[them]

I'm sorry but the one thing I can't stand is dishonesty and as soon as I spotted that I pretty much ditched watching the rest of the video. Now lets suppose he was honest and he made clear others have also come to the same conclusions.

Baron I agree with you; that's the cornerstone of the common ken, Sharing ideas-hypothesis-theories-theorems- freely with each other.

Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that. what ;)

[them]

I think many of you are missing Barons point. It's not the fact that he didn't credit other researchers - rather that he claimed the research as his own. Isn't that what's being said?

Just posting as I browse through..

I most certainly agree with that too.

[thirdwave]

I watched some of the free video that he did at the recent by-election and it seemed to take a long time to get started. After about 10 minutes of trying to sell his books I skipped into the middle of it and caught him actually talking information! It was quite good in fact at that point and he was talking about the Second World War and Prescott Bush and that financing business.

Unfortunately he then spoilt it by incorrectly telling the audience it was he who had first alerted people to this in his books of course. Actually that was blatantly untrue since it was Anthony Sutton who alerted people to it in the various books he had written, I have one of them and it’s a massive book. After writing it and getting kicked out of the establishment for it he was interviewed in a Dutch documentary, indeed it was this that really sealed his fate from once being a highly respected establishment historian. Mr Icke is doing us all a disservice by claiming it was he, it wasn't and the man who did paid a heavy price, a prominent career as a top university professor in fact.

Honesty and respect for your peers goes a long way in persuading people of your case. Dr John Coleman is another man who Icke should be giving credit to and he was at it even while Icke was still at the BBC and in the Green Party.

first of all..... in the first 10-15 or 30 mins he did not spend it pushing his books... how you can come out with a comment like that is just pure disinfo..

He very clearly started explaining what he has been trying to expose and why all of a sudden he is becoming more respected in recent years... In this time he lifted up his book 2 times when pointing out he has spent the last 20 odd years researching what he is talking about... hence that he is not crazy but right.

So your first comment was ridiculous... and compleatly and utterly biased as per usual.

[tintin]

I watched some of the free video that he did at the recent by-election and it seemed to take a long time to get started. After about 10 minutes of trying to sell his books I skipped into the middle of it and caught him actually talking information! It was quite good in fact at that point and he was talking about the Second World War and Prescott Bush and that financing business.

Unfortunately he then spoilt it by incorrectly telling the audience it was he who had first alerted people to this in his books of course. Actually that was blatantly untrue since it was Anthony Sutton who alerted people to it in the various books he had written, I have one of them and it’s a massive book. After writing it and getting kicked out of the establishment for it he was interviewed in a Dutch documentary, indeed it was this that really sealed his fate from once being a highly respected establishment historian. Mr Icke is doing us all a disservice by claiming it was he, it wasn't and the man who did paid a heavy price, a prominent career as a top university professor in fact.

Honesty and respect for your peers goes a long way in persuading people of your case. Dr John Coleman is another man who Icke should be giving credit to and he was at it even while Icke was still at the BBC and in the Green Party.

I have seen you fanatically supporting the FREEMASON RON PAUL.
DAVID ICKE and RON PAUL.......

The FREEMASON RON PAUL that is clearly part of the system.

And you are now attacking DAVID ICKE on his own forum?

[duckingdafta]

spent a while thinking about this and I haven't really read the whole thread. but in my opinion David should NOT acknowledge the work of others purely on the basis this is a conspiracy site and he writes conspiracy books. This tells people that the info is subject to further investigation and his info to date and David Icke is one of the only ones that creates a site in his name own that has credible information on it. You may not believe in the info, but it does what it is intended to do, and make you think outside the box and look at the box you've been kept held within

[tintin]

I watched some of the free video that he did at the recent by-election and it seemed to take a long time to get started. After about 10 minutes of trying to sell his books I skipped into the middle of it and caught him actually talking information! It was quite good in fact at that point and he was talking about the Second World War and Prescott Bush and that financing business.

Unfortunately he then spoilt it by incorrectly telling the audience it was he who had first alerted people to this in his books of course. Actually that was blatantly untrue since it was Anthony Sutton who alerted people to it in the various books he had written, I have one of them and it’s a massive book. After writing it and getting kicked out of the establishment for it he was interviewed in a Dutch documentary, indeed it was this that really sealed his fate from once being a highly respected establishment historian. Mr Icke is doing us all a disservice by claiming it was he, it wasn't and the man who did paid a heavy price, a prominent career as a top university professor in fact.

Honesty and respect for your peers goes a long way in persuading people of your case. Dr John Coleman is another man who Icke should be giving credit to and he was at it even while Icke was still at the BBC and in the Green Party.

I don't trust you BARON.
Promoting RON PAUL and going after ICKE on his
own site. I have had it with your NO2ID.
All nonsense. Swindlers. Like youself.

[baron von lotsov]

spent a while thinking about this and I haven't really read the whole thread. but in my opinion David should NOT acknowledge the work of others purely on the basis this is a conspiracy site and he writes conspiracy books. This tells people that the info is subject to further investigation and his info to date and David Icke is one of the only ones that creates a site in his name own that has credible information on it. You may not believe in the info, but it does what it is intended to do, and make you think outside the box and look at the box you've been kept held within


Lets ask a simple question, shall we. What would MI5 prefer?

A. People think that Icke alone discovered nearly the entire conspiracy theory and he is the Son of God and likes to experiment with hallucinogenic drugs.

B. People think that Icke is a good man who out of selfless interest and concern for others finds that certain people with impeccable academic credentials and intelligence had, over the course of the last 50 years, gradually untangles a massive web of corruption and been suppressed and attacked for it due to their revelations.

[tintin]

Lets ask a simple question, shall we. What would MI5 prefer?

A. People think that Icke alone discovered nearly the entire conspiracy theory and he is the Son of God and likes to experiment with hallucinogenic drugs.

B. People think that Icke is a good man who out of selfless interest and concern for others finds that certain people with impeccable academic credentials and intelligence had, over the course of the last 50 years, gradually untangles a massive web of corruption and been suppressed and attacked for it due to their revelations.

Masonic Baron?
Come on, Baron, just another MASON.

[tinmenace]

Masonic Baron?
Come on, Baron, just another MASON.

:D

[mightiswrong]

Let us look at Springmeir (who may or may not be a source of Icke) mentioned earlier in this thread. I found this where he was framed and imprisoned and made out to a white supremacist:
http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/7a78c59d368fe9fc

We are all the sons of God as in all that there is. Most of Ickes sources would be discredited and attacked so he is probably protecting them. The media are responsible for discrediting Icke not Icke himself.

As for Baron I remeber his from No2ID where he seemed oblivous to the controlled opposition that NO2ID is. I don't visit that forum anymore. It was like banging my head against a brick wall. They deleted hundreds if not thousands of my posts.

[duckingdafta]

Lets ask a simple question, shall we. What would MI5 prefer?

A. People think that Icke alone discovered nearly the entire conspiracy theory and he is the Son of God and likes to experiment with hallucinogenic drugs.

B. People think that Icke is a good man who out of selfless interest and concern for others finds that certain people with impeccable academic credentials and intelligence had, over the course of the last 50 years, gradually untangles a massive web of corruption and been suppressed and attacked for it due to their revelations.

Answer: 26 letters in some alphabets an you only allow two choices... what people think isn't the point, making them think IS the point. And as for MI5 and hallucinogenic drugs, they make the 'Shaylors' of this world so they can be amongst or compete against theories like Ickes... it's easier to control an already compartmentalised mind in chaos than it is a harmonious mind like Ickes.

[baron von lotsov]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Answer: 26 letters in some alphabets an you only allow two choices...

I made it a simple question so there was a chance you would be able to answer it. Obviously even a simple question is enough to fox you so I won't insist on you answering it.

[duckingdafta]

I made it a simple question so there was a chance you would be able to answer it. Obviously even a simple question is enough to fox you so I won't insist on you answering it.

I realise there are a lot of people who actually believe our UK Intelligence services and thick as shit, but if you actually believe a forum user is capable of answering for them then I am afraid your 'simple question' must be purely for 'simple folks' as I see too many variants... words and intellect still don't make it right so as far as 'foxing' me goes.. I suggest you read Isaiah Berlin - Tolstoy And History as people by nature, often attempt to be hedgehog when always knowing they are a fox.

[baron von lotsov]

I realise there are a lot of people who actually believe our UK Intelligence services and thick as shit, but if you actually believe a forum user is capable of answering for them then I am afraid your 'simple question' must be purely for 'simple folks' as I see too many variants... words and intellect still don't make it right so as far as 'foxing' me goes.. I suggest you read Isaiah Berlin - Tolstoy And History as people by nature, often attempt to be hedgehog when always knowing they are a fox.


So you say you can answer the question but are refusing to and prefer to enter into some sort of a distraction argument?

[duckingdafta]

So you say you can answer the question
Nope
some sort of a distraction argument?

fair enough, end of participation on debate., and allow it to carry on amongst the disillusioned

[baron von lotsov]

Excellent and now the rest of us can discuss this matter freely and without distraction.

[them]

Why wouldn't Icke want to acknowledge somebody singing the same song?

Surely it would add weight to his discussions, not detract from them.

[baron von lotsov]

Not just because people are accustomed to associating something wrong with a lone individual who no one believes and gets ridiculed, but also others might think he is being dishonest if they know of people he has copied. So it kills two birds with one stone. Pretty clever really, but for all the wrong reasons!

[duckingdafta]

Excellent and now the rest of us can discuss this matter freely and without distraction.

???? Discuss what matter? you asked about MI5 like it would be possible to answer for another group, you take it off topic, then act the pompous arrogant twat in a frail attempt to pass TB. when DO you get to the point?

btw.. you don't listen to David much do you?... he did acknowledge the work of people whilst in Hull like Alex Jones

[tom bombadil]

Undecided as yet baron von lotsov.

Mr Icke Must read a lot of stuff. Could it be that he has either read and digested but forgot that he read the theory and then formulated it into his works? Or he has not read the other guys works and he truely beleves the ideas are his own?


Tom.

[walsingham]

Colonel Barry Turner has a thing or two to say about Dr. John Coleman.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5854100060601926816&q=john+coleman&ei=zZh-SNGKM4-WigLx7YilDQ&hl=en



Icke did a Great Job this last mouth or so, But I hope David is sitting at home thinking, Why on earth did i print a book about blood drinking lizards.





But since Mr Cameron had not yet arrived, we instead went to meet David Icke, the man reported to believe that the world is in thrall to lizards.

That is not his line in this by-election: he instead delivered an impassioned lecture, in which he sought to demonstrate with reference to Cecil Rhodes, Hermann Goering, Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler, Otto von Hapsburg, the Freemasons and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the existence of an international conspiracy to dupe us into building a fascist state.

Fearing that we could find ourselves part of an international conspiracy to sell more of Mr Icke's books, we went off to see a more reputable David: David Davis, the Tory whose resignation precipitated the by-election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2236699/One-by-election-26-candidates-in-Haltemprice-and-Howden.html



Just one example and there are many on how the Press has used Icke's pervious work to discredit him. How can he be taken serious by the general public when he says he's the son of the godhead and that lizards rule the world?

Sure Dave, It's just information!!

Information that makes you loose all credibility mate!

[darketernal]

Colonel Barry Turner has a thing or two to say about Dr. John Coleman.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5854100060601926816&q=john+coleman&ei=zZh-SNGKM4-WigLx7YilDQ&hl=en



Icke did a Great Job this last mouth or so, But I hope David is sitting at home thinking, Why on earth did i print a book about blood drinking lizards.





But since Mr Cameron had not yet arrived, we instead went to meet David Icke, the man reported to believe that the world is in thrall to lizards.

That is not his line in this by-election: he instead delivered an impassioned lecture, in which he sought to demonstrate with reference to Cecil Rhodes, Hermann Goering, Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler, Otto von Hapsburg, the Freemasons and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the existence of an international conspiracy to dupe us into building a fascist state.

Fearing that we could find ourselves part of an international conspiracy to sell more of Mr Icke's books, we went off to see a more reputable David: David Davis, the Tory whose resignation precipitated the by-election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2236699/One-by-election-26-candidates-in-Haltemprice-and-Howden.html



Just one example and there are many on how the Press has used Icke's pervious work to discredit him. How can he be taken serious by the general public when he says he's the son of the godhead and that lizards rule the world?

Sure Dave, It's just information!!

Information that makes you loose all credibility mate!

Do you mean the same blood drinking lizards responsible for the creation of your religion? LoL

[i_am]

Icke did a Great Job this last mouth or so, But I hope David is sitting at home thinking, Why on earth did i print a book about blood drinking lizards.





I doubt it :)

[w1nstonsm1th84]

The reptilian stuff always makes me think about the analogy that Alex Jones drew, about a lovely bowl of punch... that someone walks in on, and does a great big turd in. :)

Something like that...

[darketernal]

The reptilian stuff always makes me think about the analogy that Alex Jones drew, about a lovely bowl of punch... that someone walks in on, and does a great big turd in. :)

Something like that...

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The reptilian issue is the only reason I am posting on Icke's forum instead of some other place, and there are probably more than a few people here for that same reason. My belief in the reptilian issue is based on my life experiences, not David Icke's research, so it is something that drew me to him.