Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News > Other News

Thread Tools
Old 20-01-2016, 01:47 AM   #41
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: A sunless world
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 3,220 (1,898 Posts)

Originally Posted by tildatod View Post
But this brief reply from you does not link to anything about reptilians?

Part of your earlier post stated:

I asked:

Your reply now:

Do you know what his precise words are? Otherwise, I'm going to have to reply to hearsay, which would make our exchange meaningless.

If you can please find his exact words, and maybe the 100 words he writes or speaks before AND after the juicy bit about reptilians, then we will have an accurate basis on which to work.

I'm having a vision of a creature and a bridge...

DI the bad man who's pissing on people's chips .... people who allegedly already know about all the other good stuff DI talks about, but for some reason they heard about 'reptiles' and now they're .....what? Disbelieving everything?

Cough up the evidence, and we'll discuss it. If you can't do that...I'll take it as read that you have NO clue at all about what you're blathering about, other than to have a bit of a troll?
tildatod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-01-2016, 04:18 AM   #42
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,162
Likes: 3,361 (1,860 Posts)

Originally Posted by helloperator View Post
It doesn't matter what it 'is'. A defense mechanism...a reflex built on years of ignorance...a set of missing brain cells...

Doesn't matter what makes people chortle at David Icke

The fact that they do so, because of his comments about shape shifting reptilians is all that matters and is damaging toward all of the good that he says.

The message needs to resonate this basic truth:

There is a minority of thugs controlling the majority on a base of crime that permeates pretty much all areas of life.

When you talk about reptilians you alienate people from the basic truth.
Why not ask him yourself, why it was so important to put that information out there? My own feeling is that the truth was too important to compromise, but that is just my take on it. This thread is the 'Questions for David' one: http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=297341. Not sure if that is the best place, as it refers more to a Q&A session last year, but still up and running - so would be a start.

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea View Post
if it helps you could just swap the word 'reptillian' for 'psychopath' and it works just as well. But all Icke is doing though is going beyond the what and the who and the how and the when to look at the why. The why Icke has decided is down to forces beyond our sight

To really understand what he's talking about you have to understand what he's saying about the nature of our reality. I remember watching his first Wembley show where he explained everything clearly from the beginning and if you follow it from there it all makes sense

But a journalist from the independent came along to the wembley show which on the surface seems great because it shows the mainstream is taking an interest except she came to the show late and missed the beginnin where icke speaks about the nature of reality; so after that she went off and wrote a peice saying the usual missunderstood hogwash about lizards

you can't just think 'lizards' or it will sound crazy; go and listen to his WHOLE explanation if you want to give the guy a fair hearing
Good explanation.

Last edited by aster; 20-01-2016 at 04:20 AM.
Likes: (1)
aster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-01-2016, 10:02 AM   #43
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The creamy middle
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 163 (105 Posts)

It's certainly not unusual for people to get touchy about the 'reptilians' thing, especially at Icke's site.

But, people clearly aren't listening to what I'm saying and are becoming a tad more personal than I care for here.

Here's what I said in a nutshell:

Icke is associated with 'reptilians' by a great many people and his ideas are therefore insane according to them.

Is this untrue?

Is this more true:

Icke is associated with 'reptilians' by a great many people and his ideas are universally praised.

Or is this more true:

Icke never mentioned anything about 'reptilians' and everyone thinks he's crazy because he gave up a great career in journalism.

Or this one:

Everybody understands that Icke was speaking about the nature of reality when he discusses 'reptilians' but despite this they all think he is crazy.

Let's go back to what I said in a nutshell...all I have stated in this thread, and for which have been attacked and accused of being a troll, or whatever. Here's a recap of what I said:

Icke is associated with 'reptilians' by a great many people and his ideas are therefore insane according to them.

Now that's pretty accurate isn't it?

It's disappointing, yes. But it's accurate.

Not sure what is complicated about my nutshell summary.

I'm not getting into the why or the how or the who. The nutshell stands alone and it's true.

Icke has a credibility problem.

Very disappointing, but true.

That's all I've said.

Please stop frothing at the mouth.

Cheers dudes.
Likes: (1)
helloperator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2016, 03:05 PM   #44
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Mother Earth
Posts: 883
Likes: 665 (323 Posts)

God, what a mundane conversation
“Can you remember who you were, before the world told you who you should be?”
Likes: (1)
empath_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2016, 10:45 PM   #45
Restricted Profile
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,295
Likes: 2,070 (1,257 Posts)

Originally Posted by slackpenguin View Post
(edit, headline didn't fit in the title, it reads: The truth is rushing out there: why conspiracy theories spread faster than ever )

There's an interesting piece on The Guardian today:

The article itself seems a bit bunk where it cites a study -- suggesting people who "believe in conspiracy theories" are more susceptible (which is nonsense), believing everything you are told without questioning it, is the sign of susceptibility.

It's a good read though for an MSM editorial, and the comments below it raise some important points. I thought it was a good read.
I did smile at the description of some gatekeeper namechecked in that Guardian article as a "recovering" conspiracy theorist

Here's another one...
Dr David Robert Grimes of Oxford University
whose study
suggests that large groups of people sharing in a conspiracy will very quickly give themselves away. The study is published online by journal PLOS ONE.
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs

Dr Grimes, a physicist working in cancer research, is also a science writer and broadcaster. His profile means that he receives many communications from people who believe in science-related conspiracies. Those messages prompted him to look at whether large-scale collusions were actually tenable.

Dr Grimes then looked at four alleged plots, estimating the maximum number of people required to be in on the conspiracy, in order to see how viable these conspiracies could be. These include: the theory that the US moon landings were a hoax (411,000 people); that Climate Change is a fraud (405,000 people); that unsafe vaccinations are being covered up (22,000 people assuming that only the World Health Organisation and the US Centers for Disease Control are conspirators and that others involved in advocating, producing, distributing and using vaccines are dupes. 736,000 people if, as would be more likely, pharmaceutical companies were included); that the cure for Cancer is being supressed by the world’s leading pharmaceutical firms (714,000 people).

Using the equation, Dr Grimes calculated that hoax moon landings would have been revealed in 3 years 8 months, a climate change fraud in 3 years 9 months, a vaccination conspiracy in 3 years 2 months, and a suppressed Cancer cure in 3 years 3 months. In simple terms, any one of the four conspiracies would have been exposed long before now.

He then looked at the maximum number of people who could take part in an intrigue in order to maintain it. For a plot to last five years, the maximum was 2521 people. To keep a scheme operating undetected for more than a decade, fewer than 1000 people can be involved. A century-long deception should ideally include fewer than 125 collaborators. Even a straightforward cover-up of a single event, requiring no more complex machinations than everyone keeping their mouth shut, is likely to be blown if more than 650 people are accomplices.

Dr Grimes said: 'Not everyone who believes in a conspiracy is unreasonable or unthinking. I hope that by showing how eye-wateringly unlikely some alleged conspiracies are, some people will reconsider their anti-science beliefs.

How it made all that smug mutual-admiration club over at Dawkins central chuckle. Fancy all those primitives not swallowing everything thrown at the by the MSM....
No doubt members of this sect in North West England will be heading towards Liverpool for a riveting talk by Rob Brotherton on Feb 21st.

Curses! I have already missed listening to Dr Grimes in Liverpool!

... there is often a glaring disconnect between the findings of actual science and media reporting of such topics, and consequently there is often a needless chasm between public perception and the evidence on many contentious topics. This can lead to needlessly adversarial and counter-productive discourse of everything from vaccination to climate-change. In this talk, physicist and science journalist Dr. David Robert Grimes discusses the frequent problems in reporting science from misunderstandings to bad statistics to false balance, and discusses the factors that influence this and how such problems can be remedied.

Dr. David Robert Grimes (@drg1985) is a physicist and writes regular opinion and analysis pieces on scientific issues for the Irish Times and the Guardian science. He keeps a blog on these topics
Natasha Reith-Banks @TashReithBanks [Science Production Editor for the Guardian
Natasha Reith-Banks Retweeted David Robert Grimes
Big fan of DRG and his anti-pseudoscience aceness. Read our take on it too. AND the comments.http://gu.com/p/4g5f6

David Robert Grimes @drg1985
Conspiratorial thinking is endemic - but is it rational? My @PLOSONE paper on modelling conspiracies is out - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0147905
11:06 AM - 26 Jan 2016 [PT]

4:08 AM - 27 Jan 2016 [PT]

Last edited by felixfelix; 27-01-2016 at 10:49 PM.
felixfelix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2016, 08:29 PM   #46
Restricted Profile
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,295
Likes: 2,070 (1,257 Posts)

Jan 29 2016
The Indy tracks down Grimes...who said he was
not an Illuminati criminal, he said, just someone concerned about how belief in conspiracies can corrode belief in science, producing situations where otherwise sensible people refuse to vaccinate their children or choose “alternative” cancer therapies over lifesaving mainstream treatments
and, on NASA
The fakery would have had to have existed throughout the organisation.
er, yes?
felixfelix is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:40 PM.

Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.