David Icke prophetic interview in 1998 - nearly everything he said has happened

a reply to: nonspecific

Thank you for a kind and well reasoned comment.

a reply to: DannyTorrance

For a very long time the propaganda behemoth has demonized those with alternative views on what the main stream media promulgates and David Icke is the text book example of being on the receiving end of that demonization.

David Icke is a brilliant speaker who has, and continues, to pwn the propaganda behemoth.

Maybe he is a reptilian and a whistleblower......

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

It's obviously used against fear, but my point is rarely in comparison for laughter while happy. Not sure what area you live in, but it would really suck to live somewhere that more laughter came out of fear than happiness.

Honestly the view sounds a bit schizoid, where people don't pick up the underlying cue and view things negatively. Laughter out of fear is universal in people yet far from "very common" compared to laughter from happiness. I don't know what kind of warped sense someone would need to think this differently.

To say people in packs laugh out of fear is simply not correct. I'm in no way saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying the statement is dumb and too encompassing to be remotely realistic. People laugh for many reasons, fear being one of them, but it's certainly not the only reason or major one.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

The poster is saying the defence mechanism of laughter is common. Which it is.

Google some stuff and see the poster is really on to a great point!

a reply to: and14263

I'm in complete awe how many people are arguing a point out of context repeatedly.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: and14263

I'm in complete awe how many people are arguing a point out of context repeatedly.

OK sorry, I've obviously missed a point or something in this thread.

Keep up the good contributions to the forum

a reply to: nonspecific

Exactly what I was thinking. I think you're right - it's cool to bash him, kind of makes you aloof in the conspiracy world.

a reply to: and14263

I made a thread about it about a year or so ago asking his skeptics the question how many times does he have to be proved right before they change there opinion.

Most of his detractors just banged on about reptillians and called him a looney looking for cheap stars but few if any gave him any creedence for anything he predicted.

There are far to many conspiracy hipsters these days and I struggle to keep up with what's hot and what's not.

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: DannyTorrance
I don't know what to make of that guy but he seems to be passionate about what he speaks. I speculate that the moon is hollow (it rings like a bell) and that it was the vessel that brought a lot of our water to this world.

The steel anvil used by blacksmiths is solid, never heard one being used to hammer hot steel? the anvil rings like a bell too.

Something else, if the moon is hollow, why have the really large impacts not gone through into the hollow interior? Plus if the moon was hollow, its gravity would not have such a huge effect on the oceans tides.

a reply to: pikestaff

The steel anvil used by blacksmiths is solid, never heard one being used to hammer hot steel? the anvil rings like a bell too.

Thank you, yes, I own an anvil. Surely you don't suggest that it "has" to be solid? I'm not sure that a space probe hitting a moon has sufficient energy to make a massive solid body ring for days, or is it hours?

Besides, how can an impact crater the size of a city, be what seems to be the same depth as a crater the size of 3 states??

a reply to: DannyTorrance

You've gotta give the man some credit; he's been steadfast in his beliefs.

However it doesn't take an Oxford scholar to decipher what was obvious to millions of people.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: and14263

Bashing Icke has been trendy for far too long now in my opinion, It seems like your not cool unless you laugh and mention the reptiles regardless of what other aspect of is research is being discussed.

It's asking quite a bit to expect people to disregard the reptile claims and take him seriously on other subjects.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I agree with you to a certain extent. I mean nobody laughs when they are being terrorised. The fear I speak of is light fear like the thought that our current paradigm is a very well concocted lie. I'm in the UK btw.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Do the elite act human to you? They always act the totally opposite in everything I've witnessed. There is no compassion, they act as cold as you like and seem very wary of us humans.

They act very human, they succumb to the same emotional fallacies as everyone else. The only difference is that they tend to take a macro view of the world while the ordinary person takes a micro view so they see completely different things.

Birds and humans have similar brain wiring

www.sciencedaily.com...

This guy is crazy. If you want real information look up Phil Schneider and Bill Cooper on Google. They are both dead now (suspected murdered by authorities), but we should not forget them.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

I don't think he is crazy but I do agree those men were both silences, Schneider in particular had some very interesting tales to tell, I belive him even though some of his story's seemed unbelievable at the time, why would they kill him unless he was a danger to someone powerful?.

A lot of what he said would meld very nicely with Icke's claim's.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.ufodigest.com...
youtu.be...

a reply to: DelMarvel

So does someone have to be right about everything in order to be taken seriously then? There are a lot of people who have made unfounded claims about lots of things over the years, you would have to discredit pretty much everybody on that basis.

a reply to: nonspecific

Depends I guess on the claims. If you fire a scattergun in all directions as some do (Icke included) then you are bound to hit something.

If you are making a specific single claim with some evidence but then turn out to be wrong future credibility depends on how you react (the Roswell slides come to mind).

However I suppose you can become an "expert" in any field and therefore be taken seriously partially by passing exams with rates of 60 / 65%. Maybe I should then be a bit laxer in my views of these false prohets.