Greetings all! My virgin post...

[Arouet]

It's easy to say that mystics experience parallel universes but how do you test it? We know, from hooking up monks to fMRIs while meditating that they can get into a state where they shut down activity to the part of the brain that makes you feel connected to your body, hence the feeling of being at one with the universe. What reason do we have to believe these mystics are experiencing anything other than a pretty cool and awesome production of the brain? Serious question: how can we tell the difference? I'm not questioning that they are experiencing something: I'm asking about what methods we can use to verify what the reality is of the experience.

As for entanglement: from what I understand, physicists do not believe that it is possible to transfer information through entanglement: do you have knowledge otherwise?

Is there a single piece of credible evidence supporting the existence of these reptilians? Or the fact that they feed off human emotion? Really? Human emotion? Icke calls it low vibration? What does that even mean? Why can't these incredibly sophisticated reptillians figure out a way to produce low energy vibrations in much more efficient ways? It makes very little sense.

And can you honestly tell me that you don't find Icke terribly manipulative in his presentations? Appealing to fear and emotion all over the place. Offering bubble-gum psychology and conspiracy theory. These evil reptilians are behind all the evil in the world and feeding off our emotions but all we have to do is love one another and they get defeated? These guys control time and space and our political system and yet don't do anything to prevent Icke from unveiling their dastardly plan for the world? Over and over again?

Just because there are parrallel universes (maybe) does that entail a mechanism for jumping between them? I mean, there are ostensibly and infinite number of them, right? Are the lizard people controlling all of them? Or just ours. Seems to be a big project.

Do you really think its fear of ridicule that stops scientists from supporting his theories? Or is it the complete lack of evidence. And please don't tell me that the fact that some ancient civilizations worshiped reptiles is evidence of this. All sorts or animals have been worshiped over the centuries. What about all the belief systems out there that had nothing to do with reptiles?

I'm ranting a bit, because I still don't see why Icke should be given even the slightest bit of credibility. You don't need to give me 400 pages, but can you give even a couple reasons for why he is likely right on all his stuff?

[The_Grand_Illusion]

It's easy to say that mystics experience parallel universes but how do you test it? We know, from hooking up monks to fMRIs while meditating that they can get into a state where they shut down activity to the part of the brain that makes you feel connected to your body, hence the feeling of being at one with the universe. What reason do we have to believe these mystics are experiencing anything other than a pretty cool and awesome production of the brain? Serious question: how can we tell the difference? I'm not questioning that they are experiencing something: I'm asking about what methods we can use to verify what the reality is of the experience.

As for entanglement: from what I understand, physicists do not believe that it is possible to transfer information through entanglement: do you have knowledge otherwise?

Is there a single piece of credible evidence supporting the existence of these reptilians? Or the fact that they feed off human emotion? Really? Human emotion? Icke calls it low vibration? What does that even mean? Why can't these incredibly sophisticated reptillians figure out a way to produce low energy vibrations in much more efficient ways? It makes very little sense.

And can you honestly tell me that you don't find Icke terribly manipulative in his presentations? Appealing to fear and emotion all over the place. Offering bubble-gum psychology and conspiracy theory. These evil reptilians are behind all the evil in the world and feeding off our emotions but all we have to do is love one another and they get defeated? These guys control time and space and our political system and yet don't do anything to prevent Icke from unveiling their dastardly plan for the world? Over and over again?

Just because there are parrallel universes (maybe) does that entail a mechanism for jumping between them? I mean, there are ostensibly and infinite number of them, right? Are the lizard people controlling all of them? Or just ours. Seems to be a big project.

Do you really think its fear of ridicule that stops scientists from supporting his theories? Or is it the complete lack of evidence. And please don't tell me that the fact that some ancient civilizations worshiped reptiles is evidence of this. All sorts or animals have been worshiped over the centuries. What about all the belief systems out there that had nothing to do with reptiles?

I'm ranting a bit, because I still don't see why Icke should be given even the slightest bit of credibility. You don't need to give me 400 pages, but can you give even a couple reasons for why he is likely right on all his stuff?

Re: your first Q, I understand what you mean and it's a valid point. Strictly speaking, there's no hard, objective way to tell the difference from the outside looking in. The mystical experience has to be viewed in a larger context, including data from remote viewing, out of body research, near-death research, etc, and then ppl can see that consciousness is quite clearly not an epiphenomenon, lending some credibility to the mystic's assertions. OR, you can hope to have such an experience yourself, at which point you will have access to a knowing that makes all other attempts at proof redundant (relatively few are so lucky).

Re: entanglement and info transfer. At bare minumum (and just off the top of my head), brainwaves can be nonlocally entrained, that has been demonstrated multiple times and acknowledged by some physicists who are aware of the fact. Dreams can be influenced nonlocally too, that's been shown many, many times. This info is easily available around the place (See Radin or Goswami for isntance). The Russians also found that they COULD telepathically transfer data, and that a third party could even "hack" the transfer and mess with it. (See Rifat, Remote Viewing, Marrs PSI Spies, etc.) All of this is entanglement in action, so to speak.

Regarding the REST of your post... *grin* ...it IS definitely crossing into emotionally inspired rant territory which tells me I probably should suggest leaving those topics alone, BUT, I'll suggest a few things very briefly so as not to be rude.

Evidence of reptilians: it depends on how you define "credible". Obviously they aren't exactly amenable to study in a lab. But there is loads of anecdotal evidence, as well as ancient material regarding the existence of such beings. Credo Mutwa verifies much of what Icke says, from the perspective of a Zulu Sanusi. I could go on and on, but the info is there, you just need to find it...(!)

Re: your second paragraph: only the first 2 sentences can be answered quickly without having to address multiple misconceptions. Short answer: no, I don't find him manipulative or see that he appeals to fear. Quite the opposite. I'd say he's broken through the fear barrier and is actually helping others do the same. If nothing else, he's giving many people who have been abused and tortured a voice and platform they would never have had. I applaud that. I mean, do you have ANY idea how utterly corrupt the judicial system is??

Re: scientists not supporting his ideas. In short, most scientists, even if they thought there WAS something to his material, probably would stay away from it. Not worth the shit they would bring on themselves by getting involved!! What about belief systems that have nothing to do with reptiles? Well, I'd say they're probably not highly relevant to a discussion on reptiles heheh Not being a smartarse here!

Look, I'm not advocating Icke here, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not asking you to believe anything he says, but maybe just to get a bit informed on what he IS saying if you want to have an informed opinion on it. Can I give you a couple of reasons on why he is likely right with EVERYTHING he says?? You don't want 400 pages (I could give you 2-3000), but one or two reasons? What kind of rationale are we using here? "I don't want to ACTUALLY know what he's talking about in any detail, but if you could just give me one or two reasons I can conveniently and easily rationalise away, that'd be great..." *chuckles

C'mon dude, clearly if all you want is one or two sentences about his work, then you are obviously NOT interested in it. And if you're not interested in it then presumably you've not done any research into it. And if you've not done that and aren't going to ("I don't want 400 pages"), then, logically speaking, why would anyone be interested in what you think of his stuff? You don't really even know what it's about or how diverse his sources are! I understand your objections, I do, but no meaningful discussion of a topic can take place if one party insists on being spoon-fed about a topic rather than doing the legwork themselves... Don't you think? Honestly, I'm not being a dick here, but it just seems we have reached an impasse. If you're not really interested in learning about it, it's cool, I couldn't care less--but at least let's be honest about it???

[Arouet]

Re: your first Q, I understand what you mean and it's a valid point. Strictly speaking, there's no hard, objective way to tell the difference from the outside looking in. The mystical experience has to be viewed in a larger context, including data from remote viewing, out of body research, near-death research, etc, and then ppl can see that consciousness is quite clearly not an epiphenomenon, lending some credibility to the mystic's assertions. OR, you can hope to have such an experience yourself, at which point you will have access to a knowing that makes all other attempts at proof redundant (relatively few are so lucky).

From what I've seen the data out there is interesting, but far from conclusive (or even highly probative) at this time. But there is progress being made. The AWARE study should be coming out next year on NDEs, could have some interesting results. I'm not aware of any good studies on simply OBE's, do you have any links to any good studies: particularly one where they show to a high degree of confidence, that someone was able to get veridical information that they otherwise shouldn't have?

I can think of a very simple experiment which, provided it was properly overseen, would give pretty good proof. You have the OBEr in one room. A person with a computer in another room, perhaps even on a different floor. The computer has a bunch of images stored on it. When the OBEr annouces their ready, the person with the computer presses a button, and an image is randomly selected. The OBEr simply has to go look at the image on the screen and report back. If properly overseen and replicated, I would find that pretty convincing. No complex stat manipulation, just go look at the picture, and tell us what it is.

Re: entanglement and info transfer. At bare minumum (and just off the top of my head), brainwaves can be nonlocally entrained, that has been demonstrated multiple times and acknowledged by some physicists who are aware of the fact. Dreams can be influenced nonlocally too, that's been shown many, many times. This info is easily available around the place (See Radin or Goswami for isntance). The Russians also found that they COULD telepathically transfer data, and that a third party could even "hack" the transfer and mess with it. (See Rifat, Remote Viewing, Marrs PSI Spies, etc.) All of this is entanglement in action, so to speak.

I'm talking about quantum entanglement, which I see many proponents invoke, and from what I understand from physiscists I've spoken to, misuse That's not to say that they may not at some point determine that quantum entanglement can convey info, but from what i understand, the scientists do not believe it does so currently.

Regarding the REST of your post... *grin* ...it IS definitely crossing into emotionally inspired rant territory which tells me I probably should suggest leaving those topics alone, BUT, I'll suggest a few things very briefly so as not to be rude.

I don't think I would go that far, although my language was mildly provocative- not emotionally illogical though I hope!

Evidence of reptilians: it depends on how you define "credible". Obviously they aren't exactly amenable to study in a lab. But there is loads of anecdotal evidence, as well as ancient material regarding the existence of such beings. Credo Mutwa verifies much of what Icke says, from the perspective of a Zulu Sanusi. I could go on and on, but the info is there, you just need to find it...(!)

I don't know Credo, but I'll thumb through their joint work if I can dig it up. But ancient mythology? i don't consider that all that convincing.

Re: your second paragraph: only the first 2 sentences can be answered quickly without having to address multiple misconceptions. Short answer: no, I don't find him manipulative or see that he appeals to fear. Quite the opposite. I'd say he's broken through the fear barrier and is actually helping others do the same. If nothing else, he's giving many people who have been abused and tortured a voice and platform they would never have had. I applaud that. I mean, do you have ANY idea how utterly corrupt the judicial system is??

If I feel like it and find the time, i will pull out some choice bits from Icke that show what I mean by fearmongering and emotional manipulation. I found his talk permeated with it.

Re: scientists not supporting his ideas. In short, most scientists, even if they thought there WAS something to his material, probably would stay away from it. Not worth the shit they would bring on themselves by getting involved!! What about belief systems that have nothing to do with reptiles? Well, I'd say they're probably not highly relevant to a discussion on reptiles heheh Not being a smartarse here!

Scientists throughout the centuries have defined conventional beliefs and changed worldviews. If there is good solid evidence behind a concept, it will find a way to come out. But I hear your point about scientists not wanting to get invovled. However, its a bit of a catch-22. Icke makes numerous highly scientific claims with, from what I've seen, very little scientific backing. So what are we to do with his position? If it hasn't been reviewed by experts, are we just going to accept it anyway? The concepts Icke talks about are incredibly complex. Icke, quite frankly, doesn't have the necessary background to understand high concept physics. Most of us don't!

Again: catch-22: there may be good reasons for why scientists don't get involved: either they don't believe it (most likely) or do believe it but won't talk about it. The upshot for us is the same: why should we believe something so incredible without very strong evidence?

As for other belief systems: of course they are relevant, if Icke is using ancient reptillian based mythology as evidence of truth, then what do we do with all the other 1000s of mythologies out there that have nothing to do with reptiles. It's cherry picking.

Look, I'm not advocating Icke here, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not asking you to believe anything he says, but maybe just to get a bit informed on what he IS saying if you want to have an informed opinion on it. Can I give you a couple of reasons on why he is likely right with EVERYTHING he says?? You don't want 400 pages (I could give you 2-3000), but one or two reasons? What kind of rationale are we using here? "I don't want to ACTUALLY know what he's talking about in any detail, but if you could just give me one or two reasons I can conveniently and easily rationalise away, that'd be great..." *chuckles

C'mon dude, clearly if all you want is one or two sentences about his work, then you are obviously NOT interested in it. And if you're not interested in it then presumably you've not done any research into it. And if you've not done that and aren't going to ("I don't want 400 pages"), then, logically speaking, why would anyone be interested in what you think of his stuff? You don't really even know what it's about or how diverse his sources are! I understand your objections, I do, but no meaningful discussion of a topic can take place if one party insists on being spoon-fed about a topic rather than doing the legwork themselves... Don't you think? Honestly, I'm not being a dick here, but it just seems we have reached an impasse. If you're not really interested in learning about it, it's cool, I couldn't care less--but at least let's be honest about it???

I said I didn't need 400 pages because in another post you told me that you would need to basically write 400 pages (maybe it was another number, or maybe you just said would have to write a book) to explain it all. What I was asking for was a couple specific examples for why Icke is worth the time to research in detail. There are a lot of people out there with rather wacky ideas. It is not worthwhile time to research them all. I was asking for a couple specific examples of why Icke should be considered credible and worth the time.

I downloaded some of his stuff. The first article I read? Icke claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS. Really? With the plethora of evidence out there? The mountains of evidence? It's smells of crackpot, doesn't it? Icke suggests conspiracy on the vast scale, involving 1000s (10s of thousands? 100s of 1000s?) of people currently and over the years. He talks about bloodlines, going back centuries which would involve vast numbers of people at this point! As you know, conspiracies work best when dealing with small numbers of people. The numbers Icke talks about would crumble very fast.

I'll leaf through some more of his stuff, but again: does he have any, really credible, sufficiently evidenced positions?

[Eteponge]

People are STILL bringing up the looong debunked "Satanic Ritual Abuse" craze of the 1980s? Time for education ...

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

Significant Highlights ...

Satanic ritual abuse (SRA, sometimes known as ritual abuse, ritualistic abuse, organised abuse, sadistic ritual abuse and other variants) refers to a moral panic that originated in the United States in the 1980s, spreading throughout the country and eventually to many parts of the world, before subsiding in the late 1990s. Allegations of SRA involved reports of physical and sexual abuse of individuals in the context of occult or Satanic rituals. At its most extreme definition, SRA involved a worldwide conspiracy involving the wealthy and powerful of the world elite in which children were abducted or bred for sacrifices, pornography and prostitution.

The panic was based on reports from children and adults using therapeutic and questioning techniques now considered illegitimate, with initial publicity generated by the discredited autobiography Michelle Remembers, and sustained and popularized by the McMartin preschool trial. Testimonials, symptom lists, rumors and techniques to investigate or uncover memories of SRA were disseminated through professional, popular and religious conferences, as well as through the attention of talk shows, sustaining and spreading the moral panic further throughout the United States and beyond. In some cases allegations resulted in criminal trials with varying results; after seven years in court, the McMartin trial resulted in no convictions for any of the accused, while other cases resulted in lengthy sentences. Scholarly interest in the topic slowly built, eventually resulting in the conclusion that the phenomenon was a moral panic. Official investigations produced no evidence of conspiracies or the slaughter of thousands of babies and children in bloody sacrifices. In the latter half of the 1990s interest in SRA declined and skepticism became the default position, with only a minority of believers giving any credence to the existence of SRA.

The underpinnings for the contemporary moral panic were found in a rise of five factors in the years leading up to the 1980s: The establishment of Fundamentalist Christianity and political organization of the Moral Majority; the rise of the Anti-cult movement which spread ideas of abusive cults kidnapping and brainwashing children and teens; the appearance of the Church of Satan and other explicitly Satanist groups that added a kernel of truth to the existence of Satanic cults; the appearance of the child abuse industry and a group of professionals dedicated to the protection of children; and the popularization of posttraumatic stress disorder, repressed memory and corresponding survivor movement.

Michelle Remembers and the McMartin preschool trial:

In 1980 the book, Michelle Remembers, written by Michelle Smith and husband/psychiatrist Lawrence Pazder, was published. The book, now discredited, was written as an autobiography and was the first known claim linking the abuse of children with Satanic rituals. (Pazder was also the individual responsible for coining the term "ritual abuse"). It provided a model for allegations of SRA that followed.

Michelle Remembers, along with others portrayed as survivor stories, are suspected to have influenced later allegations of SRA. And some have argued the book was a causal factor in the later epidemic of SRA allegations.

Despite the lack of evidence and inconsistencies surrounding the allegations made in Michelle Remembers, there are still people who believe that Smith’s claims of abuse are the literal truth and that there is a vast, yet secretive worldwide conspiracy of intergenerational satanic worshipers abusing and murdering children and adults.

The book's contents have been unsubstantiated by any evidence beyond Smith's testimony. Despite this, the book inspired copy-cat accusations throughout the world, against in many cases members of the Church of Satan, non-satanic occultists, and others with no connection to the occult.

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

In 1983 charges were laid in the McMartin preschool trial, a major case in California, which received attention throughout the United States, and contained allegations of Satanic ritual abuse. The case caused tremendous polarization in how to interpret the evidence that was available, and shortly after more than 100 preschools across the country had similar sensationalist allegations eagerly and uncritically reported by the press. Throughout the trial the media coverage against the defendants (Peggy McMartin and Ray Buckey) was unrelentingly negative, focusing only on statements by the prosecution and continuing throughout the trial. Smith and other alleged survivors met with parents involved in the trial, and it is believed that they influenced testimony against the accused.

Kee MacFarlane, a social worker employed by the Children's Institute International, developed a new way to interrogate children with anatomically correct dolls and tested their use in assisting disclosures of abuse with the McMartin children. After asking the children to point to on the dolls the places they had allegedly been touched and asking leading questions, she diagnosed sexual abuse in virtually all McMartin children, and coerced disclosures using lengthy interviews which rewarded discussions of abuse and punished denials; testimony during the trial was often contradictory and vague on all details except for the assertion that the abuse had occurred. Though the initial charges featured allegations of Satanic abuse and a vast conspiracy, these features were dropped relatively early in the trial and prosecution continued only for non-ritual allegations of child abuse against only two individuals. After three years of testimony, McMartin and Buckey were acquitted on 52 of 65 counts, and the jury was deadlocked on the remaining 13 charges against Buckey, with 11 of 13 jurors choosing not guilty. Buckey was re-charged and two years later released without conviction.

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

This is the bizarre, nonsensical mess that was reported by these children during this trail ...

Some of the accusations were described as "bizarre", overlapping with accusations that mirrored the just-starting satanic ritual abuse panic. It was alleged that, in addition to having been sexually abused, they saw witches fly, traveled in a hot-air balloon, and were taken through underground tunnels. When shown a series of photographs by Danny Davis, the McMartins' lawyer, one child identified actor Chuck Norris as one of the abusers.

Some of the abuse was alleged to have occurred in secret tunnels beneath the school. Several investigations turned up evidence of old buildings on the site and other debris from before the school was built, but no evidence of any secret chambers was found. There were claims of orgies at car washes and airports, and of children being flushed down toilets to secret rooms where they would be abused, then cleaned up and presented back to their unsuspecting parents. Some children said they were made to play a game called "Naked Movie Star" in which they were photographed nude. During the trial, testimony from the children stated that the naked movie star game was actually a rhyming taunt used to tease other children -- "What you say is what you are, you're a naked movie star," -- and had nothing to do with having naked pictures taken.

Johnson, who made the initial allegations, made bizarre and impossible statements about Raymond Buckey, including that he could fly. Though the prosecution asserted Johnson's mental illness was caused by the events of the trial, Johnson had admitted to them that she was mentally ill beforehand. Evidence of Johnson's mental illness was withheld from the defense for three years, and when provided were in the form of sanitized reports that excluded Johnson's statements, at the order of the prosecution. One of the original prosecutors, Glenn Stevens, left the case and stated that other prosecutors had withheld evidence from the defense, including the information that Johnson's son was unable to identify Ray Buckey in a series of photographs. Stevens also accused Robert Philibosian, the deputy district attorney on the case, of lying and withholding evidence from the court and defense lawyers in order to keep the Buckeys in jail and prevent access to exonerating evidence.

Religious roots and secularization:

Initial accusations were made in the context of the rising political power of conservative Christianity within the United States, and religious fundamentalists were enthusiastic in promoting rumors of SRA. Psychotherapists who were actively Christian began advocating for the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder (DID) and soon after accounts similar to Michelle Remembers began to appear, with some therapists believing the alters of some patients were the result of demonic possession. Protestantism was instrumental in starting, spreading and maintaining rumours through sermons about the dangers of SRA, lectures by purported experts and prayer sessions, including showings of the 1987 Geraldo Rivera television special. Secular proponents began to appear, and child protection workers became significantly involved. Law enforcement trainers, many themselves strongly religious, became strong promoters of the reality of the claims and became self-described "experts" on the topic. Their involvement in child sexual abuse cases produced more allegations of SRA, adding credibility to phenomenon. As the explanations for SRA were distanced from evangelical Christianity and into the realm of "survivor" groups, the motivations ascribed to purported Satanists shifted from combating a religious nemesis to mind control and abuse as an end to itself. Clinicians, psychotherapists and social workers documented clients alleging histories of SRA though the claims of therapists were unsubstantiated beyond the testimonies of their clients.

And from all of this silliness, you get the Satanic Ritual Abuse scare. Brains are good, let's learn to use them people.

[Eteponge]

As for David Icke, I'm sorry, but if someone claims that the Queen of England is a Reptilian Shapeshifting MIB Disinfo Alien from Zeta Reticuli, I'm gonna have to seriously question his claims, requiring needing actual solid evidence to support it.

Most of his information is of a conspiratorial nature, where he claims to have "heard this and heard that from various people and sources" and to have "seen this and seen that" and to have been "shown this and shown that", BUT, if there is no solid evidence (not suggestive subjective conjecture, but solid evidence) of these wild claims of world leaders being shapeshifting reptilians, then the sky is the limit, you can believe anything.

Believers will claim that it is all covered up so well by the illuminati or whomever and that is the reason no evidence can be found, so we "just gotta believe!" Skeptics will claim there is no evidence simply because it IS bullshit, and that to believe it "just cause you gotta believe!" is to basically say the sky is the limit, you can believe anything outlandish just because "it's covered up!"

With conspiracies in particular, there are some which have very interesting suggestive evidence in favor of them, and that's fascinating to me. Such as JFK, and Maryilyn Monroe, those to me are believable conspiracies, with some reasonable suggestive evidence in favor. BUT, the whole "all world leaders are illuminati reptilian shapeshifting MIB Disinfo Aliens from zeta reticuli!" thing, you gotta ask for solid evidence for a claim like that.

It's like the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria. Lots of claims, lots of dubious witnesses eventually discredited and exposed as frauds, and NO DOCUMENTED CASES that actually support it. The origins being a discredited book, a pre-school trail later discredited, and fundamentalist christian hysteria. I mean, sure, there have been teenage cultists using devil symbols who have been hopped up on drugs and killed people and put pentagrams on them. There are isolated types of incidents like that. But claiming a global satanic conspiracy where the pope and all polititians are abusing kids in front of satanic altars, is just "out there".

[Scepcop]

Eteponge,
Why are you using Wikipedia as a source? Wikipedia is ALWAYS in favor of the official version of everything. It is against all forms of paranormal and conspiracy claims. Not the most objective and unbiased source.

You can't base all your beliefs on what Wikipedia claims.

Have you looked into the witnesses like Cathy O'Brien and Arizona Wilder? They are very sincere witnesses. Listen to their testimonies on YouTube. They claim to have experienced the Satanic ritual abuse of the elite and seem very sincere.

David Icke has NEVER EVER said "You just gotta believe!" NEVER!

If you think that, then you've never listened to him. Where did you get that straw man?

How many times do I have to tell everyone, if you only listen to what others say about David Icke, you will think he is nuts. But if you listen to David Icke himself for a few hours in his best lectures, you will think he is one of the most brilliant people in the world (even if he's not right about everything). I can promise you that. I'm tired of repeating this.

The problem is, you dimiss him without listening to his information. The more you listen to him, the more respect and admiration you will have for him. You obviously have NOT Eteponge, otherwise you wouldn't say that Icke says "You just gotta believe." Icke NEVER says that. He always says that you should NOT believe what you hear, even from him, and instead check it out and think for yourself.

You see how already you have misinformation about him that is in error?

Icke is not the only one about the Reptilian thing. Many other researchers come to the same conclusion. Jordan Maxwell did too, but he doesn't like to talk about it much cause he knows it invites ridicule.

But Eteponge, how can you know 100 percent for sure that the reptilian thing isn't true? You can't know for sure can you?

Anyway, listen to Icke's lecture at Oxford here, Eteponge, for two hours.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 106638208#

After this, you will NOT think he is nuts anymore. But you gotta listen to it, not make excuses and listen to wikipedia's shit. Wikipedia is 100 percent pro-establishment and 100 percent pro-official version of everything.

[Arouet]

But Eteponge, how can you know 100 percent for sure that the reptilian thing isn't true? You can't know for sure can you?

Outside of mathematics, there is no such thing as 100% certainty of ANYTHING. But a skeptic doesn't go around saying: since we can't know 100% we're just going to accept it. We're looking for reliable evidence.

Icke, in that 6 hour lecture you linked, did indeed say a few times: don't take my word for it, look it up. IIRC he did so only when he had actually put forward a verifiable fact.

Scepcop, I'm downloading the oxford lecture now and will listen to it. I'll try and provide some comments as well. But can you please tell us what you find convincing in the lecture? Do you think that Icke has made the case for the reptilians to a high degree of confidence? Do you believe in the reptilians? Why or why not?

[Scepcop]

Btw Eteponge,
Even if David Icke is wrong about the reptilian thing, there are still many important things that he is definitely right about. If you listen to him, you will see. I'd say that at least half of what he says is true.

The only people who think he's nuts are people who have never really listened to him for long. Remember you can't base your opinion off of one article on wikipedia and dismiss him. You gotta dig deeper. That's how truth works. I'm sure you know that. Same with UFO's.

He connects a lot of dots other people don't. When he opens your mind, you will be in awe.

Anyway, here is a short summary video of Annunaki and Reptilian history that shows the reptile/dragon/annunaki/serpent myth of creation in many ancient cultures all around the world. It connects some dots spanning across history.



It may be right or it may not be right. But it's just something to consider. Don't reject it outright just because it's different from your own paradigm of reality.

[really?]

Btw Eteponge,
Even if David Icke is wrong about the reptilian thing, there are still many important things that he is definitely right about. If you listen to him, you will see. I'd say that at least half of what he says is true.

The only people who think he's nuts are people who have never really listened to him for long. Remember you can't base your opinion off of one article on wikipedia and dismiss him. You gotta dig deeper. That's how truth works. I'm sure you know that. Same with UFO's.

He connects a lot of dots other people don't. When he opens your mind, you will be in awe.

Anyway, here is a short summary video of Annunaki and Reptilian history that shows the reptile/dragon/annunaki/serpent myth of creation in many ancient cultures all around the world. It connects some dots spanning across history.



It may be right or it may not be right. But it's just something to consider. Don't reject it outright just because it's different from your own paradigm of reality.

Here's another very plausible reason based on science evidence that might explain why reptiles were prominent in many different cultures in later human history. It could be hypothesized that do to the very small size of the human population throughout prehistory ideas were likely to be shared by all humans. I cite these to articles as evidence for that hypothesis.
(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City in the U.S. have calculated that 1.2 million years ago, at a time when our ancestors were spreading through Africa, Europe and Asia, there were probably only around 18,500 individuals capable of breeding (and no more than 26,000). This made them an endangered species with a smaller population than today’s species such as gorillas (approximately 25,000 breeding individuals) and chimpanzees (an estimated 21,000). They remained an endangered species for around one million years.

Modern humans are known to have less genetic variation than other living primates, even though our current population is many orders of magnitude greater. Researchers studying specific genetic lineages have proposed a number of explanations for this, such as recent "bottlenecks", which are events in which a significant proportion of the population is killed or prevented from reproducing. One such event was the Toba super-volcano in Indonesia that erupted around 70,000 years ago, triggering a nuclear winter. Only an estimated 15,000 humans are thought to have survived. Another explanation is that the numbers of humans and our ancestors were chronically low throughout the last two million years, sometimes with only 10,000 breeding individuals surviving. http://www.physorg.com/news183278038.html

Mobile elements reveal small population size in the ancient ancestors of Homo sapiens

Remarkably, the information in just two human DNA sequences provides substantial information about ancient human population size. By comparing the likelihood of various demographic models, we estimate that the effective population size of human ancestors living before 1.2 million years ago was 18,500, and we can reject all models where the ancient effective population size was larger than 26,000. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/5/2147

Side note. This ritual appears to coincide with the eruption of Toba

World’s oldest ritual discovered. Worshipped the python 70,000 years ago

A new archaeological find in Botswana shows that our ancestors in Africa engaged in ritual practice 70,000 years ago — 30,000 years earlier than the oldest finds in Europe. This sensational discovery strengthens Africa’s position as the cradle of modern man. http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/2006_ ... on_english

[really?]

Eteponge,
Why are you using Wikipedia as a source? Wikipedia is ALWAYS in favor of the official version of everything. It is against all forms of paranormal and conspiracy claims. Not the most objective and unbiased source.

You do know that Wikipedia allows anyone to post information on a topic and it allows anyone to edit that information if there's a need too. If you don't like what you read on Wikipedia then post the correct info or edit a topic.
Do you realize that you are saying every Tom, Dick and Mary and her cousin Larry out there is part of the conspiracy ? That strikes me as being a teensy bit alarmist.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

From what I've seen the data out there is interesting, but far from conclusive (or even highly probative) at this time. But there is progress being made. The AWARE study should be coming out next year on NDEs, could have some interesting results. I'm not aware of any good studies on simply OBE's, do you have any links to any good studies: particularly one where they show to a high degree of confidence, that someone was able to get veridical information that they otherwise shouldn't have?

I can think of a very simple experiment which, provided it was properly overseen, would give pretty good proof. You have the OBEr in one room. A person with a computer in another room, perhaps even on a different floor. The computer has a bunch of images stored on it. When the OBEr annouces their ready, the person with the computer presses a button, and an image is randomly selected. The OBEr simply has to go look at the image on the screen and report back. If properly overseen and replicated, I would find that pretty convincing. No complex stat manipulation, just go look at the picture, and tell us what it is.

I like your idea here Arouet. It's elegant and could work. The catch with OBEs and NDes is that the mind tends to be overwhelmed by its new perspective and sometimes seems to lack control over itself. The last thought the average person will have if they get OB is "how can I attain convincing evidence for the sceptic?" A government-paid remote viewer once said: "When you can go out and see the universe, who wants to go look at a Russian submarine?" To the ill-informed that will sound like a copout, but it's a factor to consider. There was an OB experiment done where the wired-up participant successfully read numbers on a paper which she had no physical access to, but it took several tries before she had sufficient control over her OB state to reach the target! On NDEs:

Pam Reynolds is one NDEer studied rigorously by Sabom. She was actually induced into a NDE through a medical procedure called a hypothermic cardiac arrest in which her temperature was lowered to sixty degrees (f), and her heartbeat, brainwaves and breathing were all erased, in order for surgery to be performed on a large aneurysm in her brain. Measures were made to ensure that Reynolds would be unable to perceive any aspect of the procedure through the physical visual and auditory channels. Following surgery, she related details about the procedure that proved to be accurate, including observing that only half of her head had been shaved off for the surgery, and that a doctor cut open her head with an electric toothbrush-like device. She was also able to recall the female voice of Dr. Murray noting aloud that Reynolds’ blood vessels were small—too small for the pump they had planned to use to re-route her blood through a femoral artery. Reynolds had not only continued to experience consciousness beyond the physical senses, but she had accurately perceived and remembered the procedure performed on her while she was effectively brain dead. She commented afterwards, “It was the most aware that I think I have ever been.” She had left her body, travelled the oft-mentioned tunnel with the light, and met her deceased grandmother.

I'm talking about quantum entanglement, which I see many proponents invoke, and from what I understand from physiscists I've spoken to, misuse That's not to say that they may not at some point determine that quantum entanglement can convey info, but from what i understand, the scientists do not believe it does so currently.

Those scientists tend not to be very aware of telepathy and entanglement studies in my estimation. Ask Goswami for his opinion and see what he says about neurological entanglement... The point here might be that macro systems do evince nonlocal correlations; the effect isn't just limited to the quantum scale in, say, twin photon experiments.

If I feel like it and find the time, i will pull out some choice bits from Icke that show what I mean by fearmongering and emotional manipulation. I found his talk permeated with it.

I wouldn't worry about it since I don't find that he appeals to fear at all--it's all a matter of perception on this one, but if you're really keen, go for it(!)

Scientists throughout the centuries have defined conventional beliefs and changed worldviews. If there is good solid evidence behind a concept, it will find a way to come out. But I hear your point about scientists not wanting to get invovled. However, its a bit of a catch-22. Icke makes numerous highly scientific claims with, from what I've seen, very little scientific backing. So what are we to do with his position? If it hasn't been reviewed by experts, are we just going to accept it anyway? The concepts Icke talks about are incredibly complex. Icke, quite frankly, doesn't have the necessary background to understand high concept physics. Most of us don't!

Again: catch-22: there may be good reasons for why scientists don't get involved: either they don't believe it (most likely) or do believe it but won't talk about it. The upshot for us is the same: why should we believe something so incredible without very strong evidence?

I think there's a lot of scientific conceptual backing behind a lot of what he says at the very least. As for believing without very strong evidence, I'm not advocating belief in reptilians, so I would say people should keep an open mind, avoid the tendency to dis/believe and use their minds to explore...

As for other belief systems: of course they are relevant, if Icke is using ancient reptillian based mythology as evidence of truth, then what do we do with all the other 1000s of mythologies out there that have nothing to do with reptiles. It's cherry picking.

It's not necessarily cherry picking, at least not necessarily in a disingenuous way. If you're talking about reptilians then you're going to look for meaningful correlations. Other mythlogies/legends/traditions that don't relate to it meaningfully are just not going to be relevant. After all, a culture that DOESN'T mention such beings doesn't constitute evidence against the concept, does it? An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... Anyway, there seems to be some compelling material around, not least from Credo Mutwa, so see what you make of it. Icke stumbled upon Mutwa well after he began putting this stuff out there and found that the Zulu legends (which are not intended allegorically) supported it in surprising ways.

I said I didn't need 400 pages because in another post you told me that you would need to basically write 400 pages (maybe it was another number, or maybe you just said would have to write a book) to explain it all. What I was asking for was a couple specific examples for why Icke is worth the time to research in detail. There are a lot of people out there with rather wacky ideas. It is not worthwhile time to research them all. I was asking for a couple specific examples of why Icke should be considered credible and worth the time.

Ok, it's hard to go off the top of my head, especially since I've not being looking at his material much lately. 2 examples to justify further inquiry... Hmm!
Put it this way, it's hard to single out just two things because it's all connected. I'd say he's done a lot to expose highly malicious conspiratorial activity within and around/behind politics. He was the first author to show me that the facade the mainstream media presents us with regarding "freedom of choice", democracy, etc, etc, is basically a complete load of shit. So that's one large area right there (it really is a load of shit). He's also done a good job of exposing the thoroughly ludicrous (implausible is far too kind a word) version of 9/11 the political Establishment asks us to take on faith, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they're selling a lie to us. There's two. But I suspect you won't have the same problems that I have Re: 9/11 so that might not be a great example(!) It depends what your interests are and what you know about certain topics!

I downloaded some of his stuff. The first article I read? Icke claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS. Really? With the plethora of evidence out there? The mountains of evidence? It's smells of crackpot, doesn't it? Icke suggests conspiracy on the vast scale, involving 1000s (10s of thousands? 100s of 1000s?) of people currently and over the years. He talks about bloodlines, going back centuries which would involve vast numbers of people at this point! As you know, conspiracies work best when dealing with small numbers of people. The numbers Icke talks about would crumble very fast.

(AIDS notwithstanding...) It's funny you say that such a conspiracy would crumble very fast, because that's the very rationale that preserves even the most obvious conspiracies. As soon as someone decides a priori that such a "program" or agenda is too unlikely to be possible and therefore not worth investigating, they prevent themselves from ever finding out whether that might actually be the case! And so on the agenda rolls while they are blissfully unaware (if it's true that is).

I'll leaf through some more of his stuff, but again: does he have any, really credible, sufficiently evidenced positions?

Short answer is yes, he has plenty. Enough to take even his whackier concepts seriously (hey, even Alex Jones--who relies very heavily on the US gov's own documents--warmed to him in the end). The guy makes a lot of sense, even if you don't believe all of it (and I'm not suggesting that we have to). You'll find out as you go, although I'm betting you'll be too distracted by the stuff that either doesn't make sense to you or that you disagree with to recognise the accuracy of a lot of what he says. Just my opinion at this moment. Like I said before, personally I'd be suggesting OTHER material before suggesting Icke to you! If you grab one of his books, I'd be curious to know which one. (I recall Winston offering to send you some PDFs--I have some also.)

Cheers!

[Scepcop]

Eteponge,
Why are you using Wikipedia as a source? Wikipedia is ALWAYS in favor of the official version of everything. It is against all forms of paranormal and conspiracy claims. Not the most objective and unbiased source.

You do know that Wikipedia allows anyone to post information on a topic and it allows anyone to edit that information if there's a need too. If you don't like what you read on Wikipedia then post the correct info or edit a topic.
Do you realize that you are saying every Tom, Dick and Mary and her cousin Larry out there is part of the conspiracy ? That strikes me as being a teensy bit alarmist.

Bull. Try editing a wikipedia article to be more pro-paranormal. The "consensus" of pro-establishment editors on there will CHANGE your edit back to theirs, if they don't like it. Try it.

Are you that dense?!

No one is saying that everyone is part of the conspiracy. Only those at the top of the hierarchical pyramid in key influential positions are. My God. That is conspiracy 101. Why don't you ever learn?

[Scepcop]

I said I didn't need 400 pages because in another post you told me that you would need to basically write 400 pages (maybe it was another number, or maybe you just said would have to write a book) to explain it all. What I was asking for was a couple specific examples for why Icke is worth the time to research in detail. There are a lot of people out there with rather wacky ideas. It is not worthwhile time to research them all. I was asking for a couple specific examples of why Icke should be considered credible and worth the time.

Well there are several reasons why Icke is popular among freethinkers:

1) He is charismatic, a great speaker with an arresting voice and captivating delivery. He has the kind of voice that grabs your attention and holds it. Very influential.

2) He says a lot of things that make sense, contain wisdom, spirituality, deep insights, and connect dots that those with heightened consciousness can sense is true on an intuitive level. My intuition tends to be right, cause I am connected to my right brain. But most western males are not, so they only understand left brain stuff and do not trust their intuition. For them, intuition is no better than random. But for me, intuition tends to be correct.

Icke makes more sense than most people, and what he says adds up to a large degree. He is the personification of a mass awakening taking place.

3) David Icke has been proven to be right about a lot of things. He predicted a 9/11 event (as did several others, including FBI agents) before 9/11, and that an Orwellian type of control would happen, and it did. So he has a good track record. See the film "David Icke - Was he right?" on YouTube.

But I do not defend everything he says. Nor do I claim that he's right about everything. I would estimate that 50 to 70 percent of what he says is right.

No one is right about everything though. But most people who seriously research what Icke says find that he is mostly right.

[Scepcop]

But Eteponge, how can you know 100 percent for sure that the reptilian thing isn't true? You can't know for sure can you?

Outside of mathematics, there is no such thing as 100% certainty of ANYTHING. But a skeptic doesn't go around saying: since we can't know 100% we're just going to accept it. We're looking for reliable evidence.

Icke, in that 6 hour lecture you linked, did indeed say a few times: don't take my word for it, look it up. IIRC he did so only when he had actually put forward a verifiable fact.

Scepcop, I'm downloading the oxford lecture now and will listen to it. I'll try and provide some comments as well. But can you please tell us what you find convincing in the lecture? Do you think that Icke has made the case for the reptilians to a high degree of confidence? Do you believe in the reptilians? Why or why not?

The oxford lecture does not mention reptilians. The audience there were not Icke fans. They were just curious enthusiasts coming to see what he was about. Thus, Icke had to give them "baby steps" rather than too much at once. That's what you have to do with newcomers who are still indoctrinated with the system's version of reality.

I am not sure about the reptilian thing. But I am open to it. But it's not as far fetched as you think. Carl Sagan talked about the R-complex in our brain, which is reptilian. So we all have a reptilian brain. Science confirms this. So intelligent reptiles aren't as far fetched as you think. According to probability and science, humans should not exist either.

Plus like I said before, there is no missing link found in Evolution and no transitional species found, thus no evidence of macro evolution.

Btw, check out this eloquent review of David Icke's new book "Human Race Get Off Your Knees: The Lion Sleeps No More" on Amazon.com:

Left, left..... left, right, left, right, left, right...... left, left, left, or so goes the song that they sing in cadence at so many boot camps whilst they march away the hours and miles. However this is not about boot camp, but how to escape from hell. That involves synchronizing the left and right brain hemispheres, thus the song introducing this book review. As always I am impressed by the writings of David Icke. In my opinion he is the best there is at exposing the criminal syndicate which runs this prison planet. Even more important are the practical suggestions on how to escape, or to be more accurate, to change it to the paradise it could just as easily be and was meant to be. What follows are my impressions of his newest book, titled; Human Race Get Off Your Knees-The Lion Sleeps No More.

Before I write any more I would just like to say this. If you think that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, if you think that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with the September 11 attacks, if you think that the United States government or any government has ever fought a war or passed a law for our benefit, don't bother to read any further. Just go back to watching the television. Keep it turned on 24/7 and you will be fine. For everyone else, thank you for reading my words. I am writing them for our mutual benefit.

One of the big reasons I like what Icke says and writes is because I've lived through so much of what he talks about. Or put another way, I already know he's telling the truth and it feels true in my heart chakra to have it confirmed from an external source.

For example I've known for years about the importance of synchronizing the left and right brain hemispheres. The left brain is in charge of logic, thinking, mathematics, time, the laws of physics, and sequential, separate experiences. The right brain is in charge of spontaneity, imagination, magic, knowingness rather than thinking, artistic expression and instantaneous fulfillment of creative impulses. In other words, the left brain gives us the "waking" world and the right brain gives us the "dream" world.

The two brain hemispheres are connected by a lump of flesh called the corpus callosum. If that lump of flesh were working properly we would have a fully functioning brain. Instead, the connection has been deliberately stepped down. In computer terms the information throughput could be thousands of gigabytes per second. But instead the connection crawls along at a tiny fraction of that. A fully operational brain means we would "dream" while we are "awake." Does that sound bad? It's not. It's what the human experience is meant to be.

We are infinite consciousness using a brain and a body as tools to live in this holographic universe. We are confined to the world of three dimensions and the "laws" of physics, which are "laws" only because we've been conditioned to accept them as such. In the real world, the paradise which is our birthright, life is a "dream." We can fly, instantaneously travel anywhere, have all sorts of fun without effort, just as we do in dreams. That is what our lives would be like with a fully functioning brain. Because the "dream" world and the "waking" world are two sides of the same coin. We have been tricked into thinking one is real and one is fantasy when in fact they both are fantasy. The only thing that is "real" is you and I. As I said, we are consciousness and that is all that exists. We have allowed ourselves to be enslaved by truly vicious, hateful entities who make Bush, Stalin, Hitler, Obama, etc. look mild in comparison. In fact all those names I just mentioned are just the errand boys who do the bidding of the real evil ones, the ones behind the curtain.

Who has turned off the vast majority of our brain power? The malevolent controllers of this realm who suck our energy for their food, that's who. They are the demons and devils of every religion and every culture in history and they are as real as the Ford or Honda that you drive to work everyday. However, as the Christians say, the greatest accomplishment of the devil is that he convinces people he does not exist. And so it is with the controllers who rule from the shadows. Or more precisely who rule from a dimension of existence just outside of our limited sense perception. Our sense perception has been limited through genetic engineering by those same controllers for the specific purpose of keeping us ignorant of their game. That is why they have desynchronized our brains. If our brains were working we could see all of reality instead of just the incredibly small slice of it known as visible light, or the smudge that falls between ultra-violet and infra-red. If that were the case we could see the demons, devils, gods etc. who keep us as slaves and play games with our lives for their own sadistic amusements. Sound crazy? It probably does, but that is the way we've been trained to think. It is not our true self saying, "That's crazy," rather it is our robot self responding as it has been programed to do whenever it hears anything approaching the truth. It is time to shake off the shackles, stop being Pavlov's dogs and grab reality by the balls and wake up to who we are truly meant to be.

All I've just said is part of David Icke's latest book, and there is a lot more.

For years I've "known" that the moon is an artificial satellite of the earth. (I put "known" in quotation marks because I am always willing to admit the possibility that I could be wrong even when I'm certain that I'm correct.)

Many real scientists have said as much. I call them real scientists because they search for truth rather than tow the party line in order to get funding. Here are just a few of the oddities about our moon. It rings like a bell for hours when struck by a meteorite or missile. That indicates it's hollow with a rather thin shell. If it were a real satellite captured by the earths gravity instead of being put into place by extremely advanced technology, it would only be about thirty miles in diameter. Instead it's over two thousand miles in diameter. The probability that it would be exactly the same size in the sky as the sun when viewed from earth is really tiny, but it does and that just happens to fulfill so many religious requirements of the ancients. The surface of the moon, underneath all the moon dust appears to be titanium and other man-made, or somebody-made, metals, perfect for absorbing impacts. There is more, but read the book, and as I've said, it's in scientific books as well, one that are always suppressed because they contradict the "official story," the one they want us to believe.

In addition just about all the ancient legends say that the moon was put there by someone long after the earth was inhabited. I know in the Bhagavad-gita it says the moon was created out of the ocean. (Curiously, many main stream scientists say the same thing. They say that a planet the size of Mars hit the earth not once, but twice, and knocked the moon into existence from the impact.) All in all I would guess that it is a space ship, not by coincidence, similar to the Death Star in the Star Wars movies, in other words, a means of keeping us under the thumb. It's what the demons use as a base to broadcast to us a phony impression of reality, in other words it's the source of the "television" signal that creates this false reality, what David Icke calls the moon matrix.

I won't go on any more. You're probably ready to call the looney (once again a reference to the moon.) bin to come and get me. But guess what? I'm not crazy, just open-minded and educated. If we've been taught it by the system, it's almost certainly a lie. David Icke does his best to expose the lies and tell us the real story. He's not perfect but he's a helluva lot better than the "history" books and the "science" books. All in all I would say that Icke just keeps getting better, in spite of the fact that his books often repeat the same information.

[Arouet]

I like your idea here Arouet. It's elegant and could work. The catch with OBEs and NDes is that the mind tends to be overwhelmed by its new perspective and sometimes seems to lack control over itself. The last thought the average person will have if they get OB is "how can I attain convincing evidence for the sceptic?" A government-paid remote viewer once said: "When you can go out and see the universe, who wants to go look at a Russian submarine?" To the ill-informed that will sound like a copout, but it's a factor to consider. There was an OB experiment done where the wired-up participant successfully read numbers on a paper which she had no physical access to, but it took several tries before she had sufficient control over her OB state to reach the target! On NDEs:

Do you have a link to that study where the subject read the numbers on the paper? As for the rest, sure there are challenges, but that's the nature of the game. There have been some interesting experiments out there, but none that seal the deal from what I've seen. Neurologists are also looking into these things and are gaining knowledge about the phenomena (although science is still a ways away from having it nailed down.) But as I understand it, science is getting closer to understanding consciousness and the brain, and until we have a better understanding we must be cautious in what we accept.

Pam Reynolds is one NDEer studied rigorously by Sabom.

I looked at the reynolds case awhile back, but not recently, I'll refresh myself before responding.

Those scientists tend not to be very aware of telepathy and entanglement studies in my estimation. Ask Goswami for his opinion and see what he says about neurological entanglement... The point here might be that macro systems do evince nonlocal correlations; the effect isn't just limited to the quantum scale in, say, twin photon experiments.

Does he have experimental evidence that demonstrates this? Even if there is telepathy, why assume that its quantum?

I think there's a lot of scientific conceptual backing behind a lot of what he says at the very least. As for believing without very strong evidence, I'm not advocating belief in reptilians, so I would say people should keep an open mind, avoid the tendency to dis/believe and use their minds to explore...

Open mind does not mean just accept anything someone says. From what I've seen, Icke's evidence for the reptilians is exceptionally weak. Problem is, its the whole underpinnings for the rest of his conspiracy theory. I mean, the whole goal of this conspiracy is to produce low energy bad emotions in people, right? If you lose the reptilians, you lose the motive for the conspiracy. At least the motives he's laid out. It's also tied into his whole: everything is a hologram, for which he also has not a lick of evidence. Even if there are parrallel universes, that doesn't mean that nothing really exists!

It's not necessarily cherry picking, at least not necessarily in a disingenuous way. If you're talking about reptilians then you're going to look for meaningful correlations. Other mythlogies/legends/traditions that don't relate to it meaningfully are just not going to be relevant. After all, a culture that DOESN'T mention such beings doesn't constitute evidence against the concept, does it? An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... Anyway, there seems to be some compelling material around, not least from Credo Mutwa, so see what you make of it. Icke stumbled upon Mutwa well after he began putting this stuff out there and found that the Zulu legends (which are not intended allegorically) supported it in surprising ways.

Legends, without strong independant evidence, should be taken as such: legends. It is cherry picking because there are any number of competing ancient legends that paint entirely different pictures. So why assume this legend is any more reliable than all the others? He's got to come up with something much stronger than legends and ancient symbols (which people consider cool today and so use them in media, art, movies, etc.)

Ok, it's hard to go off the top of my head, especially since I've not being looking at his material much lately. 2 examples to justify further inquiry... Hmm!
Put it this way, it's hard to single out just two things because it's all connected. I'd say he's done a lot to expose highly malicious conspiratorial activity within and around/behind politics. He was the first author to show me that the facade the mainstream media presents us with regarding "freedom of choice", democracy, etc, etc, is basically a complete load of shit. So that's one large area right there (it really is a load of shit).

The fact that the media, ad agencies, governments, atheletes, celebrities, etc. etc. etc. is hardly breaking news!

He's also done a good job of exposing the thoroughly ludicrous (implausible is far too kind a word) version of 9/11 the political Establishment asks us to take on faith, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they're selling a lie to us. There's two. But I suspect you won't have the same problems that I have Re: 9/11 so that might not be a great example(!) It depends what your interests are and what you know about certain topics!

911 is not a pet issue of mine, so I don't follow it too much. But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence out there. This has been debated for years and years. But I'll let others tear Icke apart on that.

But this is my point with Icke: spread out throughout the fantasy, are facts. What he wants you to then do, is tie the facts to the fantasy. Each of his claims must be taken on their own. He talks about corelates. What he's really doing is anomaly hunting and confirmation biasing. He focuses solely on the things that support his point of view and ignores the things that are against it.

(AIDS notwithstanding...) It's funny you say that such a conspiracy would crumble very fast, because that's the very rationale that preserves even the most obvious conspiracies. As soon as someone decides a priori that such a "program" or agenda is too unlikely to be possible and therefore not worth investigating, they prevent themselves from ever finding out whether that might actually be the case! And so on the agenda rolls while they are blissfully unaware (if it's true that is).

No one would say its so unlikely as to be impossible. Of course such a conspiracy is possible. The key word is "unlikely". It is extroadinarily unlikely that such a vast consipracy could function for so long. People talk. People are not good at keeping secrets. Each person added to a conspiracy weakens the links. It's not that its impossible, but the sheer size of the conspiracies Icke sets out has to be a tick in the "unlikely"column and you'd need some pretty convincing evidence otherwise. The fact that once someone is rich and powerful they tend to stay that way for a long time, even over generations, is not evidence of anything other than life is not fair, and wealth and power tends to give people tools that allows them to continue.

With the HIV stuff, Icke is bringing his conspiracy to the entire medical establishment! Vast numbers of independant researchers who all have to be in on it.