It's Destroy David Icke Time

TalkieWalkie

Thought I'd post this so I can refer back to it when the sh!t hits the fan...

I have been saying in articles and newsletters since last year that during 2010 there would be a long-planned campaign to discredit me with the aim of destroying my work in the wake of the publication of my new book.

I knew it was coming and I knew who the source was planned to be because I was warned well in advance and I said that people would be surprised by who it was (though certainly not those who have had experience of this glove-puppet for the forces I have spent two decades exposing).

That campaign has started behind the scenes and no doubt will 'go public' eventually.

Don't be shocked by anything that is said about me - the people behind it are vicious, cold, callous, thoroughly vindictive, deeply devious and totally self-obsessed who hide behind a fake persona of 'love and light and kindness' while wishing only to do as much damage as possible to me, my work, and my wider family whom they hate with a vengeance.

They couldn't give a damn about how many people worldwide my work is helping, nor how many billions are suffering because of the way the world is controlled and manipulated by the few. All that matters is them. The only focus is what is in it for me, me, me? There is no-one else in their Universe.

And they certainly couldn't give a damn about how many people they hurt. To them, hurting people is just 'collateral damage' in pursuit of what is in it for me, me, me. Hurting people is the idea, anyway.

It is going to be bumpy for a while (when hasn't it been?), but me, my work and my family will not be destroyed, only those wishing to do it because they are in the process of self-destruction while thinking the opposite (it is a playing out of the collective energetic transformation now unfolding all around us as the energy of a dying and malevolent epoch desperately seeks to retain its position of control, deceit, parasitical exploitation and pre-eminence).

It has got no chance and I'm not going anywhere - no matter what.

For 20 years I have taken untold ridicule and abuse - and there is much more to come - and yet I'm still standing, still doing what I know to be right.

So many people have tried to destroy my work over the years and some came close, but none succeeded.

Where are they now?

The same place these people will be before long.

The Zulu shaman, Credo Mutwa, 'threw the bones' for me in August (the same principle as the tarot cards or rune stones) and said that I was going to face a 'big battle' to stop an attempt to bring me down by someone who had 'the ability to make people feel pity for them', aided and abetted by others, but that this major (and desperate) attempt to discredit me and, by association, end my work, would not succeed.

Too right, Credo. Too right, mate.

up for anything

I can't take this man seriously. I watched him on Terry Wogan that infamous time. Is that a Star Trekie gesture he's making with his fingers?

TalkieWalkie

up for anything wrote: »

I can't take this man seriously. I watched him on Terry Wogan that infamous time. Is that a Star Trekie gesture he's making with his fingers?

I do believe that arthritis.

up for anything

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I do believe that arthritis.

As the Son of God he should be able to do something about that, however seriously I feel sorry for him on that point then. Some of my fingers resemble ET's with the knobbly bits.

pablo_escobar

i honestly thought someone used photoshop on his hand.

Darlughda

So whats your opinion OP regarding David Icke?

Yitzhak Rabin

Has David Icke ever provided any evidence for any of his claims?

I have never read any of his books, and find his lectures unwatchable.

But from what I have seen, it appears he just says things like "I've researched these things all over the world. They don't want you to know the truth and thats why they will discredit me, and subject me to abuse(Read: Dismiss my claims)"

He also seems to think that because he claimed that there would be an increase in surveillence, and that became a reality(obviously that was going to happen with the increased levels of technology), that that somehow validates all the rest of his notions about blood drinking lizards.

Has he ever produced any sort of tangible evidence to back up what he claims? I really am at a loss to understand why he has such appeal.

TalkieWalkie

He was right about parallel universes in 1991.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWWQKU_-G0

EDIT : That said, I'm not to sure if it originally his theory.

Darlughda

Yes, but Walkie Talkie what is your opinion???

Thing is I find him a very personable character, seems genuine, earnest and honest all the rest.

Mind you, I thought that about my last boyfriend, and jayzus was I so so wrong!:mad:

Anyway, fess up which if any of Icke's theories do you have any credence?

pablo_escobar

i don't know much about David Icke so can't really give an informed opinion of him.

Reference to "lizards" is more likely a metaphor to describe the race of people he can't openly name for obvious reasons.

Not saying I agree with him, but that's 1 theory.

Alex Jones seems to refer to the same race as "Globalists" because he's incapable of being direct ..again for obvious reasons.

And we know why I can't refer to that race directly either, but strangely we all know who it is

up for anything

Darlughda wrote: »

Thing is I find him a very personable character, seems genuine, earnest and honest all the rest.

Mind you, I thought that about my last boyfriend, and jayzus was I so so wrong!:mad:

I'm still laughing ten minutes later. Funniest post ever.

TalkieWalkie

Darlughda wrote: »

Yes, but Walkie Talkie what is your opinion???
Thing is I find him a very personable character, seems genuine, earnest and honest all the rest.
Mind you, I thought that about my last boyfriend, and jayzus was I so so wrong!:mad:
Anyway, fess up which if any of Icke's theories do you have any credence?

I like him, I respect him. He took a lot of sh!t for a lot of years just by informing people. I think he was 100% right about the illuminati, the powers that be and their agenda. And that we are little more that slaves/sheep/worker ants for that power. Many people who believe this theory believe it's all about money but I personally don't. I think it's all about energy and frequency.
As far as reptillians.. I am very open to the possibility of their existence and the possibility they could be among us and controlling us. I wouldn't bet my house on it but it wouldn't surprise me.
As far as icke stating he is the son of god.. well, aren't we all ?
I have watched many hours of Icke interviews and will watch more when they come available, I find them fascinating, I don't subscribe to everything he says but I keep an open mind. I have never read any of his material but I have put in a purchase order @ the library for his latest.. The Lion Sleeps No More.



EDIT:

And it's "TalkieWalkie" :P

gizmo

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

He was right about parallel universes in 1991.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWWQKU_-G0

EDIT : That said, I'm not to sure if it originally his theory.

The difference being though, he's just talking gibberish without anything backing him up whereas the scientists have come to similar conclusions through study of string theory.

As for destroying Icke's reputation, he's done a pretty damn good job at that himself over the last few years. Never mind of course, the fact that its' suddenly happening around the launch of his book, better run down to the nearest bookstore and get it quick before it's banned!

RoboClam

gizmo wrote: »

The difference being though, he's just talking gibberish without anything backing him up whereas the scientists have come to similar conclusions through study of string theory.

And to continue this point, string theory itself is on shaky legs as it is. The whole notion of parallel universes or a multiverse is still purely theoretical. So he wasn't "right" about parallel universes.

TalkieWalkie

gizmo wrote: »

The difference being though, he's just talking gibberish without anything backing him up whereas the scientists have come to similar conclusions through study of string theory.

As for destroying Icke's reputation, he's done a pretty damn good job at that himself over the last few years. Never mind of course, the fact that its' suddenly happening around the launch of his book, better run down to the nearest bookstore and get it quick before it's banned!

He was bang on, gibberish or not. Icke isn't about money, never was. But you are entitled to your opinion. I always expect you to beat the crap out of folk anyway.

RoboClam wrote: »

And to continue this point, string theory itself is on shaky legs as it is. The whole notion of parallel universes or a multiverse is still purely theoretical. So he wasn't "right" about parallel universes.

Gravity is also still a theory. Does that mean Sir Isaac Newton was wrong ?

pablo_escobar

theory of multiverse/parallel universes i recall were discussed as far back as the 60's/70's..perhaps even before this.don't think you can credit icke as the first person to discuss it.

Kev Weldon

In fairness, gravity's provable. Secret Society of Blood Lizards, less so.

Kev Weldon

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

He was right about parallel universes in 1991.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWWQKU_-G0

EDIT : That said, I'm not to sure if it originally his theory.

I don't know if you noticed but this is your one thousandth post. Just thought it would be nice to point out.

RoboClam

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Gravity is also still a theory. Does that mean Sir Isaac Newton was wrong ?

Gravity is a law, if you drop something it will fall. The theory of gravity is our way of explaining why this happens. It is still not a complete theory in certain regards, as gravitons have never been detected and it is still not known how it works on a quantum level. However, the basic theory that objects with mass attract each other can be tested and has predictive power, which is what a theory must be able to do. String theory does neither of these things.

And I never said anyone was wrong. I said that it's still theoretical, which is true.

gizmo

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

He was bang on, gibberish or not. Icke isn't about money, never was. But you are entitled to your opinion. I always expect you to beat the crap out of folk anyway.

How was he bang on? That's like claiming Issac Asimov will be bang on when/if we see the first robot kill a human. It's making a generalised point based upon no facts which just turns out to be right.

Actually you'll see several examples of me agreeing wholeheartedly with both posters and indeed people linked on this forum as points of reference. Nuts like Alex Jones, Icke and co. will never get anything of the sort however.

Kev Weldon

RoboClam wrote: »

Gravity is a law, if you drop something it will fall. The theory of gravity is our way of explaining why this happens. It is still not a complete theory in certain regards, as gravitons have never been detected and it is still not known how it works on a quantum level. However, the basic theory that objects with mass attract each other can be tested and has predictive power, which is what a theory must be able to do. String theory does neither of these things.

That's what I meant to say, but put more eloquently by someone better informed than I.

TalkieWalkie

RoboClam wrote: »

The whole notion of parallel universes or a multiverse is still purely theoretical. So he wasn't "right" about parallel universes.

RoboClam wrote: »

And I never said anyone was wrong. I said that it's still theoretical, which is true.

You said "he wasn't right". I assume because the theory parallel universes is "still purely theoretical" as is the theory of gravity, that they would both be "not right", in your opinion.

Kev Weldon

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

You said "he wasn't right". I assume because the theory parallel universes is "still purely theoretical" as is the theory of gravity, that they would both be "not right", in your opinion.

Gravity is not purely theoretical. things fall, always. That's a fact we can all observe.
Unless you can come up with a corollary your argument is facetious.

Darlughda

up for anything wrote: »

I'm still laughing ten minutes later. Funniest post ever.

Hey. He broke my heart. Into smithereens.
Glad you had 10 mins lols, I had 10 weeks crying.

TalkieWalkie

Kev Weldon wrote: »

Gravity is not purely theoretical. things fall, always. That's a fact we can all observe.
Unless you can come up with a corollary your argument is facetious.

Things fall, on Earth. But isn't gravity universal ?

Here are some anomalies and discrepancies which would explain why gravity is still just a theory . Night lads


There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.
Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). The discrepancy between the curves is attributed to dark matter.

* Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed. Another possibility is that a distortion of space-time having a negative curvature exists between stars on the outer perimeter of galaxies. Negative curvature of space-time would bend light rays apart so as to make objects appear separated by a larger distance. Their actual distance would therefore be much closer, which could account for the apparent deviation from Newton's inverse square law of gravity.

* Pioneer anomaly: The two Pioneer spacecraft seem to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained.

* Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.

* Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all, however this conclusion is disputed.

* Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this was solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.

* Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.

* Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.

* Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

humanji

Going back to the OP, it kind of smacks of "I've done something wrong, now I'm covering myself in case I get found out". He's not exactly respected by anyone who doesn't believe what he says and anyone who was going to discredit him would surely know that doing so would just make a martyr out of him. Plus, since he's been well aware that it was going to happen, and has announced it, then wouldn't the people who were going to discredit him not just hold off? It really serves no purpose.

So to behonest, I wouldnt' be surprised if either a) he's just covering himself for something he's done, b) just crying out for attention.

RoboClam

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Things fall, on Earth. But isn't gravity universal ?

Here are some anomalies and discrepancies which would explain why gravity is still just a theory . Night lads

This will be my last post on this point because this really isn't relevant to this forum. The theory of gravity will always be "just" a theory. I've talked about this in other posts before. The scientific word theory is different to the colloquial usage of theory. A theory can never become a fact. Facts only apply to objective observations, not our explanation of them. So I'll repeat, gravity (Things fall) is a FACT. The theory of gravity (Why things fall) is a THEORY.

Now I said in my last post that the theory of gravity "Is still not a complete theory in certain regards". In response to this, you post a link showing that it's an incomplete theory. All you have shown is that in some very very specific circumstances, we cannot fully explain gravity.

Now on to string theory. I don't know how much you know about it, but it is a totally different type of theory to gravity. It doesn't explain an observable phenomenon but instead tries to solve problems we have with other theories, namely the problem combining general relativity and quantum mechanics. There are no observations made and no experiments can test it, as it lies outside our range of testing. Because of this, it is unfalsifiable.

It may be true, but until it can be tested I will remain skeptical of the idea. Now I hope I've adequately explained my position on this. You can PM me for further clarification. But in summary, when I said he was not "right", I didn't mean he was wrong. You cannot say however, that someone is right about something unprovable.

Going back to the OP, it kind of smacks of "I've done something wrong, now I'm covering myself in case I get found out". He's not exactly respected by anyone who doesn't believe what he says and anyone who was going to discredit him would surely know that doing so would just make a martyr out of him. Plus, since he's been well aware that it was going to happen, and has announced it, then wouldn't the people who were going to discredit him not just hold off? It really serves no purpose.

So to behonest, I wouldnt' be surprised if either a) he's just covering himself for something he's done, b) just crying out for attention.

I agree with this. Seems like just another way to sell his books. If his fans believe that he is enduring abuse for trying to "get the truth out" then it would imply that his current book holds many important secrets that "they" don't want you to know.

studiorat

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I like him, I respect him. He took a lot of sh!t for a lot of years just by informing people. I think he was 100% right about the illuminati, the powers that be and their agenda.

What the hell do you mean was 100% right? Where has he been proven right FFS? When were the illumanati proved to exist?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I think it's all about energy and frequency.
As far as reptillians.. I am very open to the possibility of their existence and the possibility they could be among us and controlling us. I wouldn't bet my house on it but it wouldn't surprise me.

Energy and Frequency? Random Buzz words! Frequency of what? What sort of energy are you talking about? Honestly you're starting so sound like Mysterious with this new-agey bullsh1t.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

As far as icke stating he is the son of god.. well, aren't we all ?
I have watched many hours of Icke interviews and will watch more when they come available, I find them fascinating, I don't subscribe to everything he says but I keep an open mind. I have never read any of his material but I have put in a purchase order @ the library for his latest.. The Lion Sleeps No More.

Judaeo-Christians think they are all sons of god, so no we aren't all, so much for your open mind. So which is it the Baby Jesus or Energy and Frequency?

FYI the notion of a Parallel Universe is not something Icke made up in 1991. :rolleyes: It's been in literature and mythology for 1,000's of years olny an idiot would actually think that was something Icke came up with by himself.

Yitzhak Rabin

studiorat wrote: »

What the hell do you mean was 100% right? Where has he been proven right FFS? When were the illumanati proved to exist?

Energy and Frequency? Random Buzz words! Frequency of what? What sort of energy are you talking about? Honestly you're starting so sound like Mysterious with this new-agey bullsh1t.

Judaeo-Christians think they are all sons of god, so no we aren't all, so much for your open mind. So which is it the Baby Jesus or Energy and Frequency?

FYI the notion of a Parallel Universe is not something Icke made up in 1991. :rolleyes: It's been in literature and mythology for 1,000's of years olny an idiot would actually think that was something Icke came up with by himself.

Thats probably why TalkieWalkie said

TalkieWalkie wrote:

That said, I'm not to sure if it originally his theory.

Also, he put forward all of that stuff with the prefix of "I think". As far as I can see, he is not making any claims of fact, just opinion, so a less aggressive tone will give you a better chance of having your questions answered.

studiorat

Like I said, just making sure that WalkieTalkie is absolutely sure that's it's not an original Icke idea.

"I think", he would be very unable to explain the Energy and Frequency nonsense.

TalkieWalkie

studiorat wrote: »

Like I said, just making sure that WalkieTalkie is absolutely sure that's it's not an original Icke idea.

"I think", he would be very unable to explain the Energy and Frequency nonsense.

I think I will explain what I meant when I return later.

I didn't want to go into to much detail in that other reply as I was simply asked what is my opinion on Icke.

Need to head out now though.