Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

David Icke, is he for real or trolling people?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    If you are speaking about Icke - it's the usual 911 conspiracy drivel, which is based on anything but facts

    Jeez their is lots of 9/11 stuff and vid evidence by 'others' never mind David Icke.

    Some of the actual vids and evidence is real eye opening stuff.


  • Options
    #93
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    It's "brute force prophecy", keep making vague predictions all day and eventually you'll be "right". That's how it works in the conspiracy industry.

    And a lot of other things as well. Some we take as 'gospel' and truthful.


  • Options
    #94
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    TheSpooner wrote: »
    I think you have jumped to the conclusion that exposure is the primary concern. Is it not belief in that exposure?


    If so, then your objective is not prevent exposure, but rather merely limit belief that exposure is real.
    That makes no sense. Why wouldn't they prevent exposure?
    TheSpooner wrote: »
    I don't think you will find them in army surplus. But, there are plenty of scientific papers detailing imaging, reading and writing techniques suitable for a BCI. What DeepThought brought to the table was the technological packaging to perform that from satellite.
    Again you claim this, but you can't point to any of these papers.
    Do any of these papers involve orbital microwave weapons or secret government AI?
    TheSpooner wrote: »
    Read his work. Overcome your disability.
    That's pretty insulting.
    But regradless, I don't plan on reading a long rambling blog with nothing to support it.
    If you can post the scientific papers you claim to have, then maybe there is something to support it. But given how far you are going to avoid posting them, I don't believe these papers exist.
    TheSpooner wrote: »
    Before jumping to the conclusion of mental illness, you need to rule out everything else. It is a diagnosis of last resort and, ultimately, clinically provable.
    Lol.
    So before we conclude some one's mentally ill, we have to prove for a fact that they aren't the vicitim of a massive government conspiracy involving space microwaves and secret AIs and we have to also rule that they are not in fact the son of God.
    I don't think that's the case.
    TheSpooner wrote: »
    You didn't provide evidence, you just think you did. Here is a paper on Faith and how it is treated in the context of mental health:


    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/members/sigs/spirituality-spsig/is-faith-delusion-andrew-sims-editedx.pdf


    As for his other claims, we don't know the basis of the reasoning. Without that, we are unable to make any conclusion in regards to his mental health.
    This is pretty pathetic goal post moving.
    You denied that Icke displayed any of the signs of mental illness.
    I posted descriptions of several illnesses that fit.
    His behaviour is consistent with being mentally ill.

    The paper you posted simply isn't relevant to any of the illnesses mentioned. I think it's something you just googled some key words for and posted without reading.
    I think it's weird though that you can post this random non relevant article, yet still can't post the other scientific papers you claim to have.
    TheSpooner wrote: »
    Your problem is you have heard some of the basics about mental illness, but have no in-depth knowledge or training.
    Remind us of your expertise in mental health, microwave physics and weapons and secret AI technology.
    Post grad in those perhaps?
    TheSpooner wrote: »
    The reasons are well documented in DeepThought's works. But, your reading disability is standing in the way.
    No they aren't.
    If they were, then you could have answered the question directly and clearly.


  • Options
    #95
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    Go look for it. it's out there. I am not here to provide you with anything about anything.
    I have looked. There's no such thing as a "method of brainwashing through the telly".

    I think you are referring to the idea of subliminal advertising. However this has never actually been shown to be effective and is not even close to "brainwashing". It's not able and has never been claimed to be able to make people believe in silly conspiracy theories and it uses quickly cut images, not microwaves.

    I could be wrong, but you have to show that.
    Telling some one to "google it" is pretty much an admission of defeat.


  • Options
    #96
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    King Mob wrote: »
    I have looked. There's no such thing as a "method of brainwashing through the telly".

    I think you are referring to the idea of subliminal advertising. However this has never actually been shown to be effective and is not even close to "brainwashing". It's not able and has never been claimed to be able to make people believe in silly conspiracy theories and it uses quickly cut images, not microwaves.

    I could be wrong, but you have to show that.
    Telling some one to "google it" is pretty much an admission of defeat.

    Jeez I was first shown this 30 - 40 years ago and advertisers were not allowed to use it because I imagine it was so effective.

    No defeat....you carry on you are doing well yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    Jeez I was first shown this 30 - 40 years ago and advertisers were not allowed to use it because I imagine it was so effective.
    But it's not effective.
    https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4063
    Harcourt Assessment, which was known at the time as The Psychological Corporation, invited Vicary to repeat his experiment under controlled conditions. He did, but this time no increases in sales were shown at all. Pressed for an explanation, Vicary confessed that he had falsified the results from his original study. Indeed, five years later in a 1962 interview with Advertising Age, Vicary revealed that he had never even conducted the Fort Lee experiment at all. He had literally made up the entire thing. But of course, by then, it was too late. The headlines had run their course, and to this day it's a generally accepted fact that flashing brief messages onscreen produces a desired behavior, despite the fact it never happened.

    https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.79.6.866
    Subjects watched television commercials, monitoring them for a message (the words choose this) presented at different levels of contrast with the background. Following each commercial, subjects rated their intention to respond positively to it. In Experiment 1, neither detected nor undetected messages affected these ratings compared with a no-message control condition. In Experiment 2, incentives produced higher ratings with detected messages; with undetected messages the effect was statistically ambiguous and only one-tenth as large. Unexpectedly, in both experiments commercials containing undetected messages were subsequently less likely to be remembered than commercials with no messages. The tiny effects of subliminal (undetected) messages compared with the large effects of supraliminal (detected) ones are discussed in relation to the hazards and difficulties of placing them. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

    Do you have something that shows sublimal advertising is effective, beyond vaguely remembering something you were told 30-40 years ago?


  • Options
    #98
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    King Mob wrote: »
    But it's not effective.
    https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4063



    https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.79.6.866



    Do you have something that shows sublimal advertising is effective, beyond vaguely remembering something you were told 30-40 years ago?

    It's old stuff. Stuff that was played around with so long ago it may not be even relevant today with digital tv. But it was never allowed to be used so that may tell you something.

    So being as it is 'old technology' you wont be finding someone messing with it as the old style tv's are long gone.

    Who knows??? Well maybe you do as the world according to King Mob is to disprove everything even though he knows????


  • Options
    #99
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    Jeez their is lots of 9/11 stuff and vid evidence by 'others' never mind David Icke.

    Some of the actual vids and evidence is real eye opening stuff.

    There isn't, the vast majority of it is completely spurious and unfounded (and designed to bamboozle and impress the gullible). Feel free to post in the 911 forum, we've been dealing with it for years


  • Options
    #100
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There isn't, the vast majority of it is completely spurious and unfounded (and designed to bamboozle and impress the gullible). Feel free to post in the 911 forum, we've been dealing with it for years

    I am no expert on such but even I fail to see how those buildings came down the way they did and have never heard David Icke on about it.

    I do have some engineering knowledge and know a bit about steel construction. I also know it is impossible to melt steel with just diesel fuel or solid fuel if not in a controlled environment. So all that stops there and David Icke doesnt need to tell me this if he ever did.


  • Options
    #101
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    It's old stuff.
    Old stuff that didn't work.
    This was contrary to your claims.
    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    Stuff that was played around with so long ago it may not be even relevant today with digital tv. But it was never allowed to be used so that may tell you something.
    Just because it was banned doesn't mean it is effective. I've shown you a study that actually tests the method.
    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    So being as it is 'old technology' you wont be finding someone messing with it as the old style tv's are long gone.
    Do you have any evidence that there is new technology that can brainwash people?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    King Mob wrote: »
    Old stuff that didn't work.
    This was contrary to your claims.

    Just because it was banned doesn't mean it is effective. I've shown you a study that actually tests the method.

    Jeez so many twists and turns. You carry on you are only arguing with yourself.


  • Options
    #103
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    Jeez so many twists and turns. You carry on you are only arguing with yourself.
    So no then.

    There's no evidence for a method that can brainwash people via the telly either now or then.
    Your point doesn't help support the idea of a space based, AI controlled microwave weapon as is being discussed.


  • Options
    #104
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    King Mob wrote: »


    Do you have any evidence that there is new technology that can brainwash people?

    No and never claimed to have contrary to what you say but if such was 'secret' then not many people would have evidence to portray to others would they?

    I prefer to have an open mind and say anything is possible.

    Whereas you have such superior knowledge to all others (or you cant find it on Wiki) that you discount that and everything else until it lands on your head. In which case I wouldn't be at all surprised if you didn't give it a possibility then.

    My question to you earlier was do you believe in a god? And you still havent answered....why?


  • Options
    #105
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    No and never claimed to have contrary to what you say but if such was 'secret' then not many people would have evidence to portray to others would they?
    The lack of evidence is also indicative that it doesn't exist.
    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    I prefer to have an open mind and say anything is possible.
    And believing that there's a spacebased, AI controlled, brain erasing laser in space is a bit silly.
    There's a difference between having an open mind and believing in fantasies.
    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    Whereas you have such superior knowledge to all others (or you cant find it on Wiki) that you discount that and everything else until it lands on your head. In which case I wouldn't be at all surprised if you didn't give it a possibility then.
    Lol, wut?
    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    My question to you earlier was do you believe in a god? And you still havent answered....why?
    Because it's not relevant to the discussion.
    I don't believe in God.


  • Options
    #106
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    I am no expert on such but even I fail to see how those buildings came down the way they did and have never heard David Icke on about it.

    I do have some engineering knowledge and know a bit about steel construction. I also know it is impossible to melt steel with just diesel fuel or solid fuel if not in a controlled environment. So all that stops there and David Icke doesnt need to tell me this if he ever did.

    Well to bring you up to speed from 2003, melting steel had nothing to do with the collapses. The engineering (and architectural) world has overwhelmingly accepted the collapse theories of 911, the findings are covered and taught in universities, incorporated in building code. There isn't any major recognised group representing engineers or other experts, globally, which has come forward to dispute those facts. Multiple credible investigations carried out over the years have only reinforced the findings.

    But this is all off topic, as mentioned there is a 911 sub-forum


  • Options
    #107
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Well to bring you up to speed from 2003, melting steel had nothing to do with the collapses. The engineering (and architectural) world has overwhelmingly accepted the collapse theories of 911, the findings are covered and taught in universities, incorporated in building code. There isn't any major recognised group representing engineers or other experts, globally, which has come forward to dispute those facts. Multiple credible investigations carried out over the years have only reinforced the findings.

    But this is all off topic, as mentioned there is a 911 sub-forum

    True but I am bemused how if steel didnt melt that building could come down that way with out being blown.........but as you say....another topic.


  • Options
    #108
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    True but I am bemused how if steel didnt melt that building could come down that way with out being blown.........but as you say....another topic.

    Weakened steel. There's a reason why steel has been cladded in fire-proof protection in buildings for decades, it's vulnerable to fire (weakening, thermal expansion). Office fires can cause it to lose significant strength and stiffness

    Steel_strength_in_fire.png

    But indeed, it's off-topic here


  • Options
    #109
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Weakened steel. There's a reason why steel has been cladded in fire-proof protection in buildings for decades, it's vulnerable to fire (weakening, thermal expansion). Office fires can cause it to lose significant strength and stiffness

    Steel_strength_in_fire.png

    But indeed, it's off-topic here

    Yes I know they used to cover all steel frames in buildings in asbestos. But they kind of wilt not collapse into itself as the steel is still welded or bolted together.


  • Options
    #110
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,202 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    It's old stuff. Stuff that was played around with so long ago it may not be even relevant today with digital tv. But it was never allowed to be used so that may tell you something.

    So being as it is 'old technology' you wont be finding someone messing with it as the old style tv's are long gone.

    Who knows??? Well maybe you do as the world according to King Mob is to disprove everything even though he knows????

    Never allowed to be used by who? who prevented it from being used?


Advertisement