Originally posted by DeanoHe says it on an episode of Penn and Teller: Bullshit. People who have seen that will agree. He also says Dick Cheney, Bush Family, British Royal Family big time, are part of this reptillian race.
im not even gonna argue if you continue to post distorted facts. show me where it says that [b]icke has personally seen george bush turn into a reptilewhen you cant find it, which you wont, hopefully that will teach you to look more into the facts [/B]
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Whereas the irrational believe it's not only plausible but actual. Based on? Absolutely nothing.
Right, absolutely nothing, You must have researched this subject so throughly!? 🙄 😆
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
. Like with everything in society unevidenced opinions regardless of how popular (e.g. religions) are not fact. 🙂Now run along back to the conspiracy forum. It misses you.
No, but they are believed to be fact, there in lay the problem.Popular opinion=fact to the masses.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarSo you have conclusive unequivocal proof that Elizabeth Windsor I and II, Philip Mountbatten, George H Bush, George W Bush are reptilian humanoids? Do tell. Do share. Otherwise be quiet and return to the crackpot forum.
Right, absolutely nothing, You must have researched this subject so throughly!? 🙄 😆
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So you have conclusive unequivocal proof that Elizabeth Windsor I and II, Philip Mountbatten, George H Bush, George W Bush are reptilian humanoids? Do tell. Do share. Otherwise be quiet and return to the crackpot forum.
Typical twist of words and assumptions. These sheepish tactic really get old, But, I didn't expect them from You.
First of all, I never supported the "Shape Shifting lizard Theory". I never claimed to support It or Icke. You on the other hand claimed there is no proof. So, if there isnt any why ask for proof?
You contradicted yourself beautifully, You claimed there is no proof and then proceed to ask for proof, Cute.
Infact I find it precious 😆 😆 😆
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Typical twist of words and assumptions. These sheepish tactic really get old, But, I didn't expect them from [B]You.First of all, I never supported the "Shape Shifting lizard Theory". I never claimed to support It or Icke. You on the other hand claimed there is no proof. So, if there isnt any why ask for proof?
You contradicted yourself beautifully, You claimed there is no proof and then proceed to ask for proof, Cute.
Infact I find it precious 😆 😆 😆 [/B]
Just stop..really, I am feeling bad for you now.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarAh, "sheepish" how drole. The irony of those who adhere unfalteringly to the opinions of fringe authors, who parrot the words of these authors (without citation infringing on copyright) as they're unable to form their own original thoughts and express them verbally; yet deride those who would take the evidences before them and come to their own rational independent conclusions.
Typical twist of words and assumptions. These sheepish tactic really get old, But, I didn't expect them from [B]You.First of all, I never supported the "Shape Shifting lizard Theory". I never claimed to support It or Icke. You on the other hand claimed there is no proof. So, if there isnt any why ask for proof?
You contradicted yourself beautifully, You claimed there is no proof and then proceed to ask for proof, Cute. [/B]
To my knowledge there is no proof of reptilian humanoids. My background in the sciences, together with the lack of evidence for said theory lead me to conclude it is implausible to the extent that one can consider it stupid.
Conversely you claim that the only reason the lizard theory is deemed implausible, is that the "general consensus" do not agree with it. You also claim that my conclusion is based on a lack of research. The implication being that there is support for said theory beyond the knowledge of myself or others of the "general consensus" that would at least make the theory less stupid if not less implausible. The implication being that you have researched said theory and are privy to this information.
In which case I ask you to supply evidence of said theory. If not then you are among that "general consensus" which you scorn. Hypocrite.
If you find contradiction in one who believes to their knowledge there is no proof of a theory, asking one who has implied there is for said proof, then all it does is show your shortfallings in comprehension.
A: There is no proof of unicorns.
B: There could be proof of unicorns.
A: Then provide proof of unicorns.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Ah, "sheepish" how drole. The irony of those who adhere unfalteringly to the opinions of fringe authors, who parrot the words of these authors (without citation infringing on copyright) as they're unable to form their own original thoughts and express them verbally; yet deride those who would take the evidences before them and come to their own rational independent conclusions.
I hope you don't consider yourself one of those Rationales after that stunt you just pulled. Claiming there is no proof and then asking for it, real rational.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[B]To my knowledge there is no proof of reptilian humanoids. My background in the sciences, together with the lack of evidence for said theory lead me to conclude it is implausible to the extent that one can consider it stupid. [/B]
There are so many things wrong with that post, first of all you said better than I could "To my Knowledge". Meaning limited to what you know, which is not even much since you asked me for proof,lol. Now tell me how your limited knowledge on a particular subject equals implausible or "No Proof" like you've been claiming.
The science's, OMG, do you know how arrogant that came out. Let me get this straight "Science Goddess", Somehow you've bcome the authority of every form of research in Science. Regardless if it's an independent investigation or an majorly funded one, please.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Conversely you claim that the only reason the lizard theory is deemed implausible, is that the "general consensus" do not agree with it. You also claim that my conclusion is based on a lack of research. The implication being that there is support for said theory beyond the knowledge of myself or others of the "general consensus" that would at least make the theory less stupid if not less implausible. The implication being that you have researched said theory and are privy to this information.
When did I claimed that or imply that, how did you come to this conclusion? Because I don't remeber posting support for the theory or icke for that matter. You on the the other hand claimed there was No Evidence, supporting this theory, how did you arrive at this conclusion, Oh, I remember your a "Science goddess"!
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
In which case I ask you to supply evidence of said theory. If not then you are among that "general consensus" which you scorn. Hypocrite.
LOL, part of the general consensus, I don't support the theory, that doesn't mean Icke is wrong. I'm just not into his work, You really jump the gun there. How are you arriving at these conclusions, because unlike you. I never claimed there was No Proof.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If you find contradiction in one who believes to their knowledge there is no proof of a theory, asking one who has implied there is for said proof, then all it does is show your shortfallings in comprehension.A: There is no proof of unicorns.
B: There could be proof of unicorns.
A: Then provide proof of unicorns.
quote a statement that implyed there was proof X, because your just making me laugh.