An Open Board For The Discussion Of Everything Conspiracy Related. Come & Join Us!
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 

 E-mail from Ivan Fraser About Icke & Arizona Wilder By Scones86

Go down 
Transcended Master
Transcended Master

Posts : 154
Join date : 2011-01-27
Location : The Multi-Verse!

PostSubject: E-mail from Ivan Fraser About Icke & Arizona Wilder By Scones86   Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:38 pm

I saw the Arizona Wilder video back in 2005 or something, when I was very uncritical to all the conspiracy stuff. The more fantastic, the more I believed it. Some year ago I also read the article about Arizona Wilder and had a e-mail correspondence with Ivan Fraser about the matter and how David Icke sometimes don't always check with his "sources". The text in italic is mine.

If, like Arizona says, Sitchin is a shape shifter, and his books contain disinformation, why did David not mention this in The Biggest Secret where he refers to Sitchin. Probably, like you pointed out in the article, because he didn't trust what Arizona said.

It's probably simpler than that. When he gave me the book to proof-read, it was clear that he only had a superficial knowledge of the Sumerian material, and that it came from Sitchin. Because of this, I don't think he realised that Sitchin is the primary author of the 'Sumerian texts depict ancient astronauts' material. When I talked to him about Sitchin's idea of the Sumerian gods, he wasn't very well informed even as to the Sitchin material.

One of my main criticisms of David's work is that most of it is a collation of whatever he has been reading since his last book. He very rarely has much mastery over individual subjects - enough to proffer a truly educated opinion. His ideas usually sound well-researched and reasonable at first glance, but from experience, when I have researched them myself, I have found it shallow and often at odds with common sense.

He clearly had read a Sitchin book, and that was his basis for his opinions. Considering many of the ET-based opinions he has read in other books trace back to Sitchin, he is contradicting himself by propounding the Sitchin theories whilst identifying him as an agent of the Illuminati. He also read a book by LA Waddell, about the Britons' origins, which also references certain Sumerian and Indian history. By combining the 2, he has created a new and original idea of shapeshifting Aryan bloodlines from Sumer. The follow up to TBS was even more outlandish, by maintaining that Waddell's work is accurate, but claiming that Waddell didn't take into account the 'fact' that the Sumer Aryans he writes about were ETs.

When you dismiss Sitchin's material - rightly - as utter bunk, you are left with very interesting material and theories presented by Waddell, which stand alone, without need for amendment, gods, ETs or spaceships.

I'm also a regular subscriber to David Icke's newsletter and now he also has video-casts which are available on his website. On one of those video-casts he invited subscribers to London to personally ask him questions. One of the invited subscribers, a guy from Belfast, asked him a very interesting question. He told David that Chris Everard, the conspiracy documentary film maker who also worked with David, told him that he thought that Arizona and Credo Mutwa is CIA mind controlled agents who have disinformed Icke. Just like you pointed out. David answered, and I quote, "There are no question at all that Arizona Wilder was a mind controlled..." and he goes on and says that the information she gave to him has been supported by so many other people. But is that actually true? Other people have probably talked about shape shifting reptilians but not of shape shifting royal reptilians involved in satanic rituals.

Icke and Desborough do not make sense. If AW was mind controlled and her brain altered, as they claim, they cannot trust her story. If she was a high level Satanist priestess, involved with royalty etc. then why is her knowledge of the occult so shallow and why does she present Sitchin's material to Icke in the video as well as condemning him - just as Icke does.

People have told Icke about seeing shapeshifting - yes. It's not a new phenomenon. People have told him about Satanic goings-on with politicians aristocracy and royals - yes. Stories have been rife for years about such things. Powerful people are often involved in extreme acts and secret societies.

David needs to present evidence which isn't tainted by obvious garbage about ETs and Aryan bloodlines etc. before he will be convincing though.

You say 'I absolutely believe there are greys and reptile-like aliens out there,' - that's something I really cannot understand, considering the dubiousness of the evidence that I have seen and researched over the years. I think it's clear some quarters, such as the CIA, would love us to believe that.

I personally believe that we are controlled by 'beings' such as lost souls and thought-forms in the astral dimension, who were once alive, and were as real as you and I. Texts going back aeons write about such things, but these days UFO buffs tend to translate them into ETs, whereas they shouldn't be.

David's had some good ideas in his time, I agree. But he remains essentially a guy who collates the material of others, and therefore he's only as good as his sources. So I read the sources and make up my own mind. Icke therefore, is obsolete for me, except as a factor of focus for so many people interested in this material.

He is certainly dynamic and a great presenter. He gets people hooked. But he's still a fallible guy with biases and opinions, and prone to error just as we all are.

It's easier to read Icke's latest book than the numerous books on numerous subjects that comprise the bibliography. And it's up to the reader to decide whether or not they believe. I personally take his ideas with a pinch of salt, and if he makes me interested, I will then go and find out from the material that made him interested, just why. But usually, when he comes up with something original, I come away disappointed thinking 'how did he conclude what he did from this source material?' When he reports facts and figures, I usually find they are just repeated directly from the source material, sometimes in a way that is close to plagiarism.

In summary, Icke's work has lost 90% of its appeal for me. Why go to the monkey when you can go to the organ grinder for the information?

Best wishes

Back to top Go down
View user profile
E-mail from Ivan Fraser About Icke & Arizona Wilder By Scones86
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Ivan Braginski
» Mail Call!
» Excited about loads of mail
» grocery card in the mail

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Jump to: