Debunking a 7 hour video?


New Member
First I want to thank everyone on this forum for all the work they do that makes debunking so much easier for the rest of us. I've found browsing this forum very useful, but here's my first query.

So I have a friend who reads into a lot of bunk. I used to be into it too, but now I see it for what it is (thanks in part to this forum). So he still sends me his bunk, I give him a point by point refutation of it, and he basically backs off from his original postings. But now, he just sent me this video aptly titled, "Almost 7 Hours David Icke Non Stop." In general, and in particular, how do I refute this? I don't want to just say "David Icke's a lunatic" as much as I want to, but I would also sooner shoot myself than watch "Almost 7 Hours David Icke Non Stop" to counter the specific points. I'm sure this is a general problem debunkers run into when inundated like this, although I haven't seen any posts on here dealing with it specifically. Any suggestions?

Mick West

Staff member
Going point by point just leads to more points.

Try to focus on single points in depth. Ask him what the single most irrefutable piece of evidence is, and address that. Try to spend more time on single points, otherwise the debunking does not take, and you'll just be playing whack-a-mole.

Try also to identify what his key misconceptions are. He might not come out and say these things, but they might be behind what he's thinking. Is there something fundamental that he believes that is actually false?


New Member
Ok well I watched the first of the 7 hours of Icke and refuted 10 things he said. This is how my friend replied:
i like the reptilian theory - it let's me say "republican? democrat? who cares? they're all reptiles!" and to my way of thinking, they are, at least metaphorically.
i can't argue much of the "science" or "archeology" of his world view, i just love that there is someone out there who is willing to stand up in front of anyone at all and say what he says.
watch more if you get a chance and are willing to get through it. i love to listen to the fringe. i'm sick of all the other common fairy tales that are just as outrageous but a lot more accepted.
his more meta-conclusions, those having to do with a more ascendant possibility for humanity, i completely agree with.
if humans can live in cognitive comfort among impossibly stupid actions and beliefs and blatant lies on a daily basis, what makes you think that any of the evidence you might use to argue against icke really has the validity that you ascribe to it?
not trying to insult you, just making a point. science constantly proves itself wrong, established facts turn out to be established dogma, the mind is a completely self validating entity.
You asked what his key misconceptions are, and I think that's a good point. Based on my observations (and if your experience tells you something else, go ahead and correct me), he just sees how corrupt the political system is and then looks for answers for why that is, and unfortunately, he found those answers in Alex Jones, David Wilcock, et al. But then he also has this kind of New Agey/spiritual worldview that kind of rejects science and sometimes even scientific thinking. Now, I don't know how to explicitly go and refute that, because it's pretty central to his way of thinking and it's hard to phrase as an actual proposition that can be proved or disproved. I think I'm just going to go ahead and ask him "if facts are dogma and minds just fool themselves all the time, why should we believe in anything at all?" I hope that makes him rethink stuff, but do you have any other suggestions?