Is it true?

This week there was a programme on TV about David Icke. He is a former Coventry City goalkeeper and BBC sports presenter turned writer and campaigner who's convinced, amongst other things, that Earth is run by "reptilian humanoids".

If you want to find out more check out http://www.davidicke.com/icke/index.html

Normally a programme about someone who believes the Earth is run by "reptilian humanoids" would be enough for me to hit the off switch. But I‘m glad I didn‘t.

I was interested not only by what Icke had to say, but my reaction to the programme.

A person’s opinion can range from sane evidenced fact to fantasised mythology. This is especial true in Icke’s case.

As a listener (viewer) how do you judge the validity of statements made?

Some of the things Icke was laughed at and called a madman for saying in the 1990s have now become fact. His statement on the progressive constraint by Government of individual freedoms is demonstrably correct.

And I start listening to what he said, I nodded my head in agreement. Then he started taking about it all being a reptilian humanoid’s conspiracy, and I think “is he a nut case?” The same reaction to the statements made in the 90’s.

Now how am I to know what is an appropriate reaction? Must I reject all the statements made? Or can I pick and choose?

A man says he’s the son of God, (as Icke has done), he’s crucified, but 2000 years later people still follow his teachings. Be honest what would have been your reaction if you lived in Israel 2000 years ago?

The most powerful man in the World makes a statement, it’s supported by evidence provided by a number of sources. But where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?

Who can you believe? And how do you judge what to believe?