Talk:Delores Kane

message: I knew David when he was a Scout (the Baden Powell movement!), it is no surprise to me that he found himself drawn into the secret services. He was a loner, and an odd-ball in the nicest sense of the word. The alleged use of mind altering substances is hardly unique, especially after being a member of the "schizophrenic" world of the secret services. I have read extensively about the "alternative" view of history and the attempts at a NWO, it all makes far more sense than what I learned at skool (sic).  
With the Internet, this view is finding a far wider audience. People (especially in the US) have been lecturing on this stuff for many years. People like Shayler and those that went before him, have always been dismissed as cranks, and marginalized. Strangely their lectures and warnings from pre and post WW2 seem to follow a fairly accurate prediction of events that followed. George Bush senior New World Order and George Bush junior inferences and comments about a future WW3 (WTF), start making far more sense. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 is a very interesting document, and worth reading carefully. To whom it was addressed, and it's contents. This is what it took to bring the US into WW1, as Britain (by that time) was at it's knees, much of the US supporting Germany! Prescott Bush (George Bush senior's father) and the Harriman Bank was was convicted of being involved in funding [shell companies for industrialists fromJabberwoch (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi David! 213.122.248.121 (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: David as a Scout

message: Hmm, I'm listening to David Shayler right now on Alex Jones' radio show, and Shayler is saying people can go to his website, davidshayler.com, but when I go there seems to not be a webpage (just one of those generic "placeholder pages" with generic links, sorry don't know what those pages are called.)
The article here has a link to a copy of the "disappeared" Shayler website that used to be at shayler.com, but is this the same thing happened over again, with the website at davidshayler.com? 62.16.177.20 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Shayler website also deleted?

message: *A decent source for this would be fabulous.. Secretlondon 17:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Icke style stuff?

message: Defenders of the official version of events claim video manipulation of the media and video footage of WTC were edited and cite the pentagon crash as proof that aeroplanes did not hit the towers.  While we can document historically that they have beliefs about 9/11, to remove the fact that the vast majority of those who question the official version of events have rejected Shayler for his baseless claims of missiles and holograms is merely to try to continue to prop up hoaxes.  He outed himself by making claims about being a messiah and that real planes didn't hit the towers -- simple facts, no "disputes" involved.  Because of this, he has been openly rejected, and is no longer invited to participate in most all events, publications and discussions about 9/11 truth issues.  Few tolerate the "truthers" who worked for the intelligence agencies or the Bush Administration and then conveniently went "nuts" when they were talking to reporters about 9/11 questions.  He is rejected, plain and simple. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they will come up with every excuse to remove the information because they want to tarnish anyone who questions the official version with real instances of people who go nuts.  Icke did the same thing with the Green Party -- went nuts and they quickly rejected him -- but you don't see people trying to remove the fact that he was socially and formally rejected by the party. 71.127.11.177 (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the only evidence we have that this particulary crazy was rejected are blog entries, not generally considered reliable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it would take CBS news coverage to "prove" that an entity you consider "fringe" and mere nutcases had rejected Shayler? 71.127.11.177 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmmm.  It's an interesting problem trying to decide whether the fact that some nutcases rejected other nutcases can be verified.  But blog entries are, at most, considered the personal opinions of the bloggers.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The references are varied - blogs, websites, news articles, essays, discussion forums.  CBS News can't cover everything . . . . 71.127.11.177 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  There's a similar problem on the William Rodriguez page.  Issues involving doubts about Rodriguez' credibility--both among debunkers and inside the Truth movement--can only be sourced in blogs and web forums.  Some editors (many of them suspected by admins of being finger puppets for Rodriguez himself) are opposing use of any such blog material as unreliable.  They pretend to miscomprehend my point that these blogs are not being used as an authority for any fact other than the fact that people inside and outside the movement have opinions and there is a controversy.  Contrivance (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Truther" issues

message: Web chatter indicates Shayler and Machon and Rodriguez were to appear together.  Editors on the Rodriguez page are claiming the programs never came off, but they provide no evidence that they didn't.  Some of the editors on that page are kind of fact-averse, and probably are anxious to distance Rodriguez from Shayler.  Contrivance (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anyone have information on the Ireland appearances (Cork and Dublin) in early 2007?

message: According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, the book Spycatcher wasn’t banned in Scotland at the time Shayler was at Dundee Uni., as this article states. Which is correct?Jock123 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: “Spycatcher” banned “in the U.K.”?

message: Can a more technically-savvy editor than me fix the photo and caption? The caption is inappropriate and I'm not certain whom the image depicts. --155.47.176.83 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Firstly there's no mention of something widely discussed in many sources - that the various eccentricities are examples of mental illness. This is obviously something to be handled with great care, but there is, for example, an entire paragraph in the Jon Ronson book on Psychopathy entitled "David Shayler's Madness" (N.B. It's not suggested that he's a psychopath, nor should Wiki apply or spread any diagnosis without an official, verified one being available). Depending on responses, I may add a line to clarify this, as it's very important to most of the other content. Secondly there's a separate section on allegations of anti-semitism, which says he quoted the 'Elders of Zion' as a source, but there's no source for this given. Frankly it seems extremely likely, but that's not the level of proof required for making such an allegation, so this should perhaps be removed in the near future if support could not be found. It would also not require a separate section for this sentence. Marty jar (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mental State / Lack of References

message: to me the article sounds like it was written by someone who wants to discredit DS.
* putting claims in a way that they appear to contradict each other (although they do not) -> eg. see my edit from 19:09, 17 March 2015‎
* exaggerating and playing down different aspects -> eg. "List of whistleblowers" not in links, but "List of messiah claimants"? That seems weird ...
oh well, maybe I'm just paranoid ;)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.80.79.51 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  tendencious article 

message: David has repeatedly, on record, claimed to be the son of God. Either that is true, in which case it should probably be mentioned here, or else it is not true, in which case it should also probably be mentioned here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.135.133 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this article not mention that David considers himself to be the messiah?