Covert-hostile attacks Clones Doppelgängers/Doubles
[This is a forum post example of a covert attack, analysed.]
THE (COVERT) ATTACK:
discerning mind http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=46038&page=1120
Not seeing what the problem is on many of the pics in the link you posted. (http://whale.to/b/before_and_after.html) Before and after (visual)
I don't get some of your choices for before and after pics. In some cases you picked pics that were pretty much the same, so it doesn't really show what the "problem" is. (Reba McEntire, Joan Baez, Nelly Furtado, Hillary Duff, Johnny Depp, Mary McDonnell, Julia Roberts, Jennifer Lopez, Sharon Stone, Cindy Crawford, Amanda Bynes, Bernadette Peters, Jewel Kilcher, John Travolta, Gwyneth Paltrow, Michelle Pfeiffer, Marissa Tomei, Drew Barrymore.) There might be some genuine issue going on with the celeb but you didn't choose pics that really show this.
In other cases the before pic is as strange (or even worse) than the after: Brooke Shields, Lil Kim, Robert Plant, Nikki Sixx.
Other pics where I don't really see what the problem is or where it's clear that the only "weird" thing going on is that the celeb has aged would be: Bridgit Bardot, Tom Petty, Stevie Nicks, Annie Lennox, Jimmy Carter, Alice Cooper, Nick Nolte. I know, Jimmy Carter is always talked about in the conspiracy articles about being replaced, but in the pic you posted he just looks like an old guy.
There's also clearly an error in your before and after pics of Tony Blair. The after pic is not even remotely him. I'm not saying the guy doesn't have some issues I'm just saying that pic is incorrect.
And then there's definitely some celebs in there who haven't aged well, but who is to say they've been replaced or had their soul scalped or whatever the theory is. And for others it's pretty clear they've had bad plastic surgery (Kate Jackson, Joan Van Ark [wicked bad skin peel that's ruined her face] Meg Ryan, Tara Reid [she's been very open to the media about her botched liposuction]
For me Madonna is a problem. So you won't hear any disagreements from me about her. That one is just very obvious.
And I do agree about Megan Fox. Something's really not right there and especially with how much she's been pushed on the public. And the changes in Taylor Momsen and Amy Winehouse once celebrity took over are also very striking.
As far as David Icke goes, yeah he doesn't look like a happy camper in that after photo. But his life hasn't been easy either, he has crippling arthritis and other physical ailments. And he supposedly is under stress and attack all the time for what he does. And then all the financial problems he has too. So who is to say, right? And Fritz? He just spent like the last eight years in prison. Let's see how anybody looks after that.
This is a covert attack, the first proof is the fact it created anger. Another helpful truth is the spiritual psychology dictum--'the way the communication was received was the Intent of the communication'.
Covert attacks come disguised, the fist in the velvet glove, the hug while they put the knife in your back. When challenged they have a good cover story--'that wasn't me', 'I was only offering an observation', 'you are just being sensitive', etc. Hence it's covert nature. If in company you are at a disadvantage as you are the only one who feels mad or sad. Only someone with psychological knowledge would see the game. They also generate additional anger by the fact you not only have been made angry but you have been also been cleverly had, you are the only one who can see it, and the perp has got away scott free, usually.
His first ploy, to give him the rationale for offering a 'critique', was to make out the lie he was interested in the subject, and believed in cloning or replacements, this he did by stating:
For me Madonna is a problem. So you won't hear any disagreements from me about her. That one is just very obvious. ...And I do agree about Megan Fox.
Next he/she came up with a few straw men so he could be more critical:
1) that the page said all of the people were replacements. No where does it say that. The pictures are just a collection to foster research. The unlabeled ones at the bottom are just stored there for future use.
2). That picture evidence was somehow all the evidence, when we all know it is just a pointer. They are just circumstantial evidence.
There might be some genuine issue going on with the celeb but you didn't choose pics that really show this.
Well, find us some pics that do!
His complete lack of knowledge he betrayed by:
I know, Jimmy Carter is always talked about in the conspiracy articles about being replaced, but in the pic you posted he just looks like an old guy.
1). Jimmy Carter. Notice the use of the term "conspiracy articles", this sort of terminology betrays a Pyjama person or a perp'. What would a PJ be doing reading this thread? (see 'Conspiracy' word game)
If you believe in replacements as he claims (eg Madonna), then Jimmy Carter is the first and best documented (see Clones). So the 'old man' was a clone. Whatever the picture looks like, that is a clone!
Secondly he obviously can't see beyond the surface he just looks like an old guy, as he can't, (or pretends more like) pick up how Carter is feeling. And that is a pretty striking photo in that regard, and even more so compared with the real Carter.
2). Nelly Furtado. I don't get some of your choices for before and after pics. In some cases you picked pics that were pretty much the same, so it doesn't really show what the "problem" is. Nelly Furtado.
So the inference here is the photo is everything, but whoever said that? Any perusal of Furtado's music and live performances (see Furtado) would show you she is different, yet this person hasn't even bothered to do that! So the after photo has to be a replacement, as does the Baez photo from her live performances (see Baez), end of story.
If he can't see the difference in Stone, Roberts, Paltrow, Jewel, then he is either lying or has absolutely no discernment!
Huge difference in eyes.
Again, huge difference. First one lovely energy. Good luck with the new one, don't forget the garlic!
"You can see the energy animating a person, by the love radiating out from their RIGHT eye. Left eye is WILL power. Now, look at the pics of daddy bush and all these leaders. Always a lazy or dead right eye, and an unusually larger left eye. That solar plexus and Sacral center energies dictating terms. Now, get any pics of people you KNOW to have good and loving hearts. Balanced eyes, very warm, and a very tight - not sagging - fluidity in their face. If they are being overshadowed - either good or ill - the overshadowing being's visage will show in their face. If it is heart center and higher, you'll see it instantly. A warm light about them. You know the rest..." Cbswork and Rudolf Steiner
Jewel. Again, big difference. First one lovely energy.
3.) Lil Kim. In other cases the before pic is as strange (or even worse) than the after: Lil Kim.
She looks like she has been run over by a truck!
In other cases the before pic is as strange (or even worse) than the after: Brooke Shields
Brooke Shields!! No kidding!!!! You can have
the new one! Good luck!
another small pointer is the type of men they attract now. E.g. Furtado, Shields.
doesn't look too bad in these pics, but she hinted she was a reptoid by having
slit eyes on an album cover, she was also snapped with slit eyes. Clue
4). And for others it's pretty clear they've had bad plastic surgery
Just bad plastic surgery! No one denies some may be just surgery victims but anyone with 2 brain cells will figure out plastic surgery is used to hide replacements. But not this person.
Classic examples being:
Yeah, go from good looking, in most cases, to plastic surgery freak/victim!
I don't get some of your choices for before and after pics. In some cases you picked pics that were pretty much the same, so it doesn't really show what the "problem" is. Cindy Crawford, ..There might be some genuine issue going on with the celeb but you didn't choose pics that really show this.
Err, he missed the fact her neck had grown!!
Not to mention the moving mole. Quite apart from the feel of the soul. Soft to hard.
Absolutely no research, and also no psychic ability to see beyond the surface. So absolutely no qualification to offer any sort of critique, anyway
All forum communications should be
1) Supportive/encouraging research,
2). Offer constructive observations with no trace of criticism.
3). Provide more evidence to back up (or disprove) what you say.
Or a combination of the three.
Anything else is an attack.
He patently knew absolutely nothing about the subject so had absolutely no right to offer any sort of observation, let alone a attack/critique.
So is either a covert-hostile (or being covertly-hostile), or a perp'.