Ah yes, that's another thing that looks suspicious, although I can't decide whether it's a proof of guilt or not - the first time I heard about him (David Icke) was something like "that crazy reptilian hunter". It was only much later when I actually listened to the guy and was surprised by how much sense he does make. But the reptilian thing? The three extremes are a) it is really the truth (I don't believe it), b) it is something he believes to be true, c) he is an agent and doing the trick of associating the 80% of truth with reptilians, making the truth unbelievable or ridiculous by association. I choose option B in this case, but it's my personal opinion :) Actually, one more thing to add is that options B and C can be simultaneously true, and he's using planted evidence without being aware of it.