Zeitgeist, amazing movie.

So Glad

Here is an amazing film you can watch for free. It's about basically everything, and why it is the way it is.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's ok.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's ok.

Part One: Why the Jews and the Christians Are Evil
Part Two: Why 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Part Three: Why the International Bankers Have Been Getting Away With It For Centuries

Sure...no conspiracies in sight.

So Glad

They are not conspiracy theories.

AlmightyCushion

So Glad wrote:

They are not conspiracy theories.

Yes they are.

So Glad

bonkey wrote:

Part One: Why the Jews and the Christians Are Evil

Eh, HOLD ON! Where did you get that? Why must you say that when it does no such thing? It discusses the origins of Christianity and other religions. It does NOT say they are evil! Why do you need to put a spin on it like that?

It's like when people started calling David Icke anti-semetic because he discussed the origins of the Jewish religion. Absolute PC beyond belief.

Don't do that Bonkey, please.

Karl Hungus

bonkey wrote:

Part One: Why the Jews and the Christians Are Evil

This sounds like a good film.

Thrill

It's a theory.

Part one is called: The greatest story ever told, not what bonkey has written. I havent gotten to part two yet.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Eh, HOLD ON! Where did you get that? Why must you say that when it does no such thing?
...
Why do you need to put a spin on it like that?

I wanted to see your reaction.

Most of the stuff that you seem to put faith on (over in the conspiracy forum) is just that - people putting spin on stuff, using innuendo, rumour-mongering, fear-spreading and downright lies to support their story.

I was reading an article earlier which asked the question of what CTs would feel like if these tactics were used against them if, say, they were ever accused of a crim. While I wouldn't ever wish to see something so perverted happen, I decided to try a slight variation of a theme.

I'm delighted to see that you were, as expected, outraged that someone could stoop so low as to misrepresent something to suit an argument.

Don't do that Bonkey, please.

Sure. I retract my statement. Part one says no such thing.

How about you agree, in turn, that when it can be shown that sources you put faith in are also engaging in spin, misrepresentation and so forth, that you will equally deplore their actions.

Like, for example, if I were to show that some of the content of this film (say, oh, part 2) uses such tactics.....will you post up a retraction, saying that this film is not amazing, but rather disgraceful and shouldn't be watched except to marvel at how dishonest people can be?

So Glad

Yes Bonkey, it's all lies. All free lies given out with the intent to....well just lie...

No truth whatsoever.

D

Terrible film.

aidan_walsh

So Glad wrote:

No truth whatsoever.

Holy crap, people who read anything they see and believe it to be truth actually exist? I thought that was just some bed time story made up to scare smart people.

So Glad

Yes, there are some people who'll believe everything the news stations tell them, it's sad really.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Yes Bonkey, it's all lies. All free lies given out with the intent to....well just lie...

No truth whatsoever.

Now who's misrepresenting and spinning?

I never said any such thing. I said that the movie isn't conspiracy theory free, and that it uses the very tactics that you could easily spot me using.

So much for outrage about misrepresenting things. You seem to be supporting my theory - that the outrage and ability to notice such things depends on whether its regarding something you approve of, or not.

Yes, there are some people who'll believe everything the news stations tell them, it's sad really.

No sadder than people who'll believe anything a youTube video with a good back-beat tells them*

jc

* Before you get outraged, you'll note that this statement no more explicitly refers to you than yours explicitly refers to anyone else here. I'm just using your tactics...again.

Voodu Child

I watched about half an hour of it last week. I found it insanely boring, can't recommend it tbh.

MooseJam

the blowing sh1t up part was pretty cool, then it goes downhill and starts talking about god and religion and other nonsense, I'm gonna keep watching for a while - see if the blowing sh1t up stuff makes a reappearance

So Glad

Yeah, it's mainly a video for making you aware of what's going on in the world. I'd hate to use the word "educational" but I suppose it is. I find it more "interesting".

I turned it off after it went on about the 'so-called truths' (paraphrasing) that we've been exposed to.

MooseJam

it's pretty amazing stuff all right, is it true though, I don't know enough about anchient egypt to know if what he is saying is true, as far as I know he could be just making it up

Ibjiba

Though I appreciate a good movietip, I soon discovered this was nothing for me...

5uspect

MooseJam wrote:

the blowing sh1t up part was pretty cool, then it goes downhill and starts talking about god and religion and other nonsense, I'm gonna keep watching for a while - see if the blowing sh1t up stuff makes a reappearance

I have to admit the blowing stuff up bits were cool. You have to love how they pull out all the old Vietnam stock footage in pad out all the Irag stuff. The space bit at the start was confusing. Why all the random imagery then back to earth over and over again.

Then the religion bit starts. So apparently the religions lies to us? Then he tries to sell us his story about divine justice and his view on god...

Never mind.
I think I'll go watch my BSG boxset instead.

Crucifix

So Glad wrote:

It's like when people started calling David Icke anti-semetic because he discussed the origins of the Jewish religion. Absolute PC beyond belief.

Didn't his origins involve them being lizard people though?

crybaby

the first part was interesting and then it just descended into silliness, they should really just isolate the first part and re-release the film

MooseJam

ok I watched the whole thing, bit about religion I believe, don't believe 9/11 was an inside job but do believe they used it to justify wars and take away civil liberties, believe everything about the bankers

_blank_

It kind of loses credibility when he calls the birth to a virgin of Horus an Immaculate Conception.:rolleyes:

Hands up everyone who actully knows what the Immaculate Conception is.

MooseJam

seansouth wrote:

It kind of loses credibility when he calls the birth to a virgin of Horus an Immaculate Conception.:rolleyes:

Hands up everyone who actully knows what the Immaculate Conception is.

so he got the terminology wrong, the comparison of the virgin births was fair though

aidan_walsh

I'd hate to use the word "educational"

Having watched it, so would I...

But interesting, for what it is - conjecture.

insafehands

I like your style, bonkey.

Haven't watched the movie, don't plan to.

Ayahuarian

Your lose mate, your loss.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

stevejazzx

The comparisons are still there between all the major religons. It would be ridiculous to believe that christianity was original., unique, real.
I don't think we have a problem with the first bit or even the third part...it's the middle bit that seems to divide poeple. From the country that brought us Oswald and Watergate it's amazing how many utterly reject the idea of an inside job. I don't believe either side at present..I have seen a convincing documentary thrashing the old 911 conspiracy documentary that was made by a bunch of students and a laptop.
However and most importantly for me, the amount of respected architects, engineers and other unbiased experts prepared to go on record saying that believe the WTC builidngs were 'interfered' with is staggering. I imagine that would be quite a big step for a professional person to make in America, it could be the end of your career but there are more and more of them coming out every year. And what about building 7 not featuring in the Commissions report? Extremely conspicuous, also the fact that the US government aren't intersted who funded the 911 attacks! Bizzare.
Again I am not a proponent of either side but I thought the documentry was very good. 911 conspiracy theorists are all tarred with the same brush which is a very convenient situation for the US adminsitration. But just remember the same thing is always thought of conspiratists until they find hard eveidence. A new completely independant report last month admitted that Oswalds ability to make those shots on a moving target having to reload each time was impossible given the timeframe.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/wkennedy101.xml

telegraph wrote:

The official Warren Commission inquiry into the shooting concluded the following year that Oswald was a lone gunman who fired three shots with a Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle in 8.3 seconds.
But when the Italian team test-fired the identical model of gun, they were unable to load and fire three shots in less than 19 seconds

Why believe the 911 commission when the Warren report is so questionable?

Robert Kenndy, anti Vietnam, was assinated after winning control of the Democratic Party in 1968. He was killed by a malcontent' Palestinian.
He wasn't even President, but the motive for his murder was his support of Israel in the the six day war, a year before he died.
He wanted to be president and would've been. he would have sought to bring an end as quickly as possible to vietnam.


Look at Watergate, the biggest political scandal ever, directly involving the Presdnent himself, don't forget about Clinton. Amercia is brimming over with corruption becasue the people with real control, the Financiers, dictate who they want in Power.
Have a look at who lost power and when they lost it, it's startling.
Have a look at who's in power now, George W. Bush. Without question an abomination. Yet he has run almost 2 terms so far, 8 years! His first victory was on a recount! after his opponent was declared the winner in many states.

My overall point is, I think, that the only healthy attitude to all of this, which as regualr people we have no way of getting really close to for ourselves and seeing those turths is to entertain both sides and make our minds up based on the balance of evidence.

Maximilian

I think its an absolutely crap movie, notwithstanding that I haven't actually watched it.

Tzetze

Hmm, think I'll stick with Noam Chomsky lectures on youtube if I want to hear truths.

Tar.Aldarion

Guess I will move this to films.

Karl Hungus

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Guess I will move this to films.

I hate you. :mad:

Tar.Aldarion

I waited a little while to get some juicy replies for you.

BlitzKrieg

Curious about the religion part at the beginning.


They make a big deal about Horus and Krishna (and other religious icons) having similar origins to Christ (most common being their birthdate)

But according to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

thats a load of bull.

At least Mithra has the same birthdate it appears

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra

I am curious to how they can tie it all up far too neatly, hence at the moment I am highly suspect of the piece.

EDIT: Ok I found some bits and pieces to back it up. but nothing as concrete as how its presented in the film, Horus as a figure has been redesigned many many times it seems.

aidan_walsh

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Curious about the religion part at the beginning.


They make a big deal about Horus and Krishna (and other religious icons) having similar origins to Christ (most common being their birthdate)

But according to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

thats a load of bull.

At least Mithra has the same birthdate it appears

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra

I am curious to how they can tie it all up far too neatly, hence at the moment I am highly suspect of the piece.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/statement.htm

It's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply is believe things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is based on documented evidence.

Of course, that begs the question of how reliable and respected those sources are.

BlitzKrieg

I saw that, but when I looked at their sources (like you did) I distrusted them due to their clear Bias.


I have no doubt in my mind about common threads in religions across history, what I dislike is the impression that section leaves that christianity was completely manufactered from the prior religions and then used as a controlling force.

I perfered how (when I was talking to him at work about it) Monkeyfudge summed it up as a social evolution of religious belief, much in the same way that egyptian religions actually changed and reimagined themselves (into the version they take) from a prior version to incoperate social change. Much the same way Christianity was reimagined from the Jewish faith to a international faith because it spread it Rome.


I was watching a bit more of it just now and the whole third section just purely made me Ill in its horrible basterdisation of historical events.


I think I'll side with Bonkey on this one and say a load of bollocks.

stevejazzx

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm


this would seem to back up the religous element!