Zeitgeist
lolfighter
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">The Movie</div><a href="http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/" target="_blank">http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/</a>
Have you seen this yet? You've probably heard of it, and maybe you're already sick of it. And if you have already seen it, then whatever you got out of it don't feel obligated to stay here if you have other things to do. This thread is primarily for those who haven't seen it yet.
Go watch it. The first ten, fifteen minutes of it. If you want to watch the rest, I won't be able to prevent you from it. If you don't want to, I can't make you. But you should. You should watch the entire movie, and I hope you do. What you do afterwards is up to you. But if you take these two hours out of your life to sit down and watch this movie, I think you'll get something out of it.
Have you seen this yet? You've probably heard of it, and maybe you're already sick of it. And if you have already seen it, then whatever you got out of it don't feel obligated to stay here if you have other things to do. This thread is primarily for those who haven't seen it yet.
Go watch it. The first ten, fifteen minutes of it. If you want to watch the rest, I won't be able to prevent you from it. If you don't want to, I can't make you. But you should. You should watch the entire movie, and I hope you do. What you do afterwards is up to you. But if you take these two hours out of your life to sit down and watch this movie, I think you'll get something out of it.
Comments
Zeitgeist- movie, is an independent movie about what Christianity, 9/11 and The Federal Reserve all have in common.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A film of politics and religion? Sounds like fun.
No thanks.
I wish they'd just get to the point and save the groovy music and Windows Media Player visualizations for later.
...they all explode?
What annoys me the most, is that I would like to believe in these things, but I know it will never be accepted as truth. It will always be viewed as something silly people, with "to much fantasy" make up in their heads. Whatever.
I liked the crosschecks on religion though, a couple of fun facts there - true or not.
"We invite you to check out everything we talked about here."
So I did. I didn't even find ONE time mentioning any of the 'facts' it kept talking about over and over. Its pretty ridiculous. Nothing about any of the figures that supposedly came from Horus' facts had any mention of any of the facts in any of the places I looked.
I watched a 5 minute clip of this from Digg a while back ago. It said,
"We invite you to check out everything we talked about here."
So I did. I didn't even find ONE time mentioning any of the 'facts' it kept talking about over and over. Its pretty ridiculous. Nothing about any of the figures that supposedly came from Horus' facts had any mention of any of the facts in any of the places I looked.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.. because you personally can't find them, they must be false? Try searching things like "horus resurrection" or whatever else relating specifically to the information you don't think to be legitimate.
This is a bit of a side track, but I'm looking for convincing proof that there is documented evidence of jesus christ. The brief mention in this movie about all the historians of the time not mentioning him seems strange since I often read christians claiming that there is a <i>lot</i> of historical and factual evidence of his existance.
The bible doesn't cut it for me, I'd rather look at it from a side angle so to speak
.. because you personally can't find them, they must be false? Try searching things like "horus resurrection" or whatever else relating specifically to the information you don't think to be legitimate.
This is a bit of a side track, but I'm looking for convincing proof that there is documented evidence of jesus christ. The brief mention in this movie about all the historians of the time not mentioning him seems strange since I often read christians claiming that there is a <i>lot</i> of historical and factual evidence of his existance.
The bible doesn't cut it for me, I'd rather look at it from a side angle so to speak
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd assume that half of these things would be basic parts of explaining these characters through history in any article or entry about them.
I'd assume that half of these things would be basic parts of explaining these characters through history in any article or entry about them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sorry, I don't follow - elaborate a bit for me?
If you could show me a place where it does, I'd seriously love to see it.
Why not? What did you see in those ten seconds that put you off it? Something disturbing? It IS a very disturbing movie, I guess I should have made that clear.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
coming from a person who judged Insurgency despite never trying it- i don't think you can question why someone takes a dislike to a movie 10s after watching it.
I don't need to have a moral high ground here. I'm not telling you to follow my glorious, shining example, so I don't have to set one. If you had to be perfect in order to tell people where they go wrong, nobody could ever.
Part I is totally irrelevant to any other point made in the movie. So Christianity is rooted in Paganism. There is established research on this subject easily accessible for anyone to read. I fail to see what they were trying to establish here and there is a lot of very poor reasoning trying to establish method to the process of the christianisation of pagan Europe.
Part II is where it got really bad. They produce claims here that have already been effectively debunked. Take for example the Flight 757 crash into the pentagon. Loose change rambled on about this at lenght and most of what they have claimed has been clearly explained elsewhere and the rest is just circumstantial or coincidence. There is no strong case that Flight 757 was some kind of coverup. ( quick google result: <a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html" target="_blank">http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html</a> ). That's not to say that there was no form of coverup or misininformation surrounding Sept. 11, but this movie tries to frame a lot of misinformation against a global conspiracy and that is stretching things a lot.
Part III was very messy but it had some good information in it. It tries to bring all of the points of the movie together to demonstrate that there is a coordinated effort to produce a new world order. To be honest, I've read this kind of stuff before and it just doesn't wash. "Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by incompetence", is my take on the collective mess that is 20th century politics.
This movie is very similiar to the UFO/Alien Abduction/Alien Autopsy stuff that was very effectively peddled in the 90s. It uses the very style of media misinformation it complains about to paint a paranoid picture of the world affairs supported with dramatic shifts in music tempo, and repetition of similiar phrases again and again. It appears to me to be the work of someone who studied media and not journalism. I have no doubt that the tail does wag the dog, but I'm unconvinced that the tails are all controlled by an organisation with a grand plan for civilisation.
Edit: actually, it is worthwhile to watch 'Loose Change' now and then read the various sites dedicated to debunking it. Zeitgeist isn't even released yet, and it will take time for the 'snopes' out there to root out credible sources that debunk or verify the claims in Zeitgeist. There is definitely a lot of factual information in Loose Change, and *a lot* of unreliable witness testimony but the way in which it is spun to draw conclusions from it's complex correlations is demonstrative of what this style of movie can easily achieve.
...talk...
...kinda...
...like...
...
...
...this.
In the fields of politics and history, you can prove anything if you look for the evidence after you've decided what the series of events acctually were before hand. The fact of the matter is that there is half truths in virtually any proposal.
Prove to me physics is all lies. That I'd be interested in.
Watched it the other day, was recommended by enough people to warrant the time.
Part I wasn't hard to watch for someone who long ago abandoned faith as a grounds for belief. It takes a considerable amount of faith to sit there and accept all their claims at face value, though. If you're going to flat out say that Christianity was a calculated means of population control engineered in First Council of Nicaea, you're going to have to give us more proof than a few narrated sentences.
Part II brought up many astounding viewpoints on the U.S.'s motivation to enter the various 20th century wars, but those claims can only be taken seriously in a scholarly context. I'm too lazy to try to verify them; maybe this means they're right in implicating the laziness and disinterest of the apathetic masses after all <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> The WTC jazz was at times provoking, especially BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones and the closeup shot of an angularly-cut support beam, but overall it's just another hill of beans in the manner of Loose Change.
Part III sank really far into wacky Alex Jones New World Order territory and lost most of its believability. What was extremely interesting though was the discussion of the Federal Reserve and its origins and history. This is made more interesting by all the hoopla around senator/presidential hopeful Ron Paul, who's given a tone of sanity and credibility to the modern debate about the Fed. If it really is true that the great depression was <i>engineered</i> the way they say it was, the implications are profound.. I remember learning about it in public elementary and middle school classes and I remember plenty about the stock market and not a single mention of the Fed or its operators. And I have some of my old public school social studies books in a closet that prove this...
Ultimately though they lose their ability to provoke some kind of a paradigm shift in its viewers' understanding of the world because there's too much sensationalistic, unaccounted for, and loosely-tied information for it to be taken seriously. Unfortunately if one wishes to research deeper into the conjecture brought up in the film it usually leads him to more and more shifty, tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy sources. If there is real merit to the claims it's obscured beneath the easily ignored tone of "conspiracy theory."
<3