There's a brand new video out that I just ran across, called "Zeitgeist". It's one of the most startling, eye-opening and thought-provoking videos that I have ever seen. Unlike many online videos that I start to watch, I couldn't stop watching until the very end.
It's documentary style and explores the question: What are the connections between Christianity, terrorism, the Federal Reserve, wars, income taxes, governments and positions of power in general?
I haven't taken the time yet to go through it with a fine-toothed comb, but if even only 10% of what it says is true, it shows that almost everything we have been taught is a lie. No one will be unaffected by it, I guarantee!
Set aside two hours and watch it--it's well worth it. I'd like to generate some discussion here, amongst those who choose to do so :)
Website for the movie, and link to watch it http://zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html
I'm watching the beginning now. Certainly some very interesting stuff. The stuff he's saying about where stars are on specific dates has me thinking, though. Aren't the locations of the stars different now than they were 2,000 years ago, and therefore things that happen on certain dates now, happened on different dates 2,000 years ago?
*edit - Finished watching the movie. I don't consider myself a conspiracy guy at all, I tend to agree with Ian from FTL in that it's irrelevant. I was really chilled by this movie though. It's horrifying :(
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 03, 2007, 09:52 PM NHFT
I'm watching the beginning now. Certainly some very interesting stuff. The stuff he's saying about where stars are on specific dates has me thinking, though. Aren't the locations of the stars different now than they were 2,000 years ago, and therefore things that happen on certain dates now, happened on different dates 2,000 years ago?
*edit - Finished watching the movie. I don't consider myself a conspiracy guy at all, I tend to agree with Ian from FTL in that it's irrelevant. I was really chilled by this movie though. It's horrifying :(
I concur--it is horrifying and chilling. Remind you that I said you wouldn't be unaffected by it! Sit on it for a day or two and digest it, maybe watch it again as I did, then report back what you have taken away with it and what affected you. I'll work on a write-up, as well.
There's another thread about it around here somewhere or maybe on FTL. I got caught up in it myself. It's the first time I ever even paid any attention to some of the doubts presented about 9/11. Somehow this film managed to hold my attention when in the past I just scoff it off. What it has to say about historical facts and the Fed make you want to go slap your high school history teacher across the face.
Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2007, 01:24 AM NHFT
There's another thread about it around here somewhere or maybe on FTL. I got caught up in it myself. It's the first time I ever even paid any attention to some of the doubts presented about 9/11. Somehow this film managed to hold my attention when in the past I just scoff it off. What it has to say about historical facts and the Fed make you want to go slap your high school history teacher across the face.
I understand the spell that it held on you--I experienced the same reaction. The historical facts that it brings up will not only want to make you slap your high school history teacher across the face, but many other people as well!
I stopped the movie at the five minute mark because it completely failed by that point to present anything remotely resembling content.
Quote from: error on July 04, 2007, 02:01 AM NHFT
I stopped the movie at the five minute mark because it completely failed by that point to present anything remotely resembling content.
The intro ends and content starts at the five-minute mark
I agree - a stunning movie!
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 03, 2007, 09:52 PM NHFT
I'm watching the beginning now. Certainly some very interesting stuff. The stuff he's saying about where stars are on specific dates has me thinking, though. Aren't the locations of the stars different now than they were 2,000 years ago, and therefore things that happen on certain dates now, happened on different dates 2,000 years ago?
Thanks to a vast understanding of physics and astronomy, scientists today can tell you exactly what was where in the sky at any given time of day on any day in the history of the planet. No bull. There even exists commercial software that can
show you what we missed before our species existed. The universe is expanding at a constant rate, but it
is very predictable.
Will watch that video now.
(Some notes from the film-maker which I found online)
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/06/361581.shtml
I would like to say one thing in regards to a continual comment/question I am getting, and that is :
"What do we do now?"
Step One: REALIZE FEAR IS AN ILLUSION
which is a tool perpetuated by religion and the political system to keep societies under control. Don't worry about "the government
watching you" or any of the general bullying tactics used to keep people from rising up. Ask questions, get in the way, and don't back down in your march to know the truth about EVERYTHING.
The pursuit of true and the processes of understanding/realization is the only true religion.
As an aside, if you are not familiar with Ed & Elaine Brown who are currently in a stand off with the authorities due to the Income tax fraud, you should be. They have asked for one thing "Show us the law that says we have to pay the income tax on our wages, and we will pay". The government can't show the law because there isn't one. I strongly suggest everyone support the Browns. They are setting a precedent that needs to be seen and heard nation wide.
***
Step Two: EDUCATE YOURSELF
The mainstream media is the 4th branch of the US Government and they are going to tow the political line. Granted, they can't control everyone in their structure, but the major headlines/features you see in the major newspapers and on networks have been filtered by
agents of the corporate/political elite. All major news agencies have top brass belonging to the Council on Foreign Relations. If you are not familiar with the history and agenda of the socialist power house known as the Council on Foreign Relations, I suggest a book called " The Shadows of Power" by James Perloff. This group is the hidden arm behind American Foreign policy and they seek nothing less than the total destruction of the American Republic and the creation of a socialist system / world government.
***
Step Three: EDUCATE OTHERS
Create a website/ myspace/ have email lists/call into radio shows, etc.
Don't be afraid to engage people, old and young in this points. Talk to your family.
Get some of the many DVDs out there on the subjects and copy them and pass them out.
***
Final Point:
The 2 dominant motto's used in the game by those who wish to manipulate and control is
1) Divide and Conquer
2) Order out of Chaos
-Divide and Conquer-
They try to get people at odds with each other in order to keep people distracted and to prevent unity.
The duality put forth by religion, exploited by governments, in the general form of GOOD vs EVIL, is a farce. There is no good- There is no evil. There are only degrees of operating "with the current of nature" or "against the current of nature" and when you understand that
the 'collective consciousness' is no different in structure than your 'personal consciousness' in that the whole of the species undergoes social 'conflicts of interest', just as an individual battles personal 'conflicts of interests'(pertaining to arrogance/ stubbornness/ poor temperaments, etc) you can understand that the battle against the Elite is a macrocosm of your own PERSONAL internal battle dealing with your own misguided feelings of superiority, arrogance and the like.
Therefor, change in many ways starts with increased self-awareness and thus the removal of the ego based elitism that we all at one time or another share. No one is better then anyone else. Period. We are all the same. We are also One.
- Order out of Chaos-
This is simple. They create problems, instill unrest, then push forward their agenda disguised as a change in the best interest of the public.
911; Katrina; the War on Drugs:; Global Warming; Terrorism in general, Iraqi insurgents, Immigration, Inflation... are all used to whatever advantage they can muster up.
The more real or fabricated problems that arise, the faster the elite can reposition power. [I.E. After WW1, we had the "League of Nations" . After WWII, we had the United Nations; After WWIII, we will likely have a full on One World Government.]
In my opinion, the criminal elements behind the US/UK administration want nothing less than World War, as it will be the ultimate
"shake up" of things to get their agenda into full swing.
Peter J.
"The Revolution Is Now"
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Good find, Insurgent!
I also hear the "What do we do now?" question all the time, so I'm glad to see Peter J offering his answers.
Quote from: lowen on July 04, 2007, 03:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 03, 2007, 09:52 PM NHFT
I'm watching the beginning now. Certainly some very interesting stuff. The stuff he's saying about where stars are on specific dates has me thinking, though. Aren't the locations of the stars different now than they were 2,000 years ago, and therefore things that happen on certain dates now, happened on different dates 2,000 years ago?
Thanks to a vast understanding of physics and astronomy, scientists today can tell you exactly what was where in the sky at any given time of day on any day in the history of the planet. No bull. There even exists commercial software that can show you what we missed before our species existed. The universe is expanding at a constant rate, but it is very predictable.
Will watch that video now.
But still, in the movie the narrator says something like "On December 25th every year, this and this happens", but wouldn't the date that it happens change over time?
here is the truth if you have one hour. an excellent beginning from Zeitgeist...... do not be impatient. the truth is not taught it is realized.
this is for those who care about the truth; as opposed to the feeding of the fake ego. the hiders of knowledge to press there false and oppressive superiority. oh .....what a leader to hide knowledge.
to know best; better than you do.
to keep you in the dark.
http://dl.cuttingthrough.jenkness.com/Alan_Watt_Blurb_ModernMythologicalEnemies_vs_TheManInTheMirror_July042007.mp3
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 05, 2007, 11:57 AM NHFT
But still, in the movie the narrator says something like "On December 25th every year, this and this happens", but wouldn't the date that it happens change over time?
You should write Peter J, the filmmaker and ask him why he makes that claim: zeitgeist@zeitgeistmovie.com. I'd be interested in hearing his answer.
That song by the 5th Dimension kept popping into my head...
I couldn't take any of it seriously after that :blush:
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 05, 2007, 11:57 AM NHFT
Quote from: lowen on July 04, 2007, 03:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 03, 2007, 09:52 PM NHFT
I'm watching the beginning now. Certainly some very interesting stuff. The stuff he's saying about where stars are on specific dates has me thinking, though. Aren't the locations of the stars different now than they were 2,000 years ago, and therefore things that happen on certain dates now, happened on different dates 2,000 years ago?
Thanks to a vast understanding of physics and astronomy, scientists today can tell you exactly what was where in the sky at any given time of day on any day in the history of the planet. No bull. There even exists commercial software that can show you what we missed before our species existed. The universe is expanding at a constant rate, but it is very predictable.
Will watch that video now.
But still, in the movie the narrator says something like "On December 25th every year, this and this happens", but wouldn't the date that it happens change over time?
I don't think that two-thousand, or even a million, years would dramatically change the position of the stars and planets in the sky. I don't doubt that it's been Dec. 25th every year for the last billion years.
Aaaargh... I just know this movie is going to depress the hell out of me, but I feel compelled to watch it now. Curse you, Insurgent, and your substantive, thought-provoking threads!
Quote from: Friday on July 06, 2007, 12:30 PM NHFT
Aaaargh... I just know this movie is going to depress the hell out of me, but I feel compelled to watch it now. Curse you, Insurgent, and your substantive, thought-provoking threads!
It'll be worth it - you'll be glad you saw it. Heck, you won't be able to tear your eyes off it!
I think it has a hopeful inspiring message. Truth (or nearer approaches to it) gives me more hope these days. I got over the depression part when I maxed out on "how bad things are" several years back - Now it's all "get more truth, spread the word, take more action." (repeat cycle til free) ;D
Quote from: lowen on July 06, 2007, 11:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 05, 2007, 11:57 AM NHFT
Quote from: lowen on July 04, 2007, 03:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 03, 2007, 09:52 PM NHFT
I'm watching the beginning now. Certainly some very interesting stuff. The stuff he's saying about where stars are on specific dates has me thinking, though. Aren't the locations of the stars different now than they were 2,000 years ago, and therefore things that happen on certain dates now, happened on different dates 2,000 years ago?
Thanks to a vast understanding of physics and astronomy, scientists today can tell you exactly what was where in the sky at any given time of day on any day in the history of the planet. No bull. There even exists commercial software that can show you what we missed before our species existed. The universe is expanding at a constant rate, but it is very predictable.
Will watch that video now.
But still, in the movie the narrator says something like "On December 25th every year, this and this happens", but wouldn't the date that it happens change over time?
I don't think that two-thousand, or even a million, years would dramatically change the position of the stars and planets in the sky. I don't doubt that it's been Dec. 25th every year for the last billion years.
Maybe I've misunderstood the elementary astrology I've heard. I just know I've heard people say things like Jesus was actually born on January 5th, and that the dates that the star signs represent are like two weeks off. Something about planets changing their position over time and being in different places in the sky depending where on the planet you are and different calenders being used or something. I've just randomly heard people talk about though, and haven't really fully listened.
Quote from: Friday on July 06, 2007, 12:30 PM NHFT
Aaaargh... I just know this movie is going to depress the hell out of me, but I feel compelled to watch it now. Curse you, Insurgent, and your substantive, thought-provoking threads!
:wave: Well, I try. Since this forum is supposed to be all about freedom and ways of attaining it, I thought this film would be right up everyone's alley. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free!
The only way it's going to depress you is to expose how many ways we have been lied to in the past and are continually being lied to currently. I agree with Jack--the ending is inspiring and hopeful--for those who will heed its message. Let's generate more discussion about this! :lurk:
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 06, 2007, 01:25 PM NHFT
Heck, you won't be able to tear your eyes off it!
I could barely force myself to watch 12 minutes' worth before giving up. Sllooooooowwwwww....
I couldn't connect to it last night; I guess too many other people were watching it. Will try again soon.
Yeah, I tried 4 or 5 times before I got on again last night.
I know that the movie has been taking the internet by storm since its release a couple weeks ago; maybe it would work better to go directly to the Google page http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&hl=en
I'm not sure why, but a few things clicked while I was watching that.
I've the strong suspicion that a number of visitors to the gun shops I've worked at are part of the misinformation and surveillance system. What system - I don't know, the one that keeps everything spinning round and keeps people confused about what's going on. People who are "Army Reserve," work for Blackwater doing things they can't talk much about, and "ex"-military / govt types who tell stories and make "reports" to the people in the shop about what's going on over in the sandbox.
Movies like The Parallax View try to teach people about political operations that fall outside of govt buildings and the ballot box. Politics spills into the streets and pollutes our lives and chokes our society.
Something needs to be done about the damn bankers and their manipulation of people and governments that lock their people into bad financial decisions. I hope some of their fancy private jets fly into the side of a mountain.
So much of life is about MONEY. And using money to control people. I'm more eager to switch to silver and not use ANY FRN's more than ever now.
I don't believe the official 9/11 story, I never did, and I believe it even less as time goes on.
Yes indeed, so what am I going to do?
Stop paying income tax, that's got to be #1. It keeps the whole program running.
Try to stop buying new storebought crap from corporations who are cogs and pawns and players in the game that ends up with every American losing. That will probably entail going back to handmade items or items manufactured within the community by craftsmen.
OK, I was able to watch it. Lots of cawfee tawk forthcoming, in a day or two, after I've had time to digest. :blah_by_sarrlas_emotes:
Initial comments: Insurgent, I'm beginning to believe your signature. :-\ Also, I think I'm going insane. (But then, we knew that. :D)
Captain Liberty, don't get hung up on Dec. 25th. Remember there have been many calendars over the ages, some of which get adjusted periodically. Or, as some crazy chick once said, "Day is a vestigial mode of time measurement. Based on solar cycles." ;) Just remember that Dec. 25th, in whatever language or whatever culture, represents the point in the year when the sun (son) starts to rise higher in the Northern Hemisphere.
One more initial comment: the part about us all being drowned in mass media infotainment to keep us "comfortably numb" reminded me of an incident about a year ago. It was my cousin's son's 2nd birthday. His only son, who was born with a birth defect and has had to go through surgery and stuff. The family was having a big party with lots of presents for the little guy. And when it was time to open the gifts, to celebrate his only son and youngest child's birthday, what did my cousin do? He placed the kid *in front of the television set* so that he could nominally watch him opening gifts, but more seriously watch the Mets game behind him. And he knew full well what he was doing, and met his wife's pained look, and said "Yeah, so? I know!" And went right on watching the Mets game..... Come to think of it, this cousin is *really* religious, too.
Quote from: Bald Eagle on July 07, 2007, 05:43 PM NHFT
I'm not sure why, but a few things clicked while I was watching that.
Something needs to be done about the damn bankers and their manipulation of people and governments that lock their people into bad financial decisions. I hope some of their fancy private jets fly into the side of a mountain.
So much of life is about MONEY. And using money to control people. I'm more eager to switch to silver and not use ANY FRN's more than ever now.
I don't believe the official 9/11 story, I never did, and I believe it even less as time goes on.
Yes indeed, so what am I going to do?
Stop paying income tax, that's got to be #1. It keeps the whole program running.
Try to stop buying new storebought crap from corporations who are cogs and pawns and players in the game that ends up with every American losing. That will probably entail going back to handmade items or items manufactured within the community by craftsmen.
Right on, Bald Eagle! It is almost all about money, and control. As one of my signatures says...
There's a movement going on to bring to light alternatives to the paradigms and mainstream/corporate systems, which you may be interested in...just now in its fledgling stages...perhaps you'd have a subject or angle to add to it... http://altexpo.org/
Quote from: Friday on July 07, 2007, 08:05 PM NHFT
OK, I was able to watch it. Lots of cawfee tawk forthcoming, in a day or two, after I've had time to digest. :blah_by_sarrlas_emotes:
Initial comments: Insurgent, I'm beginning to believe your signature. :-\ Also, I think I'm going insane. (But then, we knew that. :D)
One more initial comment: the part about us all being drowned in mass media infotainment to keep us "comfortably numb" reminded me of an incident about a year ago. It was my cousin's son's 2nd birthday. His only son, who was born with a birth defect and has had to go through surgery and stuff. The family was having a big party with lots of presents for the little guy. And when it was time to open the gifts, to celebrate his only son and youngest child's birthday, what did my cousin do? He placed the kid *in front of the television set* so that he could nominally watch him opening gifts, but more seriously watch the Mets game behind him. And he knew full well what he was doing, and met his wife's pained look, and said "Yeah, so? I know!" And went right on watching the Mets game..... Come to think of it, this cousin is *really* religious, too.
Anxious to hear more of your cawfee tawk on these subjects :)
That's an interesting story that you tell about the birthday party...the tv was almost always on in my house when I was growing up, too and my parents are also very religious. The TV has disgusted me so much that to this day I'll only watch DVD's on it, and even then very rarely.
I *just* got this email from the film maker:
Friends,
I will have DVDs to send out this Friday (7/13). If you would like to "Pre-Order", feel free to do so.
In order to keep costs as low as possible, the disc will come in a simple white sleeve.
They are $5.00.
Here is the order page:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/dvdorder.htm
At this time, the DVDs are only by request and will not be advertised on my site due to certain circumstances I am currently dealing with. If you know others who might want a DVD, please send then the link above.
Otherwise, I am working fast to get a wealth of supporting information / documentation on my website. Specifically, an interactive transcript of the entire work with sources to support every claim. I am also soon going to have a DIVX and IPOD download and an "Audio Book" (Sound File) of the music and narration for download as well.
I want to thank all of you who have been supportive in getting this movie / info out to people.
If I have not responded to your email yet, I will soon.
Thank You.
Peter
"The Revolution Is Now"
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
I'm glad someone started a thread for this movie. I watched it a month or two ago and have been recommending it to others ever since. I'm going to watch it again this week. There's so much to gain from watching this movie. It tackles every tough issue (religion, 9/11, control, fear, etc.) in a very methodic and interesting way. I'll be posting more about it after I watch it again.
Yeah, you should watch again - he did a "final cut" in that time period and a re-release just a couple of weeks ago. Official site: http://zeitgeistmovie.com.
OK, here are my thoughts, below the spoiler space gap; tawk amongst yourselves. :blah_by_sarrlas_emotes:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
- Not to say that I don't believe all of the comparisons between the Christian story and the Egyptian/Greek/other cultures' religious stories, but I'm really amazed that I never heard about/noticed the gross similarities before. Had anyone else heard that stuff before? I intend to try to verify some of those statements when I have a chance.
- Taking the religious facts presented as true for the moment, how...odd... that such different cultures, separated by time and space, had such very similar stories. I wonder if that indicates some general tendency in the human brain to anthropomorphize aspects of nature? Or the aliens planting similar seeds at various points in human history? :alien:
- Did anyone else notice the eery similarity between Morpheus telling Neo about human beings having been reduced to *this*, this being a battery... and at the end of the movie, the narrator saying that human beings will soon be reduced to *this*, this being a chip? Now maybe that's because the guy who made the movie has seen the Matrix way too many times. Or maybe the Wachowski brothers just read/thought about the same sources as the guy who made the movie. Or maybe, as Morpheus would say, "There are no coincidences". :o
- I was a little thrown by the very end, where it seemed like the narrator spontaneously threw in optimism and nature-worshippy stuff with no segue. It was like he left out the whole lead-in to that part.
- All of a sudden, I have this feeling that Rudy Giuliani will be the next POTUS. :P
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Quote from: error on July 04, 2007, 02:01 AM NHFT
I stopped the movie at the five minute mark because it completely failed by that point to present anything remotely resembling content.
Same here. I figure it's just another Christian-bashing theory.
Quote from: Friday on July 09, 2007, 07:54 PM NHFT
OK, here are my thoughts, below the spoiler space gap; tawk amongst yourselves. :blah_by_sarrlas_emotes:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
- Not to say that I don't believe all of the comparisons between the Christian story and the Egyptian/Greek/other cultures' religious stories, but I'm really amazed that I never heard about/noticed the gross similarities before. Had anyone else heard that stuff before? I intend to try to verify some of those statements when I have a chance.
David Icke has been preaching about the Christian/Egyptian/Greek religious similarities for years. I also think Dan Brown touched on it in the DaVinci code. I've noticed that most symbologists tend toward this direction (i.e. all religions and all religious symbols are intertwined). I know the background about the Egyptian sun god, Ra, is legit from my travels in Egypt. I want to verify some of these other ideas when I have time too.
Quote from: Friday on July 09, 2007, 07:54 PM NHFT
- Taking the religious facts presented as true for the moment, how...odd... that such different cultures, separated by time and space, had such very similar stories. I wonder if that indicates some general tendency in the human brain to anthropomorphize aspects of nature? Or the aliens planting similar seeds at various points in human history? :alien:
It's been almost two months since I watched Zeitgeist so I may be wrong . . . but I think the movie was trying to show that almost all religions were based on astrology, the natural world, and the sun cycles. Before TV, the internet, houses, cars, and everything else that exemplifies modern day life, humans only had themselves and nature. I don't find it too extraordinary that religions would have been based on the sun, the stars, and nature. Back then, people probably thought it was a miracle every morning when the sun came up. They had nothing else to worship.
Quote from: Friday on July 09, 2007, 07:54 PM NHFT
- Did anyone else notice the eery similarity between Morpheus telling Neo about human beings having been reduced to *this*, this being a battery... and at the end of the movie, the narrator saying that human beings will soon be reduced to *this*, this being a chip? Now maybe that's because the guy who made the movie has seen the Matrix way too many times. Or maybe the Wachowski brothers just read/thought about the same sources as the guy who made the movie. Or maybe, as Morpheus would say, "There are no coincidences". :o
I noticed that too.
Quote from: Friday on July 09, 2007, 07:54 PM NHFT
- I was a little thrown by the very end, where it seemed like the narrator spontaneously threw in optimism and nature-worshippy stuff with no segue. It was like he left out the whole lead-in to that part.
I agree. It seemed like the optimism was a little out of place. Although, once people come to the realization that they're all the same/similar, the world might be a better place.
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 09, 2007, 10:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: Friday on July 09, 2007, 07:54 PM NHFT
- Taking the religious facts presented as true for the moment, how...odd... that such different cultures, separated by time and space, had such very similar stories. I wonder if that indicates some general tendency in the human brain to anthropomorphize aspects of nature? Or the aliens planting similar seeds at various points in human history? :alien:
It's been almost two months since I watched Zeitgeist so I may be wrong . . . but I think the movie was trying to show that almost all religions were based on astrology, the natural world, and the sun cycles. Before TV, the internet, houses, cars, and everything else that exemplifies modern day life, humans only had themselves and nature. I don't find it too extraordinary that religions would have been based on the sun, the stars, and nature. Back then, people probably thought it was a miracle every morning when the sun came up. They had nothing else to worship.
Oh, I agree. My point was that, even assuming you agree with the thesis that many different religions are based on astronomy/aspects of nature, I find it mystifying that the stories they come up with are so *very* similar, to the point of names being almost the same (despite the fact that these different cultures spoke different languages). And details such as "at age 30, [insert Prophet-of-your-choice] began his ministry".
I've read Dan Brown's two big ones, and I don't recall discussion of comparative religion, but maybe I'm just forgetting it. I was already familiar with much of the Romans-coopted-preexisting-cultural-references stuff, just not the stuff about much older and less "famous" cultures sharing the exact same ideas.
Curiously enough, they didn't teach comparative religion at Catholic school. ::)
aye carumba this thing is slow... I am at 10 minutes.
They need to edit it a bit so that it flows from segment to segment a little faster.
One note on the comments so far:
If we (humans) all came from the same starting point wouldn't it make sense that we had similarities in our religions?
Stories get handed down and corrupted over time? (again I haven't finished yet that is just my thoughts on what I have read so far)
Ok I am now up to 35 minutes.
Much of this so far has been widely documented but this is all in one place.
They are a little off about the birth of Christianity. How could it have been created by 'the gov' when they early Christians were being persecuted by the gov? Also it was an 'underground' religion for much of the early days.
I will keep watching.
He likes a lot of 'black' screen when the narrator is talking doesn't he?
OH SHIT here it comes.... 9/11... I didn't see that coming.
I will keep watching.
Ok I watched it all.
First 30 minutes: Stuff about religion
No segway
Next 30 minutes: 9/11 (I did like how he had the paragraph and zoomed in on each aspect of the word)
Small Segway
Next 30 minutes: Federal Reserve
Segway
Next 20 minutes: CFR/Rich Bankers/Group trying to make One World Govt
No segway
6 minutes of some New Age Stuff.
Maybe he couldn't decide which movie to make?
BTW for people who are in agreement 100% with this movie... all the more reason to vote for Ron Paul.
He does have some facts wrong about WWI and WWII though.
I think a few errors in detail are less important in Zeitgeist than the meta-message (Peter J, the creator invites suggestions and corrections: zeitgeist@zeitgeistmovie.com and he posts clarifications at the site: http://zeitgeistmovie.com/clarifications.htm).
The meta-message seems to be that throughout history, people and organizations have used lies, misstatements or complete fabrications, compiled into stories and scenes to create a Zeitgeist, which favors them and keeps us enslaved, but that there is hope in re-birthing a new corrected story, which consistently embodies the truth.
There is hope for ideas, I think he's saying, as do others in recent flix.
Quote
Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy. And ideas are bulletproof.
This interested me, since it rolls up several things I've been observing and learning. For example, last night's talk by Thomas Hansen in Portsmouth about "Creating Public Myth" and Steve Goodale's talk at the AltExpo about the way media outlets powerfully influence the dominant Zeitgeist through sophisticated mass mind control techniques. Many now benefit from the ability that technologies give us to seek and find the truth when the official story doesn't hold up.
If we break out of the created vision, the Matrix, we will need to fill in the gaps and cracks, or maybe rebuild the structure even all the way down to the whole sub-framework, the infrastructure of our new story that explains "How the World Really Works." We can use what we're learning here (Zeitgeist and elsewhere) to structure the new story which provides the safe feeling, the grounding for what our actions have to be to build a free society from the rubble we stand on.
Quote
Storytelling and stories become a familiar safe harbor where we can retreat to an ordered, self-contained world of imagination and useful information.
We are hard wired to listen and grasp stories. The same genes that lean towards successful social cooperation also lead us to successful storytelling interactions. Good stories are useful, humbling and entertaining as are good storytellers. Storytelling is the most successful, long running, honest and satisfying form of sharing knowledge, written or verbal, available to humans.
I saw Zeitgeist as a liberating piece, but now, adrift from the secure edifices of the old stories, we must create the new "story" from the facts and fragments that are left that we can believe in. This story is what will guide us and inspire others to join in the new societies created around the new story.
Good thoughts, jaqeboy. I like what you have to say (I also liked what you had to say on the MVP list, but the banning was slam-dunked before I even had a chance to catch up on my daily digests). And to continue the cosmic coincidences, as of right now we have exactly the same amount of karma. :o :occasion6:
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 11, 2007, 01:06 PM NHFT
I think a few errors in detail are less important in Zeitgeist than the meta-message
:-\
If someone has their details wrong then maybe their whole premise is wrong?
You can't bitch that the government got some details wrong in the 9/11 report and then have details wrong yourself.
What were his WWI and WW2 errors. I may have noticed them and glossed over them. On to my 3rd viewing soon to see if I can spot them.
Quote from: Friday on July 11, 2007, 05:15 PM NHFT
Good thoughts, jaqeboy. I like what you have to say (I also liked what you had to say on the MVP list, but the banning was slam-dunked before I even had a chance to catch up on my daily digests). And to continue the cosmic coincidences, as of right now we have exactly the same amount of karma. :o :occasion6:
Must be the 7 - 7 - 7 thing , happening right here on the forum!!
He mentions 'soon after' the Lusitania sinks that the US joined WWI... I guess it depends on how you define 'soon after'
Sinking May 1915
US enters WWI April 1917 I am not saying that the Lusitania didn't have anything to do with it but it is not soon after.
Jesus has been thought by many scholars to really have been born in April. However in Rome in order to have Mithra's followers and others change religion the birth was changed to be Dec 25... it didn't start out that way.
I am not saying that the movie didn't have valid points. It is just not the end all be all.
Quote from: Dreepa on July 12, 2007, 06:44 AM NHFT
He mentions 'soon after' the Lusitania sinks that the US joined WWI... I guess it depends on how you define 'soon after'
Sinking May 1915
US enters WWI April 1917 I am not saying that the Lusitania didn't have anything to do with it but it is not soon after.
Oh, yeah, right, I did catch that, but didn't know the exact dates, but I knew it wasn't "soon after." BTW, there was a lot of controversy about that: - ie that it was known that the ship was to be carrying munitions to the Brits (would constitute an act of war by a neutral). The Germans even put ads in the paper, so I recently read, to tell people not to take the ship, since it would be carrying arms to a belligerent of Germany.
From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania :
Quote
A group of German-Americans, hoping to avoid controversy if the Lusitania were attacked by a U-boat, discussed their concerns with a representative of the German embassy. The embassy decided to warn passengers not to sail on the Lusitania before her next crossing. The Imperial German embassy placed this warning ad in 50 East Coast newspapers, including those in New York. This ad was prepaid and requested to be put on the paper's travel page a full week before the sailing date. However, even though the ads were sent to newspapers in time for the requested deadline, the State Department of the United States intervened by raising the specter of possible libel suits. The ads, intended by the German government to save American lives, were to appear in only one newspaper, the Des Moines Register [huh?!?]. It has been argued that the actions taken by the US government were taken to ensure that the US would become embroiled in WWI. Popular opinion before the sinking of the Lusitania was against the war. However, by loading American passengers onto a ship that was known by German officials to be carrying munitions to aid the British war cause through a designated war zone that was known to have a German U-Boat operating in it, the British and American governments helped ensure that American lives would be lost, stirring popular opinion against the Central Powers.
The notice:
(Appears to be a general warning, not specific to Lusitania, but does appear about a week before the May 1 sailing from New York)
Quote
The German Embassy in Washington had issued this warning on 22 April.
NOTICE!
TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and his allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY,
Washington, D.C. April 22, 1915
&
Quote
[Capt] Schwieger gave the order to fire, but his quartermaster, Charles Voegele, would not take part in an attack on women and children, and refused to pass on the order to the torpedo room — a decision for which he was court-martialed and served three years in prison at Kiel[6]. Another crewman took over, and a single torpedo was launched towards Lusitania. It hit cleanly under the bridge, blowing a hole in the side of the ship, and was then followed by a much larger secondary explosion that blew out the starboard bow.
& conspiracy possibility?:
Quote
Some historians have theorised that Great Britain, and in particular First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, conspired to have the Lusitania sunk in order to draw the United States into the First World War.
&
Quote
The British government is still unwilling to disclose all its information about the Lusitania case and the associated machinations of its espionage and counterespionage activities in the United States. Even evidence that apparently was once available has disappeared. For example, the present Lord Mersey has no knowledge of the papers belonging to his forebear which author Colin Simpson states that he examined at the family home in the early 1970s. Nor are they in any national collection. Many of the Cunard Company's Lusitania files disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Some but not all of them have resurfaced and been purchased by the Cunard archives. Official files in Britain, the United States, and Germany give tantalising leads that then disappear. Blank sheets inserted to preserve pagination sequences suggest that certain documents, like telegrams sent to and from the ship during her final voyage, have been removed. The authenticity of certain 'official' documents or alleged statements is open to question.
and from PBS "Lost liners" - http://www.pbs.org/lostliners/lusitania.html
Quote
As the Lusitania neared the end of her crossing, a German U-boat sank three British ships in the waters south of Ireland through which she was about to sail, and he received repeated warnings that U-boats were active on his intended course. Yet on May 7, as the Lusitania entered the most dangerous part of her passage, Captain William Turner actually slowed down, apparently worried by patchy fog.
In fact, Turner was ignoring or at least bending every one of the Admiralty's directives for evading German submarines. He was steaming too close to shore, where U-boats loved to lurk, instead of in the relative safety of the open channel. He was sailing at less than top speed, and he wasn't zigzagging (later he claimed to believe that zigzagging was a tactic to be adopted only after a U-boat was sighted).
From Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States (1980):
Quote
It was unrealistic to expect that the Germans should treat the United States as neutral in the war when the U.S. had been shipping great amounts of war materials to Germany's enemies. In early 1915, the British liner Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine. She sank in eighteen minutes, and 1,198 people died, including 124 Americans. The United States claimed the Lusitania carried an innocent cargo, and therefore the torpedoing was a monstrous German atrocity. Actually, the Lusitania was heavily armed: it carried 1,248 cases of 3-inch shells, 4,927 boxes of cartridges (1,000 rounds in each box), and 2,000 more cases of small-arms ammunition. Her manifests were falsified to hide this fact, and the British and American governments lied about the cargo.
Oops, got distracted off the movie topic by a favorite interest: history. But, it does again indicate the same types of actions presented in Zeitgeist - manipulation of the public mind to get nations into war, as opposed to finding peace.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 12, 2007, 09:11 AM NHFT
From Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States (1980):
Quote
It was unrealistic to expect that the Germans should treat the United States as neutral in the war when the U.S. had been shipping great amounts of war materials to Germany's enemies. In early 1915, the British liner Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine. She sank in eighteen minutes, and 1,198 people died, including 124 Americans. The United States claimed the Lusitania carried an innocent cargo, and therefore the torpedoing was a monstrous German atrocity. Actually, the Lusitania was heavily armed: it carried 1,248 cases of 3-inch shells, 4,927 boxes of cartridges (1,000 rounds in each box), and 2,000 more cases of small-arms ammunition. Her manifests were falsified to hide this fact, and the British and American governments lied about the cargo.
Anything Zinn writes is suspect... he is a socialist.
Quote from: Dreepa on July 12, 2007, 09:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 12, 2007, 09:11 AM NHFT
From Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States (1980):
Quote
It was unrealistic to expect that the Germans should treat the United States as neutral in the war when the U.S. had been shipping great amounts of war materials to Germany's enemies. In early 1915, the British liner Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine. She sank in eighteen minutes, and 1,198 people died, including 124 Americans. The United States claimed the Lusitania carried an innocent cargo, and therefore the torpedoing was a monstrous German atrocity. Actually, the Lusitania was heavily armed: it carried 1,248 cases of 3-inch shells, 4,927 boxes of cartridges (1,000 rounds in each box), and 2,000 more cases of small-arms ammunition. Her manifests were falsified to hide this fact, and the British and American governments lied about the cargo.
Anything Zinn writes is suspect... he is a socialist.
What he wrote above is just a summary of material known for decades, apparently.
The Lusitania Controversy (online paper at: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika03.htm), states the munitions load, but disputes that it would have/could have exploded:
Quote
LUSITANIA sailed with 4200 cases of Remington .303 rifle cartridges, a thousand rounds to a box, with 1250 cases of shrapnel shells, and with eighteen cases of fuzes (which Bailey and Ryan describe as nonexplosive, but that does not sound right). The shrapnel cases were officially described as non-explosive. Simpson quotes a shipping note referring to the shrapnel as "1248 cases of 3 inch Shrapnel shells filled," and refers to this as a "fairly lethal load." Patrick Beesly, seizing on the adjective "filled," assumes the official description to be a lie, and the cases to in fact be a highly explosive and dangerous load. It is difficult to see how this interpretation can be made by anyone who understands what shrapnel is; it would seem extremely obvious that a non- explosive but filled shrapnel case is by no means an oxymoron, but refers to shells containing the metallic fragments of shrapnel without the fuzes and the small gunpowder charge used to scatter the shrapnel. [Bailey and Ryan, p. 96; Simpson, p. 106, ch. 8; Beesly, pp. 113-14]
Ballard (the oceaneer) in '93 says it was due to a coal dust explosion, but others think that couldn't have happened.
Lustitania timeline: http://web.rmslusitania.info:81/pages/timeline.html
Anyway, enough of this historical diversion.
I think the meta-message (of Zeitgeist) is that many occurrences in the world are of obscure origin to most people, so can be "used" for forwarding an agenda by those that can engineer the mass mind.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 12, 2007, 10:42 AM NHFT
I think the meta-message (of Zeitgeist) is that many occurrences in the world are of obscure origin to most people, so can be "used" for forwarding an agenda by those that can engineer the mass mind.
Isn't this a 'duh'?
I mean hasn't that been known for a long time?
Quote from: Dreepa on July 12, 2007, 06:44 AM NHFT
Jesus has been thought by many scholars to really have been born in April. However in Rome in order to have Mithra's followers and others change religion the birth was changed to be Dec 25... it didn't start out that way.
I am not saying that the movie didn't have valid points. It is just not the end all be all.
The original christians did believe he was born on Dec. 25th. The
scholars today believe it was April. Why? Because the imagery in the birth story shows that it would have been impossible to be born in the middle of the winter. An oversight of the original new testament writers (approximately 100 years after the fact anyhow). Here they were just trying to tell an interesting story with nice imagery of animals, and today's scholars have to go and analyze it all. I've heard the Romans-changed-the-birth-to-appease-mithra-worshippers theory before too (in fact, a teacher tought it in world history in high school!), but it simply isn't true. Mithra wasn't exactly a major god in Rome (being a chiefly Persian god, the equivalent of the many sun gods at the same time including Jupiter, Horus and Jesus), so appeasing Mithra worshippers would not have been high on their list of important things to do to convert an entire civilization. That theory comes from the fact that Jesus is so much like Mithra (as indicated by the film) and that analysis of the bible indicates that Jesus "must've" been born in the spring, so more recent scholars figured the Romans must have changed it.
Mithra wasn't a major god but was the god of the Emperor of the time ... and also the many in the army were fans of Mithra.
Quote from: Dreepa on July 12, 2007, 10:44 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 12, 2007, 10:42 AM NHFT
I think the meta-message (of Zeitgeist) is that many occurrences in the world are of obscure origin to most people, so can be "used" for forwarding an agenda by those that can engineer the mass mind.
Isn't this a 'duh'?
I mean hasn't that been known for a long time?
To you and me... ;)
The film maker, Peter J is interviewed on the air, for the first time since releasing his work: http://truthorlies.org/06-28-07-Hour-2.mp3
He goes in to greater detail about some of the sources he consulted for the film, and fleshes out some of the arguments presented in it. The interview went well; he comes across as being very intelligent and articulate. It's worth listening to. By the way, a DVD version of the film is now available to order directly from his website http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/dvdorder.htm
Listening to the interview - the guy does sound good. If he goes on tour, maybe we can have him talk in Manchester...
It seems to be that Chess, is an astrological board game.
Interesting choice to start off the film with 30 minutes of Christianity bashing. I'm sure it was effective at eliminating a substantial portion of otherwise sympathetic viewers. Brilliant. :-\
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 23, 2007, 11:53 PM NHFT
Interesting choice to start off the film with 30 minutes of Christianity bashing. I'm sure it was effective at eliminating a substantial portion of otherwise sympathetic viewers. Brilliant. :-\
That's a classic technique: self-selecting viewers. Anyone who is left after the first few minutes is more likely to accept the message.
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 23, 2007, 11:53 PM NHFT
Interesting choice to start off the film with 30 minutes of Christianity bashing. I'm sure it was effective at eliminating a substantial portion of otherwise sympathetic viewers. Brilliant. :-\
I wouldn't consider it "bashing" per se. All it did was present well-established connections between christianity and pagan astrology--the kind of connections that, if it wasn't christianity in question, would be accepted without much furor. Although there are exceptions, for the most part christians are set on the government's story of 9/11 and are unwilling to accept that private bankers run the country. It goes along with the I-can't-think-for-myself-so-I-follow-authority-figures-blindly thing.
Quote from: KBCraig on July 24, 2007, 12:23 AM NHFT
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 23, 2007, 11:53 PM NHFT
Interesting choice to start off the film with 30 minutes of Christianity bashing. I'm sure it was effective at eliminating a substantial portion of otherwise sympathetic viewers. Brilliant. :-\
That's a classic technique: self-selecting viewers. Anyone who is left after the first few minutes is more likely to accept the message.
Exactly. And anyone who deemed the movie "boring" after only five minutes, or "hurting my feelings" within the first 30, is unlikely to accept the message (or even be willing to listen to it).
Quote from: Friday on July 24, 2007, 06:53 AM NHFT
Exactly. And anyone who deemed the movie "boring" after only five minutes, or "hurting my feelings" within the first 30, is unlikely to accept the message (or even be willing to listen to it).
The first 5 minutes of the film WERE boring! I wondered if it was going to be two-hour music video and light show. If their goal is outreach, why would they do this?
Many skeptics of government power are Christians, who might have fully agreed with Parts II and III, but were needlessly alienated by Part I, which didn't really fit with the overall thrust of the last two parts anyway. Its not surprising to hear that atheists and certain non-Christians are OK with this.
In my so-far fruitless search for serious rebuttals internet, I've found virtually all of the focus to be by Christian apologists disputing Part I, with little discussion of Part II and III.
Still looking for a rebuttal. Anyone know of one? This film is at least a lot better than Loose Change, which was so full of holes it had no credibility (although I noticed that Loose Change was shown in a couple segments in Zeitgeist).
How about this for conspiracy?
Invent the AIDS virus (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/) and use it as an excuse to implant RFID chips into people:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070724075657.4w2f978g&show_article=1
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 24, 2007, 07:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: Friday on July 24, 2007, 06:53 AM NHFT
Exactly. And anyone who deemed the movie "boring" after only five minutes, or "hurting my feelings" within the first 30, is unlikely to accept the message (or even be willing to listen to it).
The first 5 minutes of the film WERE boring! I wondered if it was going to be two-hour music video and light show. If their goal is outreach, why would they do this?
He calls the first 5 minutes an "overture" and, as such, it's a mood-setting device.
I know in many theatrical performances, it's the signal to go to your seats and get ready for the beginning of the piece. Obviously we're already in our seats (watching the film online).
I thought it was pretty effective as a mood-setter.
I personally liked the opening... to each his own.
I also thought the Christian part was unneccessary - although I am glad I watched it. As I was raised Christian (as a lot of us probably were) & recently have began a more personal journey w/religion & Christianity it was a good piece to watch (assuming the facts are accurate). I have spent a lot of time reading Islamic & Jewish websites concerning Jesus & I am now more confused than ever... partly due to this film & partly due to other things I have read.
I feel the rest of the movie would have been better received w/out the 1st part as well. Maybe the goal was to self-select the viewers. However I have to ask if that were the case then is that the best course of action? If it were my film I would want as many people to see it & discuss it & ponder it as possible - not just the non-christian minority.
Also, like others, I didn't feel the subjects were related enough to be included in a film together. Though I suppose one could argue that the fabricated (assuming of course it was fabricated) institution of Christianity allowed the other events to be willingly accepted by the majority Christian masses... thus a necessary part of the film to show the viewer how such mass manipulation could be easily orchestrated.
I dunno - I'm moving to Cuba. At least I kinow what I'm getting into there.
Keep in mind that you can write the filmmaker, Peter J, with your comments and he responds to them all. zeitgeist@zeitgeistmovie.com. If you give him your comments below and he writes back, let us know what he said..
I was sent email by this person who made this video, presumably because of the RP campaign, and I flat out told him it was not going to be helpful to the campaign in any way so I was not interested in buying a DVD.
I restrained myself from telling him it was a poorly put together movie that did not hold my interest past 2 minutes....
And, I agree with Ruger Mason on the bashing part.
Don't waste my time on mood-setting, especially in a film which purports to be a documentary. A minute would have been too much; five minutes was absurd. Get on with it, present your evidence, and leave the bullshit on the cutting room floor.
I think the portion about Christianity was an excellent way to show the tactic of fabricating an irrational belief system for the purpose of controlling people. The government is defended by a vast majority of people who irrationally believe in its legitimacy. Without that vast network of support, it would have great difficulty existing and weilding so much power. That's why I tell people that anarchy is a state of mind. It's not a system that replaces the current system. You simply dispel irrational beliefs that people have about the nature of government. As more people start to see it for what it really is and start applying rational judgements, like viewing taxation as theft, the support system that makes an aggressive and tyrannical government possible just starts to collapse.
Quote from: error on July 24, 2007, 11:54 AM NHFT
Don't waste my time on mood-setting, especially in a film which purports to be a documentary. A minute would have been too much; five minutes was absurd. Get on with it, present your evidence, and leave the bullshit on the cutting room floor.
:love1:
Quote from: error on July 24, 2007, 11:54 AM NHFT
Don't waste my time on mood-setting, especially in a film which purports to be a documentary. A minute would have been too much; five minutes was absurd. Get on with it, present your evidence, and leave the bullshit on the cutting room floor.
Filmic art, by its nature, and a credit to its incredible power, appeals as much or more than any other art-form to the emotions (moods), since it provides a great range of sensory and cognitive input. It is not a computer data download into the orderly memory banks of the viewer. To be unaware of that is to possibly be unduly influenced by a filmmaker's considerable power to manipulate those emotions in people. Te eschew that would also disempower yourself to enjoy the emotional sagas dramatic arts do typically portray.
Just curious, but are you making the claim that a documentary should NOT use any artistic or other creative devices? Where are the "Rules for Documentaries" that you rely on? I'd like to find them so I can equally grade and damn this enjoyable creative piece for its indiscretions (just kidding, of course - I've already praised it).
By using these strict rules, whether they are published or in your mind, you may have missed the point of the piece - regrettable, but your loss, not others. Hopefully you can grow into full appreciation of artful presentations - it's an enriching human experience.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 24, 2007, 01:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on July 24, 2007, 11:54 AM NHFT
Don't waste my time on mood-setting, especially in a film which purports to be a documentary. A minute would have been too much; five minutes was absurd. Get on with it, present your evidence, and leave the bullshit on the cutting room floor.
Filmic art, by its nature, and a credit to its incredible power, appeals as much or more than any other art-form to the emotions (moods), since it provides a great range of sensory and cognitive input. It is not a computer data download into the orderly memory banks of the viewer.
Maybe you'd like it better if they did it like some of those YouTube videos where they just scroll text across the screen while music is playing.
;D
Quote from: SpeedPhreak on July 24, 2007, 09:49 AM NHFT
I dunno - I'm moving to Cuba. At least I kinow what I'm getting into there.
Fatso I mean Sicko got you convinced huh? ;)
Quote from: Dreepa on July 24, 2007, 05:08 PM NHFT
Quote from: SpeedPhreak on July 24, 2007, 09:49 AM NHFT
I dunno - I'm moving to Cuba. At least I kinow what I'm getting into there.
Fatso I mean Sicko got you convinced huh? ;)
I can't go around bashing Christians because at least I know 90% of them will vote with me on home schooling and taxes, gun rights and right to know, whether I share their religious beliefs or not.
I'm pleased that there is so much intelligent and thoughtful discussion about this new film. It's been taking the internet by storm, generating a flurry of controversy and heated debate, just like what is on this thread. It's really interesting, to me to see different people's reactions to it--those who seem to get it and those who don't. There doesn't seem to be many in the middle who are completely unaffected by this film.
As a bit of background, I was raised in a devoutly baptist family, immediate and extended. I even explored the Orthodox Church, living at a monastery for 1 year and a half. Needless to say, I am well-aware of what Christianity does and does not teach. I fell away from the Church several years ago and haven't looked back. Finding sources of information like referenced in this film only cement what I have grown to suspect for many years...that religions are frauds used by people in power to manipulate others.
Someone else mentioned that there hasn't been that much discussion here about parts II and III, which is interesting because they are just as controversial as part I. Maybe we're still reeling from part I and need more time to move on!
Just today I received in the mail, the DVD's which I had ordered. Quality looks good and it's certainly more enjoyable to watch on the big screen than perched in my computer chair :) link to order http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/dvdorder.htm
Quote from: Insurgent on July 24, 2007, 05:36 PM NHFT
Someone else mentioned that there hasn't been that much discussion here about parts II and III, which is interesting because they are just as controversial as part I. Maybe we're still reeling from part I and need more time to move on!
Maybe most people here agree with PII and PIII.... :)
I know many people involved in the freedom movement have a natural bent toward skepticism, particularly toward government. That's good. However, this same skepticism needs to be applied to the sensational claims made by these filmmakers and others. There's a great deal of information on the internet debunking various "9/11" myths, including those made in the film, and I've begun to dig up much to dispute the anti-Christian claims in Part I as well. Shame on those who take this film at face value without reviewing the evidence for themselves. As someone else has already pointed out, significant effort was put into this film to evoke an emotional response. Don't be suckered by it. Research the claims yourself!
This film has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, and I will be not be recommending it to anyone.
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 24, 2007, 10:17 PM NHFT
I know many people involved in the freedom movement have a natural bent toward skepticism, particularly toward government. That's good. However, this same skepticism needs to be applied to the sensational claims made by these filmmakers and others. There's a great deal of information on the internet debunking various "9/11" myths, including those made in the film, and I've begun to dig up much to dispute the anti-Christian claims in Part I as well. Shame on those who take this film at face value without reviewing the evidence for themselves. As someone else has already pointed out, significant effort was put into this film to evoke an emotional response. Don't be suckered by it. Research the claims yourself!
This film has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, and I will be not be recommending it to anyone.
...besides being a sloppy amateurish mess that's tought to watch...
Quote from: error on July 24, 2007, 11:54 AM NHFT
Don't waste my time on mood-setting, especially in a film which purports to be a documentary. A minute would have been too much; five minutes was absurd.
A minute would have been mood-setting; five minutes was hypnotic. And not by accident, I suspect.
Without having any idea what the film was about, by a couple of minutes in I was thinking that it felt like a rather bizarre religious cult piece.
The DVD, by the way is decent quality--it's a professionally pressed version, in a paper envelope. Not a DVD-R. I plan to send some backup copies around to some family and friends, who I care about.
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 24, 2007, 10:17 PM NHFT
There's a great deal of information on the internet debunking various "9/11" myths, including those made in the film, and I've begun to dig up much to dispute the anti-Christian claims in Part I as well.
I thought this movie was extremely well done and, for the record, I thought the intro was very artfully put together. Without the intro, my girlfriend would never have sat through the whole movie. If he would have just come out and started talking and rambling on, she would've been asleep within 20 minutes.
Ruger Mason, please post whatever info you find that contradicts this movie (from reliable sources). I'm doing my own research too and I'm interested to read anything that proves this producer/director wrong. I haven't found anything yet to make me not believe him. I pretty much agree with everything in Parts I, II, and III of this movie. I don't know about anyone else but I always try to read/listen to both sides of the stories. There are many pieces of information out there "debunking" 9/11 myths but I suggest you look at those very carefully too. I'm currently reading the book by the authors of the Popular Mechanics article "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (or something similar) and although it's answering a lot of my questions, it is still avoiding some of the biggest unanswered questions.
Google is your friend! :)
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 24, 2007, 10:17 PM NHFT
I know many people involved in the freedom movement have a natural bent toward skepticism, particularly toward government. That's good. However, this same skepticism needs to be applied to the sensational claims made by these filmmakers and others. There's a great deal of information on the internet debunking various "9/11" myths, including those made in the film, and I've begun to dig up much to dispute the anti-Christian claims in Part I as well. Shame on those who take this film at face value without reviewing the evidence for themselves. As someone else has already pointed out, significant effort was put into this film to evoke an emotional response. Don't be suckered by it. Research the claims yourself!
This film has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, and I will be not be recommending it to anyone.
Ah, someone gets it! +1
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 25, 2007, 12:11 AM NHFT
There are many pieces of information out there "debunking" 9/11 myths but I suggest you look at those very carefully too. I'm currently reading the book by the authors of the Popular Mechanics article "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (or something similar) and although it's answering a lot of my questions, it is still avoiding some of the biggest unanswered questions.
I've always been EXTREMELY skeptical of the 9/11 Truther movement. At one point at porcfest, a guy started off on what I have always considered ridiculous conspiracy theories. I made a statement or two and then as usual, realized he was locked onto an irrational belief system that he desperately wanted to beleive and so it felt pointless arguing, and I just walked away. It was a bit rude even and I already regret that somewhat. I think there was probably a more tactful way.
That said, I didn't read much into what the movie presented. I know what I consider to be irrational theories about what happened. Still, I'm left feeling that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between what we've been told and the bizarre conspiracies that a few fringe people seem to be cooking up because they hate Bush so much. The hatred is understandable of couse. :)
It's always good advise to take information, particularly from a biased source, with a grain of salt and do your own research.
I didn't say it!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY&mode=related&search=
Crash course on conspiracy thoeries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Fe-IwAPA8&NR=1
Penn & Teller (NOT ME!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBQRTmL70DM
Yeah, I used to like Penn & Teller. I have to wonder if someone has to resort to name-calling and profanity to punctuate their arguments. Is that something that Penn thinks will help him be convincing. Teller, as usual, doesn't have much to say ;) - I actually heard him talk once at a show in Boston! So he's not mute!
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 25, 2007, 01:19 PM NHFT
I actually heard him talk once at a show in Boston! So he's not mute!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgtgOs_OkTU
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 25, 2007, 12:46 AM NHFT
Google is your friend! :)
In this case, Google is not necessarily our friend. The opening statement on the web-page for the film http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/statement.htm
specifically states that some of the information presented in the film is not going to be easily verified by a point-and-click search on the internets. Some reading of real hard-copy books etc may be necessary to verify what is presented. :)
Quote from: Insurgent on July 25, 2007, 10:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 25, 2007, 12:46 AM NHFT
Google is your friend! :)
In this case, Google is not necessarily our friend. The opening statement on the web-page for the film http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/statement.htm
specifically states that some of the information presented in the film is not going to be easily verified by a point-and-click search on the internets. Some reading of real hard-copy books etc may be necessary to verify what is presented. :)
Hmmmm... From the Statement Page...
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.
My sources prove I'm right? OK, not exactly what he was getting at, but why doesn't he defend his points instead of saying, check the work my sources did?
There's a lot of dissenting views against the Jesus Myth he speaks of in the first part. Just because I read the articles on line rather than in an 'approved' book doesn't make them any less true(if, indeed, they are)
Lastly, does it really matter whether the evil we face today is the result of a 4000 year plot that has evolved over time, or Freemasons, or Rothschilds, or simply because people with power tend to abuse that power? If I finish this movie(my computer conked out for the 5th time shortly after part one), will I be more able to defeat the conspiracy than I currently am?
Maybe I've been co-opted by The Man, and am spreading doubt amongst the faithful Ones who 'get' this film. I deeply apologize. ;D
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 25, 2007, 12:46 AM NHFT
Google is your friend! :)
Yeah . . . I know. I've done my research and I told you what I believe. Prove me wrong. Don't just tell me you're finding all this evidence that disputes the movie without actually sourcing your statements.
Quote from: Wolfwood on July 25, 2007, 11:50 PM NHFT
Lastly, does it really matter whether the evil we face today is the result of a 4000 year plot that has evolved over time, or Freemasons, or Rothschilds, or simply because people with power tend to abuse that power? If I finish this movie(my computer conked out for the 5th time shortly after part one), will I be more able to defeat the conspiracy than I currently am?
No, it probably doesn't matter too much but I find it extremely interesting that many of the problems in the world today are created, antagonized, and made possible by organized religion . . . It's pretty interesting showing people that most of their religions are astrology-based and have been around since the dawn of time. Like I said before, I'm still doing research . . . concentrating on 9/11 more but I'm going to delve into the religion aspect soon.
Quote from: Wolfwood on July 25, 2007, 11:50 PM NHFT
Lastly, does it really matter whether the evil we face today is the result of a 4000 year plot that has evolved over time, or Freemasons, or Rothschilds, or simply because people with power tend to abuse that power? If I finish this movie(my computer conked out for the 5th time shortly after part one), will I be more able to defeat the conspiracy than I currently am?
When I realized you hadn't watched the whole movie yet, it clicked and I realize why you wrote that. It's been a little while since I saw the movie, but I didn't get the impression that it's promoting a particular conspiracy or another. The impression I got was that it showed the nature of man to create irrational beliefs for the purpose of controlling people. It didn't say there is a big 4000 year ongoing conspiracy by one organization. What it's doing is creating analogies and showing how similar the tactics are so that people can be alert to such things.
I personally don't believe that Bushies planned 9/11 and the movie doesn't say that, or if it did, I've since forgotten that part. What it does do is leave you wondering if they knew more than they let on, sooner than we are led to believe. As a for instance, I found myself wondering if they were reluctant about shooting down commercial planes with lots of civilians on them but rather than say that, they took a cover up route. I feel like all the move did was expose information that raises questions, questions that were left suspiciously unanswered or even hushed up. The specific conclusions are left to the viewer.
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 26, 2007, 07:58 AM NHFT
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 25, 2007, 12:46 AM NHFT
Google is your friend! :)
Yeah . . . I know. I've done my research and I told you what I believe. Prove me wrong. Don't just tell me you're finding all this evidence that disputes the movie without actually sourcing your statements.
I was merely offering advice, not offering to be anyone's personal researcher. You 9/11-truther folks are the ones making the extraordinary claims, and so its your burden to prove it to the rest of us. Odd too that the film isn't sourced either!
The film is sourced http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm
and some clarifications made since creating the final release of the film are on the site as well. The site is a work in progress and will be fleshed out more as time goes on. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/clarifications.htm
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 25, 2007, 01:19 PM NHFT
Yeah, I used to like Penn & Teller. I have to wonder if someone has to resort to name-calling and profanity to punctuate their arguments. Is that something that Penn thinks will help him be convincing?
Yeah, no kidding. What I think is BULLSHIT is the intended effect of this episode--to demonize people who question official stories as kooks, moonbats and uninformed. What they did was line up the ugliest, non-credible people they could to star in this episode. How many examples of propaganda can we find in the strategy of this episode?
From the list of techniques on the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
I find at least half a dozen that jump out. How many can you find?
Oh, not nearly as many as I see in this thread, in Zeitgeist, in Loose Change, etc...
What they did was line up the ugliest, non-credible people they could to star in this episode. How many examples of propaganda can we find in the strategy of this episode?
[/quote]
I guess I'm going to have to revisit the new revision, just to stimulate the gray matter into more analysis. However I find it most interesting that what I found to be the most remarkable was the closing admonition, which if I remember correctly was something like this;
"When the LOVE of POWER is replaced by the POWER of LOVE, we will have peace."Hmmmmmm worthy of at least some consideration ?
Quote from: armlaw on July 26, 2007, 07:58 PM NHFT
What they did was line up the ugliest, non-credible people they could to star in this episode. How many examples of propaganda can we find in the strategy of this episode?
I guess I'm going to have to revisit the new revision, just to stimulate the gray matter into more analysis. However I find it most interesting that what I found to be the most remarkable was the closing admonition, which if I remember correctly was something like this;
"When the LOVE of POWER is replaced by the POWER of LOVE, we will have peace."Hmmmmmm worthy of at least some consideration ?
You've got the gist of it. Philosophy worthy of consideration? Yes, I'd say so! :)
The film is worth revisiting, several times. I've watched it four times and always get something new out of it; watching it once (or only the first few minutes ::)) barely scratches the surface, due to the intensity and depth of material that it covers.
Quote from: error on July 26, 2007, 06:08 PM NHFT
Oh, not nearly as many as I see in this thread, in Zeitgeist, in Loose Change, etc...
After you finished watching "Zeitgeist", which techniques of propaganda did you find to be employed in it?
Quote from: Insurgent on July 26, 2007, 06:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 25, 2007, 01:19 PM NHFT
Yeah, I used to like Penn & Teller. I have to wonder if someone has to resort to name-calling and profanity to punctuate their arguments. Is that something that Penn thinks will help him be convincing?
Yeah, no kidding. What I think is BULLSHIT is the intended effect of this episode--to demonize people who question official stories as kooks, moonbats and uninformed. What they did was line up the ugliest, non-credible people they could to star in this episode. How many examples of propaganda can we find in the strategy of this episode?
From the list of techniques on the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
I find at least half a dozen that jump out. How many can you find?
:notworthy: Good analysis, Insurgent! (I'm not really going to count, but that list is a hugely helpful aid to understanding what we read, view, hear etc. in the MSM.
I wonder what happened to Penn? What made him turn to the dark side? Lot harder to tell about Teller ;D , but he's complicit, of course. Penn must know good and well that he's using those techniques - he's not stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIdQQ2hubfc
Ruger, thanks for posting that link. I've never seen that before. I have two issues with their explanation though.
#1 - The only real justification that was given for the collapse of WTC 7 in this movie was that the "fire cooked the steel". I'm at work now but when I get home I will try and find the scholarly report I read that proves that an open-air flame can not reach temperatures high enough to weaken steel. Everyone's explanation (including NIST's) of the collapse of the twin towers concludes that ONLY jet fuel can cause a fire to burn hot enough to weaken steel (and even that is debatable). There was no jet fuel in WTC 7. Compare the fires in WTC 7 to the fires in the Windsor building in Madrid:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K6erWMPhVF4
These buildings were constructed in a similar fashion. Why would one remain standing while the other one collapses at free fall speed into it's own footprint?
Also, take a look at these other WTC buildings that were closer to the twin towers. They suffered much more damage than WTC 7 but they remain standing. Why?
WTC 6 - http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg
WTC 5 - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html
WTC 4 - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc4.html
And . . . don't you think it's odd that BBC and other news networks (CNN) reported that WTC 7 fell more than 20 minutes before it actually did. Not only did they report that it fell, they knew WHY it fell before it even collapsed. That seems odd when even the individuals in the movie that you posted seemed surprised that the building collapsed. FYI - the Solomon Building is WTC 7 and you can see it behind this reporter
FYI - the BBC claims to have lost this footage
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
#2 - Even if WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage, the building would not have collapsed universally at free fall speed. I'm pretty sure you've played Jenga before. I know I have. When you remove a piece on the side, the structure topples. WTC 7 would have toppled in the direction of the electric substation (the part of the building with structural damage) and then collapsed at an angle. Instead, all supports, beams, and floors collapsed at exactly the same time causing the building to fall into it's own footprint at free fall speed. Odd.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5J8YUsK2FnY
From wiki, FEMA's conclusion on the collapse of WTC:
"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_7
What alohamonkey said, but without the Jenga comparison.
... and, of course why did Larry Silverstein say "We decided to pull it" and no one at NIST or FEMA says, "oh, okay, I guess that's the real reason WTC 7 came down."
But, of course, this is a Zeitgeist thread. Out of respect for that, we ought to move the 911T discussion to that thread: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=1747.0.
Also, for "what to do to increase awareness locally" you can go to the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) questions group. I think there used to be forums on the Meetup sites, but don't see that now. I'm sure we can get something set up for discussing what video to show next locally and how to announce to the public, plans for street actions, etc.
Re Zeitgiest, I think it tries to point out the incredibly extreme measures that have been used against people (9/11 attacks) to manipulate them into wars that are against the interest of civilization, and how they are bamboozled about how the world works (most religions) and how most are being completely misled (govt and complicit media) while they are stolen from (money system). It does take the alternative to the govt story about 9/11 as a given and it doesn't pretend to be the "definive proof" work on that.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 27, 2007, 12:11 PM NHFT
What alohamonkey said, but without the Jenga comparison.
I've been involved in hundreds of 9/11 truth debates and I've never thrown that comparison in there until this one. It was sort of spontaneous. You didn't like???
I agree Jaqeboy.
I'm very interested in researching and analyzing the producer's sources for the religion portion of the film. Religion is something that I was raised with and fell away from a few years ago. I now see it as another method of control and persecution. I watched another interesting movie recently (I'll try to find the name and post it here) that analyzed the escalation of fanatacism in Islam as well as in Christianity in recent years. It was really interesting to see how similar the two religions were. It was also interesting to note how the two movements were alike and how anti-religious each groups' actions were. Organized religion is another method of dividing and polarizing the population to gain greater control. It has been used to coerce normal, rational people to kill each other for centuries.
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 27, 2007, 02:12 PM NHFT
I agree Jaqeboy.
I'm very interested in researching and analyzing the producer's sources for the religion portion of the film. Religion is something that I was raised with and fell away from a few years ago. I now see it as another method of control and persecution. I watched another interesting movie recently (I'll try to find the name and post it here) that analyzed the escalation of fanatacism in Islam as well as in Christianity in recent years. It was really interesting to see how similar the two religions were. It was also interesting to note how the two movements were alike and how anti-religious each groups' actions were. Organized religion is another method of dividing and polarizing the population to gain greater control. It has been used to coerce normal, rational people to kill each other for centuries.
Was it
The Root of All Evil by Richard Dawkins? I saw it months ago on YouTube in two approx. one hour parts but can't seem to find it right now.
edit: Found it on another site: http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00004
This really belongs in the 9/11 thread, but what the heck...
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 27, 2007, 11:18 AM NHFT
#1 - The only real justification that was given for the collapse of WTC 7 in this movie was that the "fire cooked the steel". I'm at work now but when I get home I will try and find the scholarly report I read that proves that an open-air flame can not reach temperatures high enough to weaken steel.
This was not an open-air flame. It was forced-air, from the massive draft. I can (and frequently have, by accident) melt steel with nothing more than wood or charcoal, and a blower.
You don't even need forced air to weaken mild steel to the point that it will sag and collapse. Take a look at the grate in any fireplace that has been used regularly: it sags! If you let ashes build up around your wood stove grate so that there is no air flow to cool the grate, you will burn the grate completely up.
QuoteEveryone's explanation (including NIST's) of the collapse of the twin towers concludes that ONLY jet fuel can cause a fire to burn hot enough to weaken steel (and even that is debatable). There was no jet fuel in WTC 7.
Jet fuel = diesel = kerosene, for all practical purposes. There were generators and diesel storage tanks in WTC 7. Not to mention the countless other flammable substances (wood, fabric, paper, synthetic carpets, plastics... )
The "collapsed in its own footprint" argument is simply bogus. It fell toward the weakened corner (exactly as one would predict), and did extensive damage to neighboring buildings.
Kevin
I agree Jaqeboy.
I'm very interested in researching and analyzing the producer's sources for the religion portion of the film. Religion is something that I was raised with and fell away from a few years ago. I now see it as another method of control and persecution.
Quote
There is much support in both video and print. I have had the Nag Hammadi Library in English since it was published. It was complied by Dr. James Robinson, Curator of Christian antiquities, Claremont College Claremont California. In any event here is a video that is compatible with the first section of zeitgeist.
Gnostic Media - Our Lady of Light
All time views: 1,599 »
Views Rank «
All time 1,599 491,816
Yesterday • 6 141,884
by email 0 17,019
by embed 3 103,055
Gnostic Media
8 min 14 sec - Jan 10, 2007
www.gnosticmedia.com
« Back to video details
Resume purchase »
for Windows/Mac Video iPod/Sony PSP
Download the video
To watch it, you will need the Google Video Player.
Video Player Privacy Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The download is starting. Please select Run/Open when prompted.
No Google Video Player? Install it
Manually download the video
Questions? Check Download FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google Video Player is being downloaded. Please select Run/Open when prompted to install it.
This video will be downloaded automatically after the Video Player is installed.
Manually download Google Video Player
Manually download the video
Questions? Check Download FAQ
Video Player Privacy Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The download is starting. Please Save the video file.
If the download does not start automatically, right-click this link and choose "Save As".
Questions? Check the Download FAQ
If the download does not start automatically, right-click this link and choose "Save As".
How to get videos onto the iPod or PSP.
Email - Blog - Post to MySpace
Send link - Embed HTML
Post to: MySpace - Blogger
LiveJournal - TypePad
From:
e.g. myemail@gmail.com
To:
Separate emails with ,
Text:
Send copy to myself
Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this video onto a web page.
Who is this mysterious woman mentioned in the book of Revelation? Could it be "Eve" from the book of Genesis? Revelation 12 - Our Lady of Guadalupe - Adam and Eve - Genesis - Nag Hammadi - Andrew Rutajit
Details - Comments - More from user
Sort: Date - Rating
Sort: Date - Rating
Write comment « Back to comments
Rate video: info
error Your name:
error
Comments: Let other users know how you liked this video.
error
New! Link to interesting parts of the video with times like 1:24:30 or 0:55.
Please make sure your comments are useful and informative. Commenting policy
No comments.
Write comment:
Rate video: info
error Your name:
error
Comments: Let other users know how you liked this video.
error
New! Link to interesting parts of the video with times like 1:24:30 or 0:55.
Please make sure your comments are useful and informative. Commenting policy
Sun Worship & the Inquisiti...
4 min
Part 5 Who was John Alleg...
10 min
Part 1 What is Shamanism?....
10 min
Part 3 Pharmaceutic.. Sic...
9 min
Part 2 Controlling The Ma...
10 min
Part 4 The Religious Expe...
4 min
The Pharmacratic Inquisitio....
10 min
Gnostic Media Pharmacrati...
6 min
Gnostic Media Sexual Symb...
13 min
Searching...
« Back to summary
Sorry, there isn't a searchable transcript for this video.
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 27, 2007, 02:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 27, 2007, 12:11 PM NHFT
What alohamonkey said, but without the Jenga comparison.
I've been involved in hundreds of 9/11 truth debates and I've never thrown that comparison in there until this one. It was sort of spontaneous. You didn't like???
No, the guy in the Jenga vid
lifted the stack on one side and caused the tilting to that side. Also, comparison to a game makes an apples to oranges comparison that leaves you open to attack. I'd say stick to stats and histories for steel-framed structures.
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 27, 2007, 02:12 PM NHFT
I agree Jaqeboy.
I'm very interested in researching and analyzing the producer's sources for the religion portion of the film. Religion is something that I was raised with and fell away from a few years ago. I now see it as another method of control and persecution. I watched another interesting movie recently (I'll try to find the name and post it here) that analyzed the escalation of fanatacism in Islam as well as in Christianity in recent years. It was really interesting to see how similar the two religions were. It was also interesting to note how the two movements were alike and how anti-religious each groups' actions were. Organized religion is another method of dividing and polarizing the population to gain greater control. It has been used to coerce normal, rational people to kill each other for centuries.
Yeah, to me if a religion is intolerant, it's kind of dysfunctional, in that it creates strife in the world rather than healing it. What is needed is religion that teaches toleration, and public institutions that tolerate different religions. The Quakers (freedom movement heroes of mine) pushed (by their persistence in practicing their beliefs) England to be more religiously liberal and finally into Parliament's official Toleration Act, 24 May 1689: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Toleration. Before that, the English authorities just burned their churches and imprisoned the people!
Quote from: KBCraig on July 27, 2007, 07:43 PM NHFT
This really belongs in the 9/11 thread, but what the heck...
...
The "collapsed in its own footprint" argument is simply bogus. It fell toward the weakened corner (exactly as one would predict), and did extensive damage to neighboring buildings.
All footage I've seen from a distance shows the building sinking straight down, not towards any corner: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/videos.html.
The video footage (clandestinely shot - secured area) in
Improbable Collapse shows that not a piece of 7 hit the Post office (at street level) across the street (West Broadway, on right side, when looking at the front of WTC7, ie when standing in Vesey Street).
This pic of the rubble pile of WTC7 shows some apparent damage the bldg in the back (across Barclay Street) and to the left and right (maybe some damage to bldg on right) - smoke obscures the view of WTC 6 across Vesey Street, but it was heavily damaged from the collapse of the top of WTC1: http://wtc7.net/rubblepile.html
This pic (not sure from what direction) shows the building leaning into its footprint: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/imploded.html
This one shows very little damage to left or right, but some apparent damage to 30 West Broadway building in the back, across Barclay Street: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Do you have some links to pics that show extensive damage to neighboring buildings?
I know, I'm the one that suggested moving this, but...
Quote from: KBCraig on July 27, 2007, 07:43 PM NHFT
...
This was not an open-air flame. It was forced-air, from the massive draft....
Kevin
To what are you referring here? Where was there a massive draft in WTC7? Just want to know if you have some line on something I have not heard about.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 28, 2007, 12:57 AM NHFT
I know, I'm the one that suggested moving this, but...
Quote from: KBCraig on July 27, 2007, 07:43 PM NHFT
...
This was not an open-air flame. It was forced-air, from the massive draft....
Kevin
To what are you referring here? Where was there a massive draft in WTC7? Just want to know if you have some line on something I have not heard about.
Where? Ummm...
everywhere. Big fire in what amounts to a large chimney, means massive draft.
In other words, one of those obvious truths that only "9/11 truthers" miss?
Quote from: KBCraig on July 28, 2007, 09:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 28, 2007, 12:57 AM NHFT
I know, I'm the one that suggested moving this, but...
Quote from: KBCraig on July 27, 2007, 07:43 PM NHFT
...
This was not an open-air flame. It was forced-air, from the massive draft....
Kevin
To what are you referring here? Where was there a massive draft in WTC7? Just want to know if you have some line on something I have not heard about.
Where? Ummm... everywhere. Big fire in what amounts to a large chimney, means massive draft.
I'm not following you here man.
Fires consume oxygen from the air. This creates a pressure differential, with lower pressure in the vicinity of the fire. Therefore, you get air movement. I learned this in elementary school.
For the sake of ease of discussion, general 9/11 related arguments should really be discussed in the appropriate thread http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=1747.0
except where it directly relates to the film "Zeitgeist" :)
Quote from: Insurgent on July 26, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on July 26, 2007, 06:08 PM NHFT
Oh, not nearly as many as I see in this thread, in Zeitgeist, in Loose Change, etc...
After you finished watching "Zeitgeist", which techniques of propaganda did you find to be employed in it?
Error, perhaps you didn't see my response from your statement, buried from a couple days ago. I'm really curious to learn your findings :)
Quote from: Insurgent on July 28, 2007, 01:27 PM NHFT
For the sake of ease of discussion, general 9/11 related arguments should really be discussed in the appropriate thread http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=1747.0
except where it directly relates to the film "Zeitgeist" :)
OK, OK, you're right - keep getting sucked in - moving my part over to the other thread.
OK, moved the discussion about WTC7 fire with KB Craig and alohamonkey over to the other thread and zipping my lip about it here.
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=1747.0
Quote from: error on July 25, 2007, 12:49 AM NHFT
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 24, 2007, 10:17 PM NHFT
This film has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, and I will be not be recommending it to anyone.
Ah, someone gets it! +1
I will be watching the film later today probably, but hopefully I will not be thinking like Ruger Mason, but I have a feeling I will. Many people loved that davinci code thing .... I thought it was silly, when I saw the movie.
Religions are frauds .... I agree with those that have said that earlier.
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 06, 2007, 04:13 PM NHFT
Maybe I've misunderstood the elementary astrology I've heard. I just know I've heard people say things like Jesus was actually born on January 5th
I think the best guess is january 3rd or 4th in BC3. I don't know how that relates to the movie yet.
Like Friday said ... there have been a lot of calendar changes.
They even changed the whole thing to fit their state run religion of christianity ... and you non-christian suckers still use it. I bet you use government time instead of NHFT for your time of day too. ;)
Someone mentioned that the new testament writers wrote in 100AD or so .... the first books were written soon after Christ was killed (like "James" as soon as 44ad on up to 70ad) but the gospels came later as people forgot the events and guys wrote it down for their info (50-90ad with "Mark" early and "John" coming at the end). John was the only one that the government/organized religion didn't kill ... he was a "detainee" on an island. :)
http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm
Quote from: KBCraig on July 06, 2007, 11:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 06, 2007, 01:25 PM NHFT
Heck, you won't be able to tear your eyes off it!
I could barely force myself to watch 12 minutes' worth before giving up. Sllooooooowwwwww....
I thought all you prison guards could slow your minds down to handle "prison time".
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 29, 2007, 12:34 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on July 06, 2007, 11:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 06, 2007, 01:25 PM NHFT
Heck, you won't be able to tear your eyes off it!
I could barely force myself to watch 12 minutes' worth before giving up. Sllooooooowwwwww....
I thought all you prison guards could slow your minds down to handle "prison time".
:biglaugh:
Beware, Russell, Part 1 is kind of "Christianity Truth" movement stuff. I guess what I have learned from my study is that whether Jesus existed or not, the creators and promoters of "the Church", esp starting with Paul and continuing through Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and other bishops, were creating an ideological structure, a system of beliefs, and an organizational structure which was turned into a political powerhouse when sanctioned by Constantine and went on to have an over-arching power over European/Mediterranean society (and along the way created the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, etc.).
and, seemingly ironically, I don't believe, like you have stated, that religions are frauds by their nature, but rather they are organizations seeking to find truths and disseminate them to their fellows and should be judged individually. There seem to be some temptations, though, and very many seem to become corrupted. This is the challenge we face in forming any new religious "organizations." Many conclude that organizations themselves are what inherently corrupts the belief systems called your "religion."
Ie, there are 2 uses of the word here, your "religion" is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?Religion) . Your "Religion" is the organization that you belong to that you believe will assist you on your journey to find the "right" beliefs (or that you blindly follow because they seem to know what they are talking about) [my definition here].
Zeitgeist, in Part I, slams "Religion" (the Christian Church) and at the end of the presentation, suggests some pieces of wisdom that you could consider adopting into your "religion" (or your personal ethos (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethos) - use your choice of words here).
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 29, 2007, 11:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: error on July 25, 2007, 12:49 AM NHFT
Quote from: Ruger Mason on July 24, 2007, 10:17 PM NHFT
This film has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, and I will be not be recommending it to anyone.
Ah, someone gets it! +1
I will be watching the film later today probably, but hopefully I will not be thinking like Ruger Mason, but I have a feeling I will. Many people loved that davinci code thing .... I thought it was silly, when I saw the movie.
Religions are frauds .... I agree with those that have said that earlier.
I'm genuinely curious to hear your impressions, Russell; your absence in the discussion has been conspicuous. I wondered if you had watched it but kept quiet about it. There is one short bit in the beginning with George Carlin which Christians will probably find pretty offensive, FYI. I kind of wish the film maker hadn't of put that in there. The rest, I think you'll find very engaging :)
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 26, 2007, 08:09 AM NHFT
I find it extremely interesting that many of the problems in the world today are created, antagonized, and made possible by organized religion.
Yeah freedom of religion, like guns, sometimes causes bad things to happen, and we can't have that, so therefore religion should be discouraged or even outlawed wherever possible. (tongue in cheek)
I mean, religion has even caused people to NOT VOTE!
>:D
Quote from: CNHT on July 29, 2007, 01:05 PM NHFT
I mean, religion has even caused people to NOT VOTE!
>:D
Thanks for the recognition :)
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 29, 2007, 01:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on July 29, 2007, 01:05 PM NHFT
I mean, religion has even caused people to NOT VOTE!
>:D
Thanks for the recognition :)
Wasn't talking about you in particular, as I noticed you do involve yourself in some political activities like this impeachment stuff, which is sort of like reverse voting is it not?
Seems to me if more people voted, they could have helped keep that person out in the first place. Impeachment of one person who is a mere figurehead in a completely corrupt system, has no real value in changing anything and as such is a waste of time in my opinion.
Quote from: CNHT on July 29, 2007, 01:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 29, 2007, 01:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on July 29, 2007, 01:05 PM NHFT
I mean, religion has even caused people to NOT VOTE!
>:D
Thanks for the recognition :)
Wasn't talking about you in particular, as I noticed you do involve yourself in some political activities like this impeachment stuff, which is sort of like reverse voting is it not?
Seems to me if more people voted, they could have helped keep that person out in the first place. Impeachment of one person who is a mere figurehead in a completely corrupt system, has no real value in changing anything and as such is a waste of time in my opinion.
OK, then, can we repeal the whole completely corrupt system? Please inform me of the meeting date and time and I'll come and VOTE!
Oops, okay, Insurgent - Impeachment discussion moved to appropriate thread ;)
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9872.0
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 29, 2007, 01:27 PM NHFT
Oops, okay, Insurgent - Impeachment discussion moved to appropriate thread ;)
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9872.0
:whip2:
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 29, 2007, 01:25 PM NHFT
OK, then, can we repeal the whole completely corrupt system? Please inform me of the meeting date and time and I'll come and VOTE!
Wish we could but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
We got to this point incrementally, thus we shall have to get away from this point incrementally.
I do see progress though -- the young people today are not going to take much of this globalism kumbaya bullshit/world government/global socialism/warming nonsense.
The rest will wake up long after it's expedient to do anything about it.
Quote from: CNHT on July 29, 2007, 01:33 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 29, 2007, 01:25 PM NHFT
OK, then, can we repeal the whole completely corrupt system? Please inform me of the meeting date and time and I'll come and VOTE!
Wish we could but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
We got to this point incrementally, thus we shall have to get away from this point incrementally.
OK, back to impeachment then - other thread ==> http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9872.0
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 29, 2007, 12:33 PM NHFT
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 06, 2007, 04:13 PM NHFT
Maybe I've misunderstood the elementary astrology I've heard. I just know I've heard people say things like Jesus was actually born on January 5th
I think the best guess is january 3rd or 4th in BC3.
I heard it was in the April timeframe.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 29, 2007, 12:45 PM NHFT
Beware, Russell, Part 1 is kind of "Christianity Truth" movement stuff.
and, seemingly ironically, I don't believe, like you have stated, that religions are frauds by their nature...
I can usually survive most of that sort of thing. :)
I guess I use the term "religion" in 2 bad ways even though the Bible is translated with it used both bad and good ... mostly bad.
Religion ... as organized religion where it has connection with the state or for the leaders personal gain (more than one religion was invented for the guy to get chicks and money) :)
religiosity ... as in self-righteousness or hippocracy
I don't like to be called religious, because I always use it as a bad term. As you use it Jack, I wouldn't mind it too much. I am sure I would be hippocritical no matter which way you meant the term. ;)
Quote from: Insurgent on July 29, 2007, 12:47 PM NHFT
I'm genuinely curious to hear your impressions, Russell; your absence in the discussion has been conspicuous. I wondered if you had watched it but kept quiet about it.
I just found the thread today. The title didn't mean anything to me until Kat was looking at it.
I can't keep quiet about anything, including things I should.
Quote from: Dreepa on July 29, 2007, 02:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 29, 2007, 12:33 PM NHFT
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 06, 2007, 04:13 PM NHFT
Maybe I've misunderstood the elementary astrology I've heard. I just know I've heard people say things like Jesus was actually born on January 5th
I think the best guess is january 3rd or 4th in BC3.
I heard it was in the April timeframe.
I don't know where December 25th comes from. It makes sense what Friday said that it is tied to the winter solstice or something.
I think if you just go by the specific dates and some clues in the Bible and how they match with Roman history and such you come up with ... Late December/Early January ... 3/4BC. (BTW ... I don't think the "wise men" were not in attendance unlike all the movies)
We spent a short time on the subject in my Bible Chronology class in college. It was a good course.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 29, 2007, 01:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on July 29, 2007, 01:05 PM NHFT
I mean, religion has even caused people to NOT VOTE!
Thanks for the recognition :)
Amen Brothers and Sisters 8)
Quote from: CNHT on July 29, 2007, 01:33 PM NHFT
We got to this point incrementally, thus we shall have to get away from this point incrementally.
Appears like good reasoning at first glance... but it really is a non sequitur. Just because it took years to accumulate a pile of junk, doesn't mean it has to take years to get rid of it.
I am thinking more and more that we are out of time, and that it is way too late for an incremental approach. There is an urgent need to outflank the State now.
I will expand on this thought in a new thread... coming soon.
Quote from: srqrebel on July 29, 2007, 03:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on July 29, 2007, 01:33 PM NHFT
We got to this point incrementally, thus we shall have to get away from this point incrementally.
Appears like good reasoning at first glance... but it really is a non sequitur. Just because it took years to accumulate a pile of junk, doesn't mean it has to take years to get rid of it.
Sometimes it is best to just burn it up.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 29, 2007, 02:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on July 29, 2007, 02:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 29, 2007, 12:33 PM NHFT
Quote from: Captain Liberty on July 06, 2007, 04:13 PM NHFT
Maybe I've misunderstood the elementary astrology I've heard. I just know I've heard people say things like Jesus was actually born on January 5th
I think the best guess is january 3rd or 4th in BC3.
I heard it was in the April timeframe.
I don't know where December 25th comes from. It makes sense what Friday said that it is tied to the winter solstice or something.
I think if you just go by the specific dates and some clues in the Bible and how they match with Roman history and such you come up with ... Late December/Early January ... 3/4BC. (BTW ... I don't think the "wise men" were not in attendance unlike all the movies)
We spent a short time on the subject in my Bible Chronology class in college. It was a good course.
The film explains the history of December 25th; it has to do with the Sun.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 29, 2007, 02:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on July 29, 2007, 12:47 PM NHFT
I'm genuinely curious to hear your impressions, Russell; your absence in the discussion has been conspicuous. I wondered if you had watched it but kept quiet about it.
I just found the thread today. The title didn't mean anything to me until Kat was looking at it.
I can't keep quiet about anything, including things I should.
I can understand that...many times I brush over certain threads just because the titles don't seem pertinent or interesting. The title of the film, by the way, is a German word meaning "The spirit of the time; the taste and outlook characteristic of a period or generation."
Hopefully you don't keep quiet about the film after you're done watching it, but wait until you do so! A few people on this thread seem to get anxious spouting off about it before they even watch the whole film ::)
An article by a former pastor stating the same astrological premise for the story of Jesus:
Counting Down to Christmas and the Birth of the SUN - Oops I mean SON (http://ezinearticles.com/?Counting-Down-to-Christmas-and-the-Birth-of-the-SUN---Oops-I-mean-SON&id=311566)
Wikipedia:
Quote
[edit] Birth
Historians conclude that Jesus was born around 6-4 BC As a Jewish peasant living in the tiny village of Nazareth, working with his father as a carpenter (Greek "tekton," meaning stone or wood worker), and by the very nature of his teachings it is highly likely that his family was very poor.
[edit] Year and date
See also: Census of Quirinius
The scholarly consensus, based on Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is that Herod died at the end of March, or early April of 4 BC. For instance, he states that Herod Philip I's death took place, after a thirty-seven year reign, in the twentieth year of Tiberius, which would imply that he took over on Herod's death in 4 BC.[7] This would imply a date for the birth of Jesus earlier than 4 BC, based on the account in the Matthew Gospel. The Census of Quirinius, thought to be the one referred to in the Luke account, took place in 6 AD, which would imply a birth date ten years later than the Matthew version.
Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, comments on this movie.
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/delicious-consp.html
---
Delicious Conspiracy Theories
When I read The Da Vinci Code, I enjoyed it because I thought the historical information was based on fact. It wasn't, and I'm glad I know that now. I'm doubly glad I didn't know it when I read the book, as it would have spoiled the fun. Sometimes bullshit can be so delicious.
With that in mind, I recommend to you a movie on the Internet, available for free viewing, called Zeitgeist. It presents three entertaining arguments and ties them together:
1. The Bible is an obvious copy of earlier religions, designed to control the masses.
2. September 11th was staged by the U.S. government as a pretext for grabbing power and making money.
3. Rich bankers control the entire world.
Here's the link, but don't watch it until you have lots of quiet time to absorb it.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
The beauty of the movie is not in its truth, if indeed it has any. I don't have the energy or desire to research it. What I found amazingly entertaining is how persuasive it is, even if it turns out to be entirely made up.
For example, I doubt September 11th was staged by the U.S. government. After all, we all saw the video of Bin Laden admitting he did it. How do you refute that? Well, the Zeitgeist movie shows a still frame of Bin Laden from that video next to a known photo of him, and they...don't...have...the...same...nose.
That's entertainment!
One possibility is that Bin Laden got a nose job. Or maybe it's just the angle of the photograph, or maybe I only imagine they look that different, or maybe someone doctored the photo to promote the conspiracy argument. As I said, I don't believe the allegations in the movie, but it's loaded with great-yet-questionable evidence that is a joy to behold. If you're looking for facts, I can't recommend this movie because I don't know what's real and what isn't. If you want some delicious alleged facts that sound convincing, you'll love it.
I believe the intent of the movie is to alarm people into being more skeptical of their government. It had the opposite effect on me. It made me happy to think there might be a plan. If the war on terror is real, it scares the shit out of me. But if, as the movie claims, it's entirely manufactured, and the war in Iraq is meant to be a permanent conflict to sell weapons and control oil – that is much less scary. It means the war will stay where it is and no one will "follow me home."
It also means the nuclear bomb ambitions of Iran are a lie. That's one less thing to worry about. All I have to do is stay out of the National Guard and invest my money in defense contractors and I'll be safe and happy. Those shadowy rich guys are doing a great job!
I know you'll send me links to web sites refuting key points in the movie. The arguments in those links will be impossible for a lazy guy like me to verify. But they might be entertaining, so send them anyway.
Quote from: dalebert on August 16, 2007, 07:25 AM NHFT
Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, comments on this movie.
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/delicious-consp.html
...I know you'll send me links to web sites refuting key points in the movie. The arguments in those links will be impossible for a lazy guy like me to verify. But they might be entertaining, so send them anyway.
The film maker had anticipated this sort of knee-jerk response and has this to say, on the "statement" page at http://zeitgeistmovie.com/statement.htm
"...that being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized."
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on August 16, 2007, 07:41 AM NHFT
I actually bought a copy of this movie... maybe we can have a movie night and all watch it in a few weeks! I'll pop the popcorn, you all bring the beer! hehehe
That would be great! What kind of "venue" do you have to view the film, or were you thinking of someplace else?
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on August 18, 2007, 08:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on August 18, 2007, 08:21 PM NHFT
That would be great! What kind of "venue" do you have to view the film, or were you thinking of someplace else?
I've got a tiny TV in a decent-sized apartment which I dont move into until September 5th... but I know a guy named Kevin with a really big tv... hehehee OHHHHHH KEEEEEEEEEEVINNNNN!!! (You like how I just volunteered you??!!!)
*shrugs* I'm up for whatever. I've got the movie, tons of popcorn, and I'd be happy to host a movie night once I'm moved, but I don't wanna hear no gripes about my 26" TV... I'm not a big TV watcher, I don't see the need for anything bigger. :P
Kevin's place would be an ideal venue for a film showing :)
26" is not tiny. You obviously haven't seen Russell's TV.
Quote from: Malum Prohibitum on August 19, 2007, 02:37 AM NHFT
I gave it 5 minutes before I killed it. Thats 5 whole minutes I wont be getting back.
You passed the test, by failing theirs. ;)
Quote from: Malum Prohibitum on August 19, 2007, 02:37 AM NHFT
I gave it 5 minutes before I killed it. Thats 5 whole minutes I wont be getting back.
The same thing happened to me. Apparently they don't actually start the movie until about 6 minutes in. It's supposed to, uh, set a mood or something. I just got pissed off because the first five minutes sucked so much. But at least I didn't pay for it.
Quote from: Insurgent on July 14, 2007, 06:49 PM NHFT
The film maker, Peter J is interviewed on the air, for the first time since releasing his work: http://truthorlies.org/06-28-07-Hour-2.mp3
Thanks for the link; I just got around to listening to the interview. I had suspected that the narrator of part I was the filmmaker. 8)
In this interview the filmmaker says, and I quote, "We have to get behind Ron Paul." I'd really like to point your attention to a particular post on this thread, not because I have the slightest interest in getting into another he said/she said with CNHT, but because I have friends who care about the RP campaign and want to be sure they don't miss this:
Quote from: CNHT on July 24, 2007, 10:41 AM NHFT
I was sent email by this person who made this video, presumably because of the RP campaign, and I flat out told him it was not going to be helpful to the campaign in any way so I was not interested in buying a DVD.
I restrained myself from telling him it was a poorly put together movie that did not hold my interest past 2 minutes....
#1) The movie is not even being sold. It's available for viewing, for free, on the Internet. And the filmmaker is distributing DVD copies
at cost http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/dvdorder.htm and
encouraging others to recopy and distribute it.
#2) The filmmaker contacted CNHT, apparently in hopes of working together to promote the Ron Paul campaign.
#3) CNHT, who acknowledges that she only watched TWO MINUTES of the film, rejected the offer of the filmmaker's help on the basis of his film, which covers topics that would be of interest to many RP supporters, including the corruption and insidiousness of the Federal Reserve, the house of cards that is the U.S. banking system, the dangers of RFID, and efforts to implement a one world government. FYI, in the radio interview he also refers to "the coup d'etat of 1913" and speaks disparagingly about the Council of Foreign Relations.
He mentions in the radio interview that he had a mailing list of 700-800 people just two weeks after the Internet release of his movie. Who knows how big his list is now. Someone who has actually watched the film and who is also working to promote Ron Paul (oh Dreeeeeeeepa) might want to send a quick email to zeitgeist@zeitgeistmovie.com and take advantage of this opportunity. I suspect that, at the very least, he'll mention Ron Paul in an email spam to his mailing list.
Note: I purged *so* much from this post. I may not be a good person, but hey, on a good day, I'm an OK person. :angel4:
Quote
Mercy is the mark of a great man. (lightly stabs Atherton with the sword) Guess I'm just a good man. (stabs him again) Well, I'm all right. --Malcolm Reynolds
Quote from: CNHT on July 24, 2007, 10:41 AM NHFT
I was sent email by this person who made this video, presumably because of the RP campaign, and I flat out told him it was not going to be helpful to the campaign in any way so I was not interested in buying a DVD.
I restrained myself from telling him it was a poorly put together movie that did not hold my interest past 2 minutes....
Friday is quite correct, I did tell him that it was not something the campaign would want to distribute and I wanted to be honest with him.
Quote from: Friday
#2) The filmmaker contacted CNHT, apparently in hopes of working together to promote the Ron Paul campaign.
I was not sure how this would get more people to support RP since most folks have the attention span of a flea and can hardly pay attention long enough to hear you give a bullet outline of Ron's positions. This film is more the kind of thing that intellectuals on this board like to use for philosphical discussions. I didn't see it is short or concise enough to be a campaign tool.
Quote from: Friday
#3) CNHT, who acknowledges that she only watched TWO MINUTES of the film, rejected the offer of the filmmaker's help on the basis of his film, which covers topics that would be of interest to many RP supporters, including the corruption and insidiousness of the Federal Reserve, the house of cards that is the U.S. banking system, the dangers of RFID, and efforts to implement a one world government. FYI, in the radio interview he also refers to "the coup d'etat of 1913" and speaks disparagingly about the Council of Foreign Relations.
This is all good stuff that current RP supporters understand for years via sources like books and being shortwave radio buffs. But like I said, it must be spoon fed to those who don't understand it and the film is way too long and drawn out and i did not think it was professional enough as witnessed by the impatience it causes at the beginning, described by myself and many others who tried to watch it.
Quote from: Friday
He mentions in the radio interview that he had a mailing list of 700-800 people just two weeks after the Internet release of his movie. Who knows how big his list is now. Someone who has actually watched the film and who is also working to promote Ron Paul (oh Dreeeeeeeepa) might want to send a quick email to zeitgeist@zeitgeistmovie.com and take advantage of this opportunity. I suspect that, at the very least, he'll mention Ron Paul in an email spam to his mailing list.
I am willing to bet those folks are already supporters.
Quote from: Friday
Note: I purged *so* much from this post. I may not be a good person, but hey, on a good day, I'm an OK person. :angel4:
I am certain no one thinks you are a bad person, least of all me.
Also, I'm not someone who is religious, but for the most part, common people use religion to try to improve their lives and I can't see bashing Christianity, even if we think the virgin birth is a myth. This would be too offensive for some. We are trying to get Christian conservatives on our side not alienate them. I think that if we want people to be self-sufficient and not depend on government we need to encourage their practices of their chosen religion not promote secular humanism because for some who hope for 'something else' after life, this holds no hope.
Of course we have some religions that were used for violence and conquest and I'm not for that. But I've been able to convince some religious individuals of how hypocritical their stance on death penalty is in light of their RTL stance and they have been able to rethink that.
The film maker has added an "activism" page to the main site, with a number of different action items:
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/activism.htm
As an example of the grass-roots networking strategy in action, which happens when you take the approach of being open to other groups, one of the makers of "What A Way To Go: Life at the End of Empire" have endorsed Zeitgeist in a blog entry today :)
http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/2007/09/04/the-rest-of-the-story
An update: The film maker has finally added a detailed interactive transcript to the webpage http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm
The film is also now available to view with different subtitles: Spanish, Polish, Slovak, Czech, Italian, & Portuguese.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on November 21, 2007, 01:59 AM NHFT
I have this movie if we wanted to make a movie night or if someone wanted to borrow it.... I think we had discussed this prior to my move.
Yes, we should arrange a viewing of it. I own the DVD too and will look in to a venue to host it.
An addendum to the original film has been created and is available to watch for free online . I just finished watching it and give it rave reviews. It goes in to greater detail where the original left off, and also touches on a number of issues not addressed in the original. Highly recommended! Watch either or both films at http://zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html
Launching soon is an activist site related to a movement rising up as a result of inspiration and transformation by ideas expressed in the two films. I am excited to see what it entails!
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
Quote from: Insurgent on October 05, 2008, 06:14 PM NHFT
An addendum to the original film has been created and is available to watch for free online . I just finished watching it and give it rave reviews. It goes in to greater detail where the original left off, and also touches on a number of issues not addressed in the original. Highly recommended! Watch either or both films at http://zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html
Launching soon is an activist site related to a movement rising up as a result of inspiration and transformation by ideas expressed in the two films. I am excited to see what it entails!
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
This sounds great - I'll watch the new release ASAP. Maybe we can form a local chapter and help create a new Zeitgeist for New Hampshire!
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 05, 2008, 08:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on October 05, 2008, 06:14 PM NHFT
An addendum to the original film has been created and is available to watch for free online . I just finished watching it and give it rave reviews. It goes in to greater detail where the original left off, and also touches on a number of issues not addressed in the original. Highly recommended! Watch either or both films at http://zeitgeistmovie.com/index.html
Launching soon is an activist site related to a movement rising up as a result of inspiration and transformation by ideas expressed in the two films. I am excited to see what it entails!
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
This sounds great - I'll watch the new release ASAP. Maybe we can form a local chapter and help create a new Zeitgeist for New Hampshire!
Not maybe, definitely!
Love it, especially the get your money out of the banks plan of action.
Wow! Watched a half hour of this so far - love it! I wonder how long this film-maker will live?