|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ZeitGeist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nyenye Inactive Member |
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Watch the movie and tell me what YOU think. I am interested to read.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
well for one I like the quote. You do know what the word zeitgeist means, don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Why don't you tell us what YOU think? Why should we watch a conspiracy movie that is rumored to be very poorly done and laughably wrong about so many things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nyenye Inactive Member |
Time Ghost
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nyenye Inactive Member |
You cannot believe a rumor, you have to see it for yourself. I liked the movie... I believe it's true especially for the 9/11 part, many people that I've talked to seemed to have forgot. The chip too... completely true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Then why should I believe you that the movie needs to be seen? At least those who say to not waste my time have given reasons.
Please, tell us your thoughts on the movie...why should we see it? Have you researched any of the claims to know what is true and what is not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The comparative religion section at the beginning was interesting in itself with the comparisons of the various god-heroes and the influences of astrological mythology on early religion. I've seen most of it before but there were some interesting ideas I've not seen presented in that way before. Incidentally - I use the word interesting here on purpose...some of it is highly questionable and I've never seen any evidence to lead me to believe it...but it is interesting.
However, I started to become truly incredulous at the idea that Bronze Age nomads were aware of a 26,000 year cycle of twelve 2150 year periods. Then out of the blue we turn to the 9/11 conspiracy which I watched a bit of, realised it was fairly old hat and not seeing the point of that section I started skipping chunks of it, just listening to the central claims. That's as far as I got - and I only watched because another friend also recommended watching it. The first part is interesting for this forum, but I recommend nobody takes anything in the film at face value there is definitely an agenda being put forward. I'll continue watching - we've just got to the part about banks. The film is about of the power of institution and is marginally interesting, but sceptics may well roll their eyes at certain parts - you have been warned - don't expect accuracy or believability here. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Well I tried to watch the banking part but eventually my bullshit detector gave up and I had to stop.
Conclusion: Don't use this film a source of information, but only as a source of entertainment. Believe anything in this film at your peril - check all things with sceptical sources before arriving at any conclusion. If you don't have a bullshit detector or any form of sceptical instinct, don't go near it. At all. Here is a response to the first part's bullshit, so that you all get to see the kind of claims it makes. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
oh god, i got dragged into this on another board. let me post my analysis here.
the rumors regarding poor production and factchecking are, so far, true. i skipped the first ten minutes of musical slide show, cause... i just don't have the patience for poor filmmaking. sorry. so far, i am four minutes in. yes, four minutes. 4:00. i've just gotten past initial description of horus, and so far every. single. claim has been a lie. every last one! let me say that this does not bode well. i'll condense here from my post elsewhere and summarize the first four minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spektical Member (Idle past 6008 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
First of all I want to remark that Zeitgeist is by no means a completely accurate film or something that should be used as any form of reference. However it is certainly a very effective catalyst for more indepth research on the subjects discussed. The movie's main website reiterates that the movie should not be taken at face value and watchers should go and research. I think that is its sole purpose.
Having said that I want to make a couple of my own points on the ideas presented and the response by arach. 1. There are too many similarities between the story of Horus/Isis/Osiris and Jesus/Mary/God to ignore their parallelism, especially considering the time span between when the 2 supposed stories came to be. The fact that they are not exactly the same or for the most part similar is irrelevant, the real point is myths change based on knowledge or need. They evolve. 2. The accuracy of Jesus' birth should not be questioned since there is no proof that the person Jesus ever existed. The point was what is the significance of the re-occurance of that particular date in history, which leads me to question why you haven't mentioned any of the other historical figures that have the same attributes, ie. Mithra/Dionysus/Krishna etc. 3. Crucifixion was NOT a Roman invention. Its in fact an ancient practice that started with just basic impaling of the victim and evolved to the more complex form in Roman times until it was abolished. It was practiced by many ancient civilizations and the term 'crucifixtion' itself was not how the practice was known by because the act took many forms ie. every execution was done differently. I hear alot of people say that the film was poorly made. This of course is justified by the fact that the man had no real budget and it was more important to visualize the summary of all of the research he made and present it in the manner he did. Now as far as the 911 and Banking sections, I'll say this: In order to find the middle of something you have to travel all the way to the other side, come back and repeat the process until you hit the middle. I found the video remarkable and very thought/research provoking, which I am thankful for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
1. There are too many similarities between the story of Horus/Isis/Osiris and Jesus/Mary/God to ignore their parallelism, well, that's just the thing. there isn't. the story of horus, isis, and osiris is not at all like the jesus narrative. the people who made the movie (and make the claims) have taken little bits and pieces out of context from three completely different versions of the story, as it evolved over the years. it's not like, say, the flood myth, where the story is exactly the same as the akkadian myth, except for a few details like names and boat dimensions. and they've literally re-used the same part of the story two different ways.
especially considering the time span between when the 2 supposed stories came to be. more like four stories. and the timespan between them is as much as 1,000 years or more.
The fact that they are not exactly the same or for the most part similar is irrelevant, the real point is myths change based on knowledge or need. They evolve. indeed -- but a snippet here and a snippet there, totally out of context and misrepresented, does not make a case for relation. it makes a case for the dishonesty of the person making the argument. it sort of makes as much sense as saying jesus was the messiah because he road a donkey. oh, right.
2. The accuracy of Jesus' birth should not be questioned since there is no proof that the person Jesus ever existed. for the purposes of my points above, whether or not jesus was real is an irrelevency. we're talking about the mythology involved, the stories as written.
The point was what is the significance of the re-occurance of that particular date in history, well, that's the problem. jesus wasn't born on dec 25th. neither was horus, btw (though he's a lot closer). and neither was any other god or religious figure they claimed was. that date does indeed have significance: it's the winter solstice, just as they say. but where, exactly, is the discussion of the celebration the entire civilized world (except the jews) participated in at the time of jesus, on that date? where is the discussion of the god that revolves around? his name is "saturn." his festival, saturnalia, was one of the big feasts of rome, held for an entire week, just before the winter solstice. why isn't that in the video even once? the answer is that it doesn't support their case. in fact, it helps invalidate it. because when the date for christ-mass was chosen, overriding the pagan festival of saturnalia was a significant concern in the church's mind. we celebrate christmas today around the winter solstice because of saturn, not because of jesus. the date does not come from the original tradition -- it comes from another source. and a well known one, too.
which leads me to question why you haven't mentioned any of the other historical figures that have the same attributes, ie. Mithra/Dionysus/Krishna etc. because the discussion died, and i wasn't interested. i watched up until just before mithras (eager to find similarity there, but had some trouble finding a neutral source on the matter). i'll give you a summary: "not a single point was remotely correct, or documented anywhere outside of the video." would you like more? i posted a break down of the fast claims about attis and krishna elsewhere, i can re-post them here.
3. Crucifixion was NOT a Roman invention. um, actually, it was. the persians apparently invented something similar, but crucifixion was primarily a roman thing. those other places that did it? former roman states. even as such, crucifixion (or anything remotely similar) is not found in any of the other myths the movie makes reference to. one of the "crucified" messiahs they mentioned for instance, attis, died because he cut off his own testicles at his wedding, because of his lover-on-the-side/former-hermaphrodite demon mother. then he turned into a tree. sound like crucifixion and resurrection to you? it doesn't to me. i can draw more connections to oedipus rex than jesus christ.
I hear alot of people say that the film was poorly made. This of course is justified by the fact that the man had no real budget and it was more important to visualize the summary of all of the research he made and present it in the manner he did. i have seen some amazing, and amazingly informative films made for next to nothing. it can be done, and it is done. spitting out claims so fast that no one can write them down or notice they're lies is not good filmaking. it's not even good lecturing. and ten minutes of... windows media player visualizations? or something like that? i don't think it takes money to know how to edit a film down. and i find the "research" claim spurious. ten minutes of fact checking reveals every claim to be false. we're not talking research. we're barely talking wikipedia. i've seen more research in middle school literature papers. which is sort of what this is: a poorly produced book report. you can find the sources on their website -- they pretty much just copied those (faulty) claims wholesale, without a lick of actual cross-checking or verifying. it's conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. nothing more. i think i got poor marks on a book report once in elementary school because all i did was summarize the plot.
Now as far as the 911 and Banking sections, I'll say this: In order to find the middle of something you have to travel all the way to the other side, come back and repeat the process until you hit the middle. i haven't watched those sections yet. in fact, i haven't gotten very far into the first section yet. it's hard to wade through all the obvious lies. but i think it says something that there are three completely disparate, different conspiracy theories in the film. these people like to go for grand-unification-conspiracies, don't they? something that explains everything might as well be religion.
I found the video remarkable and very thought/research provoking, which I am thankful for. the only bit that i am amused by is the backlash. some of the "rebuttals" made by christians are simply responses in turn: also outright lies. i appreciate the irony.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spektical Member (Idle past 6008 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
Well I agree with you for the most part, except for the history of crucifixion part. As I said in my post the movie should not be taken at face value. The reason I thought it was good was because it provokes you to go out and research these things.
Also, the whole Saturn thing...Zeitgeist is a shorter version of a Jordan Maxwell video I watched and he delves into the whole Saturn thing. I thought his video is more complete and thorough than Zeitgiest. My interest stops when people start talking about UFO's however lol. Its very interesting to see all the points of view about the 911 part though...I'll wait till you get to it. Alot of people have a general distaste for 'conspiracy theories', but I sort of like them because they wake up the layman. Also, the whole Saturn thing...Zeitgeist is a shorter version of a Jordan Maxwell video I watched recently, and he delves into the whole Saturn thing. I thought his video is more complete and thorough than Zeitgiest. My interest stops when people start talking about UFO's however lol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Zeitgeist does not mean Time Ghost!
Clusty writes: It means the vibes of the culture...not necessarily literal spirits or ghosts!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes: It means the vibes of the culture... So, how would you sum up today's zeitgeist? Fear of conspiracies (e.g. terrorism)? Gullibility to accept conspiracy theories? “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
As I said in my post the movie should not be taken at face value. no, one should never trust lies. that's common sense.
The reason I thought it was good was because it provokes you to go out and research these things. not really. it tries to give you the secret answers to everything. actual research comes from "they can't be serious" backlash against the more obvious lies, not because their points have warranted further investigation. in other words, it's not provoking thought, it's provoking disagreement with proof. their intent is the opposite of the result.
Also, the whole Saturn thing...Zeitgeist is a shorter version of a Jordan Maxwell video I watched and he delves into the whole Saturn thing. I thought his video is more complete and thorough than Zeitgiest. My interest stops when people start talking about UFO's however lol. let me introduce you to a member here named "simple."
Its very interesting to see all the points of view about the 911 part though...I'll wait till you get to it. Alot of people have a general distaste for 'conspiracy theories', but I sort of like them because they wake up the layman. "conspiracy theorist" and "crackpot" are synonymous. this is the same confabulation and misrepresentation and faulty connection-drawing that leads to stuff like creationism and holocaust denial and the flat earth society. of, and UFO's. it's all the same camp, really, because the basic premise is the same: don't trust vast majority of evidence, people are lying to you. your username is "skeptical." ironically, this term is often used by CT's as well as their opponents. it's that the CT's are "skeptics" of the mainstream. really, the word they're looking for is "denier." true skepticism -- not trust anything -- generally leads away from their ideologies. as with this case. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024