H/T to Dandelion Salad for the link to a supposed debunking of the entire movie Zeitgeist. Initially, I was going to post the following as a comment on that blog post, but it started to get a bit lengthy and I figured it would be both more appropriate and easier to format as a blog post, so here it is:
Thanks for the links. I’ll have to check out the debunks even though I doubt I’ll agree with a lot of it. Always good to see others’ perspectives, though. Peter Joseph (Zeitgeist’s creator) himself has written “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.”
Do I think everything in the movie is 100% accurate? No. Do I think that it is worth watching and researching? Absolutely. Do I think attempting a good faith debunk and/or critique is a worthwhile effort? Yes, while emphasizing “good faith”. Most debunks which I see seem to have an agenda which seems to translate roughly as follows- “it’s all BS, and you should take my word for it because I’ve obviously put a lot of effort into this website and nobody really follows all the endnotes on these things anyway- just link to this page in forums like a good sheep and repeat after me- “it’s all been debunked”".
(note to new readers of this blog- I’ve read and researched (both online and offline) on many of the topics covered by the movie since well before the movie was released and provide some links for some further recommended reading on some of the topics covered both below and in my most popular blog post- Peter Joseph’s movie Zeitgeist)
Having looked a little bit at the “debunk” I’ll provide a few links of interest for Parts 2 and 3. I’m not about to attempt a full on debunk, analysis or critique of the “debunk”. It’s just not worth the effort. If Dick Cheney had written it, I might think otherwise.
Since part 1 of the movie has a complete interactive transcript with sources and additional reading on the zeitgeistmovie.com site and Peter Joseph has addressed debunk attempts of it in his FAQs, I figure it stands or falls on its own merits or lack thereof at this point.
For exploring Part 2 of the “debunk” an indispensible reference will be The 9/11 Complete 9/11 Timeline- mainstream media sources used and linked to as sources. Example: point one- Mahmood Ahmed
The author of the debunk uses sentences such as
I can find no sources of such an event — that is sources that do not occur on conspiracy web sites themselves.
This seems disingenuous. How hard did the author actually look for those original sources? Also, many of the original source articles on 9/11 are no longer easily findable online except on “conspiracy theory sites”. Does this mean that the original source article never existed? No. One just has to dig around in the internet archives or at the public library to find those sources; but if one dismisses a resource such as the Complete Timeline as “conspiracy theory” one will indeed have a hard time finding those articles.
Shafig bin Laden was meeting with George H W Bush, and the Carlyle Group the morning of 9/11
The author uses Popular Mechanics as a reference source. Part II notes #33 and #34, for example. Readers can easily find online debunks of that article. He said, she said… so who does one believe?
in addition to the timeline, readers may be interested in learning about the all the architects, engineers, pilots, government officials, etc. who have been willing to publicly question the 9/11 report and other official explanations for the events of 9/11 and publish- to give an example- a peer reviewed article in a Civil Engineering journal (in the 2008 section-
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley )
On to part III-
“The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
- Franklin D Roosevelt, US President 1933
I found source of the quote. It is apparently a letter sent from Roosevelt to Colonel Edward M House, and apparently can be received from Sterling Library at Yale University or from Radio Liberty. After hours of searching, I could not find a single location on the Internet that references this letter that is not a conspiracy site or is from a post on a forum written by someone who is promoting a conspiracy theory. More so, searching Yale’s library database yielded nothing. I found plenty of letters, but not this one.
I found the quote elsewhere than on a “conspiracy theory site”- Webskeptic lists the quote as underdetermined. Webskeptic may or may not be more well researched or accurate than the “debunk” this post deals with, but at least it appears to be a bit more balanced in terms of a critique.
Looking a bit more for the source of the quote I found the following here:
LETTER TO COL. EDWARD MANDELL HOUSE from Franklin D. Roosevelt Nov. 21,
1933 – F.D.R.: His Personal Letters – Duell, Sloan and Pearce 1950, as cited in THE
SHADOWS OF POWER Id
whether one agrees with the POV of angelfire or Perloff, one could probably verify or refute the accuracy of the quote given that information, I think. See, the interesting thing about all of this is that not all books are currently searchable online. So if Peter Joseph has read The Shadows of Power (what do you know, he claims to have done! or at least cites it as a source) then he may well indeed be able to source all these underdetermined quotes which appear in the movie… whether debunkers will buy those sources or not is another question, of course.
Ah yes, good old books. What a concept! Further book reading (online) for part III of Zeitgeist is available with Jim Marr’s book Rule by Secrecy.
And I’ve spent enough energy writing this post for one night, I think. Where DO these “debunkers” find the time? Maybe some of them “secretly” get paid to do this type of stuff? Who knows, eh?
May 6, 2008 at 6:37 am |
[...] and mention of another (webskeptic.wikidot.com/zeitgeist-federal-reserve) see the post A “debunking” of the movie Zeitgeist. Prior to this update, it looked like [...]
May 19, 2008 at 6:51 am |
Here’s the thing, everyone, understandibly hates the government. Why? Because they’re not part of it. This is just like a person hating Unions, because they are overpaid lazy SOB’s that complain about everything, think they are the most important, and do the least amount of work. That’s all true, unless you happen to be in a Union. You don’t have to do anything and get paid well for it.
But humans are humans, the US gave Russia the knowledge to create nuclear weapons, we’re at a bullshit war where rich folks are getting richer, and JFK fucked Marilyn Monroe. What’s my point? Truth is money. If there is a buck to be made, I’ll sell the page, or someone else will. This goes both ways, but I’m tired of this conspiracy crap. Humans just aren’t capable of pulling off pranks on a large scale. Most can even get away with the small stuff.
Religion is given too much credit and becomes this huge scapegoat. Let it be, it’s done as much good as it’s done harm. We’re always pointing our finger at something, and often that something is ourselves. The real enemy is laziness. That’s how I think of it. How much money do I need to make so that I’ll never have to work again? That’s how most of us feel, otherwise their would be no such thing as investments are retirements, we’d just keep working.
As for 9-11, let it rest. It is a very important date in our history. The war came home. I never cared for New York, those arrogant bastards that think living in an overpopulated, overpriced concrete city is the best place in the world to be. But it got attacked. And to place that blame on the US is a slap in the face to all of the people that actually fought for it too exist. I know there are better places in the world to live, I hear about them all of the time, so migrate, go to your Atlantis, or have the guts to stake a claim and fight for how you think the US should be.
Lastly Hippies. Great movement, no substance. Why do we constantly complain about things that can be changed instead of changing them.
P.S.
“debunking” is to solely be used in reference to disproving the existence of paranormal activity as made popular be T.A.P.S.s.
May 19, 2008 at 7:03 am |
can’t, sorry
June 16, 2008 at 5:42 am |
Just a quick update on the FDR quote:
Since someone dropped by the site by searching the quote (I could only see this much of what they searched- the real truth of the matter is that a f) I searched it myself to see how well I perform in the engines. Which got me to wondering why the angelfire site didn’t perform well. Well, it appears that the full quote reads as follows:
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson…” so in Zeitgeist Peter Joseph left out the “as you and I know” portion.
And I now have a specific page number to refer you to in order to verify (or refute) that particular quote.
(FDR: His Personal Letters [New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950], p. 373), according to Newswatch… http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/jan01/jan01.htm
June 16, 2008 at 6:18 am |
The Disraeli quote at (which is also “underdetermined”) is apparently from his 1844 novel Coningsby. Further online research yields a reference to Chapter XV of Book III. Referenced in Forms of Hatred: The Troubled Imagination in Modern Philosophy and Literature by Leonidas Donskis (p.38). Searchable thanks to Google Books. Again, it should now be easy enough to verify or refute.
http://books.google.com/books?id=M7Tdl6vgbmUC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=Coningsby+%22The+world+is+governed+by+very+different+personages+from+what+is+imagined%22&source=web&ots=cZSfBVVC7c&sig=JgqFZ-XZkwlGkQ9wytijuotlszc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPP1,M1
The third quote, apparently by William Pitt, appears in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations (10th ed. 1919) at least according to
http://classic.bonus.com/contour/bartlettqu/http@@/www.bartleby.com/100/248.2.html
June 19, 2008 at 9:04 pm |
Has anyone heard of Zeitgeist Refuted? It’s done by the guys at Beit Shalom who made other good movies like 911 Birth of Treason. I saw it a while back and can’t remember all the points made but they mainly go after Part One, and showing that Zeitgeist sources in Part One were derived from Freemasons like Manly Hall.
Zeitgeist can still make the point that our understanding of Christianity has been distorted by Sun worship, without being accused of trying to rend the moral / spiritual fabric of society. What they say is true, and not shocking in the least if you’ve done prior reading and research into the subject. But for a lot of people this information is too surprising for them and they react by getting affronted and taking the movie wayyyy to seriously.
July 8, 2008 at 2:20 am |
I do think this movie has several good points. As much as we don’t want to hear what is said in this movie, we need to listen. I absolutely agree with the whole “we are human beings. we have the right to know the truth, live freely, and be happy” concept. However, the public is not going to be so easily persuaded. It is truly a huge blow to hear that practically everything you have known has been a lie and you are ultimately being controlled. Its easier to dismiss everything in the movie.
People really should research this stuff and be encouraged to discover the truth themselves, whether or not the claims in Zeitgeist are real or false. That in and of itself is a good lesson. I’m sure not everything in this movie is 100% true (though i’m sure any mistakes were not intentional). But to all those religious “debunkers” out there, who are calling this movie “ridiculous” and such, take a look at your own beliefs. You believe in writings that have absolutely no proof of authenticity! THE only “proof” you possess is your undying faith in the tripe! It seems quite more pathetic to me to believe in some widespread book than the mere possibility of something different!
Religion makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever! Do you honestly think a person will be condemned to a fiery pit for all of eternity for a single mistake in this lifetime, no matter how large? The response may come as something like: “You must pray to God to repent for your sins”. Praying to God and being “forgiven” at the snap of a finger, just gives one liscense to go out and “sin” more because they know that they will always be “forgiven”. Of course you need to recognize and perhaps apologize for mistakes you have made, but in no way can i believe that this “God”, who you claim loves us all so much, could ever condemn one for eternity. Just the same, i cannot fathom how a figure known as “Satan” could ever affect the people of Earth, much less exist. “Satan” or “The Devil” is, in my opinion, just a false idol that religious individuals use to blame all their problems on, instead of taking responsibility for their actions.
Do you realize you are living out of fear? Fear of being condemned to Hell. Fear of being rejected. Fear of change. Fear of being different.
Fear of THINKING FOR YOURSELF.
July 22, 2008 at 4:51 am |
Watched the movie. No real big shocks for me, but together, you get an overwhelming feeling of despair that world is run by megalomaniacs.
Then you try looking deeper, to satisfy curiosity and hope there is an answer to your “What can I do?” question.
The conclusion drawn is that, so much of the world deserves to be treated like cattle in an abbatoir.
The so-called de-bunkers mainly concentrate on part 1, the religion section.
They are desperately trying to defend their religion in a day and age, where there is no need for religion.
“Where did I come from? Why am I here?”, are questions fully answered by science.
You were born of a mammal, just like your dog or cat. You are here to pro-create, just like your dog or cat. You just have a greater awareness of your surroundings than your pets.
To believe in fairy stories as adults, shows a weak-mindedness (is that a word?), that begs, nay PRAYS, that you deserve all that’s coming to you.
One ‘de-bunker’ had the nerve to defend Christianity as being benevolent, unlike other religions where women are not treated equally and horrors are carried out in their name.
Anyone for a witch-burning? Crusades for dinner? How about an Inquisition or two, before we rape, pillage and murder a continent or country of non-believers?
If Joseph was dumb enough to believe that his slack-drawered wife had not got pregnant to his best mate, but to God himself, in the first chapter. The book should be sold as a comedy. You can imagine Harry or Lloyd falling for that one.
Concentrate on the second and third parts for your de-bunking. The bible-thumping completely discredits anything of worth, that you may say after that.
By all means, live a good life. Be kind to others. Wonder at the world you live in and the creatures that share it. Do a good turn rather than bad.
Put love and spiritual wealth above monetary wealth.
But, do it because you want to be that person. Not because some paedophile in a red dress says, “You’ll go to Hell” if you don’t.
How many ‘Religious people’ live that way, anyhow?
Prostitution may be the oldest profession, but religion is not far behind.
And I know which one I think is dis-honest, and earns the most.
It’s just not Christian.
July 27, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
Your post expressed some wonder regarding “debunkers”.
While I cannot speak for all debunkers, I can speak for myself, the creator and primary author of Webskeptic.wikidot.com
So who am I and what is my motivation?
First, I don’t work for any government. As for my political affiliation, I am a staunch independent.
I am a fact-aholic, reading only non-fiction and watch almost only exclusively documentaries.
I am also a constant skeptic. I have learned that virtually all information is an approximation based on the message-givers knowledge, beliefs, and agenda.
I am also a strong believer in positive change and that we, as human beings on this earth, should all be working toward a better world.
But I also believe it must all be well-grounded in fact and truth; “truth” being the dictionary definition versus sadly compromised definition of “one’s personal truth” whether that is religious or political.
And as such, I am morally offended by the disinformation agents of the world; those that will purposefully push forward mis- or contrived information to advance their agenda. These people come from government, some news outlets, and zealots far and wide.
I started Webskeptic.wikidot.com in response to the disinformative effect of Zeigiest. At the time I could not find any fact-checking site for this tremendously flawed film. However, I stopped writing after I found ConspiracyScience.com which seems to be fulfilling that fact-checking goal.
I welcomed your commments and views on the site. As a skeptic, I am always questioning my own beliefs and sources, so any fact-oriented critique is most welcome.
P.S. One of my guilty pleasures is following the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement. Regardless of individual conclusions, it has done a lot toward promoting healthy skepticism. I also noticed a shift from dogmatic “make the evidence fit the theory” thinking to “what is the real truth?” thinking. A desire to discover the ‘real truth’ should be a common and binding desire for all Americans that should reach across the entire political spectrum.
I would like to leave this with one final thought: None of us have a monopoly on the truth. We are all ignorant in some degree. We can mask that ignorance with staunchly unyielding statements. Or we can acknowledge our potential ignorance and actively work to reduce it.
I choose to remain anonymous because I’m not interested in debating email from zealots. I participate in very selective forums of skeptical people also on the eternal journey toward ‘ignorant reduction’ self-improvement.
Your site, though politically slanted, seems to be somewhat open to contrasting views. That’s great, and frankly adds to the legitimacy of it. A clear indicator of sites to be avoided (as far as factual references anyway) are those that ’shout down’ contrasting views to their doctrine.
July 28, 2008 at 2:50 am |
Thanks for your comment, webskeptic. My comment regarding debunkers was a generalized comment and not to be taken personally. I grade debunkers on “the curve”, just as I do what I’ll call “promoters”, and your site looks pretty good so far, though I wouldn’t recommend conspiracyscience as a debunking reference.
The reason I say that is that the author frequently uses phrases like:
“sources that do not occur on conspiracy web sites themselves”.
I’ve given a couple of examples above where those “conspiracy theory site references” lead back to an original “mainstream news” source which can be tracked down (sometimes only via research and the internet archive). If the author is not willing to put the time and effort in to track things down like the original sources for Shafig bin Ladin’s attendance at the Carlyle Group meeting on 9/11 (1,2) because all he can find is “conspiracy theory site references” what does that say about his research abilities?
Strike 2 in my book against conspiracy science is the way he seems to debunk without actually debunking at all. Example-
What Zeitgeist actually says (according to your transcript)is the following- “The 9/11 Commission Report, implicitly admitted that it could not explain the collapse of this building, by not even mentioning it.” the last it in that statement could either refer to either “the collapse of Building 7″ or “Building 7 in general”. If conspiracyscience can find mention of “the collapse of Building 7″ in the 9/11 Commission report, he has a good debunk of that portion of this. Otherwise, he has an interpretation which is likely to be incorrect. Mentions of Building 7 in the report without mention of the fact that it collapsed on 9/11 is hardly “the fullest possible account” by any reckoning with which I’m familiar. Mention of the collapse of Building Seven can be found in Joseph Morris’ statement to the Commission but not (to my knowledge) in the report itself.
Strike 3 in my book against conspiracyscience is the following quote:
“At this time, no Wikipedia articles mention such a transaction”
generally, citing wikipedia as a source does not seem to be recommended…(1 2 3 4) even by its founder
I appreciate and applaud the work you are doing, though we may find ourselves in disagreement on some points or issues. I think that skepticism can possibly be a healthy survival trait in this era of spin, propaganda and flat out lies (by the government, by corporations and by individuals). I’ve done some skeptical writing both on sites which claim to debunk 9/11 Truth and on people and sites which claim to support it. I find that “both sides” frequently make logical errors and jump to conclusions which are not necessarily supported by the evidence which they present. The evidence which I’ve seen so far indicates to me that the 9/11 Commission report was fatally compromised in its mission to “provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11″.
And I understand and respect your desires to remain anonymous and not to debate zealots, since I have a similar point of view on those issues myself.
Personally, I think that Zeitgeist is a flawed movie but nonetheless one which people SHOULD watch, discuss, critique, research and debunk. The issues presented within the movie are too important to ignore if true and if untrue are a good exercise in critical thinking and research.
August 3, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
I had problems with the FDR quote as well, so I decided to email Stanley Monteith at Radio Liberty and ask him to send me a copy of the entire leeter that FDR sent to House. Mr. Monteith did send me a copy, at his own expense, with no cost to myself.
If the Original poster would have just contacted Dr. Monteith and asked him for a copy, I am pretty sure he could have saved himself a lot of work. Dr. Monteith is the person who discovered the letter.
A longer excerpt from the letter………
“I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan the other day. . . . J.P.M. (J.P. Morgan, ed) did not seem much troubled over the gold purchasing. . . . The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson. . . . The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States – - only on a far bigger and broader basis.”
August 3, 2008 at 8:36 pm |
here are a few views from a slave of the world . A middle class man . Brought up in a religious world. A layman that observes the world and the so called “god”.
1 – throughout the ages, religion has been used as a manipulative tool to control the people of that time through fear, for the most part to gain more money , more land etc.
2 – religions have been the major sours of murder, torture,and theft. throughout the wolds history.
3 – most people that are manipulated by religion are usually people that need something in their lives to believe in . We all need something outside our daily lives some turn to alcohol , some use drugs, some use music some use sports etc. religion is just another drug for those who cant live life on its own terms and believe in themselves as a motivating and controlling force. Instead it is easier to say OH ,IT IS GODS PLAN. And that is why it did or did not happen.
4- WHEN DID GOD NEED SO MUCH MONEY?
DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER THE COMMANDMENT, THOU SHALT NOT KILL?
LOVE ONE ANOTHER? JUDGE LEST HE BE JUDGED?
– ALL RELIGIONS TELL THE SAME STORY PREACH THE SAME THINGS YET WHEN USED AS A TOOL FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO GAIN BY THE ABILITY TO CONTROL PEOPLE THEY THROW THESE PSART OF RELION OUT AND TWIST THE WORLR TO CONDONE THIER OWN ACTIONS OF MURDER, AND THEFT.
5 – Where did all the miracles go? hmmmmm how come no one walks on water anymore?
6 – Could america go into someone else’s county? murder thousands? manipulate their own people? send their own people to be slaughtered?simply for the gain of the rich at the poor’s expense? you don’t have to look to far back for that. Remember VIETNAM?
WHAT WATCHING ZIETGIEST DID FOR ME IS TO CONFIRM ALOT OF WHAT I ALREADY KNEW FROM MY OWN OBSERVATIONS IN LIFE AND RELIGION. IT ALSO SPARKED AN ANGER AND REALIZATION THAT THE MIDDLE CLASS AND POOR ARE AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MANIPULATED AND USED BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD , THE RICH OF THE WORLD, AND THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD. IT A SPARKED A NEW MOVENT WITHIN THE MIDDLE CALL AND THE POOR TO RISE UP AND REALIZE THAT IS US THAT HAS ALL THE POWER FOR WITHOUT US THE WORLD DOES NOT GET BUILT , WARS ARE NOT FOUGHT, MONEY IS NOT MADE. WHEN THE MIDDLE-CLASS AND POOR ALL COME TO THIS CONCLUSION AND STAND UP AGAINST GOVEMENTS. AND RELIGION AND CHOOSE NOT TO KILL NOT TO FEED THE RICH AND FEED RELIGION , LET EVERYONE LIVE WITH THIER OWN BELIEFS IN PEACE IT WILL BE ONE WORLD BUT NOT AS THE PLANED BY THE GOVERNMENTS , RELIGIOUS AND RICH.
A BETTER MAN by bruce crosson
I COULD PICK UP BROKEN PIECES OF YOUR WORLD
I COULD LIFT YOU WHEN YOU FALL
BUT YOU PUT YOUR FAITH TOO BLINDLY IN YOUR GOD
HE’S NEVER ANSWERED WHEN YOU CALL
THIS IS THE END OF YOUR WORLD
TO MANY LIES, SO MANY FALL
THIS IS A FOOLS MASQUERADE
OPEN YOUR EYES TO SEE IT ALL
CH- IF A HOLY MAN CAN SEE THE LIGHT
THEN A BETTER MAN CAN MAKE IT RIGHT
IF A BITTER MAN CAN SEE HIS FIGHT
THEN A BETTER MAN , WILL SMILE
I COULD PREACH ABOUT THE LIES, NOW BLOOD STAINED
WHY NOT JUST THROW THEM TO THE FIRE
THEY NEVER MEANT MUCH TO YOU THESE WORDS YOU PRAY
YOU ALWAYS DID WHAT YOU DESIRED
IF A HOLY MAN CAN SEE THE LIGHT
THEN A BETTER MAN WILL MAKE IT RIGHT
IF A BITTER MAN CAN SEE HIS FIGHT
THEN A BETTER MAN WILL SMILE
OH I TELL YOU HE WILL SMILE
HE WONT HIDE BEHIND HIS GOD AND ALL HIS GLORY
WITH ALL THE FALSENESS I DESPISE,AND ALL THE LIES WITHIN HIS STORY
FOR A BETTER MAN KNOW WHATS RIGHT
A BETTER MAN HAS SEEN THE LIGHT
AND A BETTER MAN DOES NOT BELIEVE IN TAKING SOMEONE’S LIFE
NO NOT A LIFE
August 6, 2008 at 8:50 pm |
What was the point of trashing Christianity in Part I of the film?
Why did you not go after a really fanatic and false “quasi religious sect” like the Muslims?
If we are all so controlled then there is really no us or them, for if what you say is true, then everyone is under someone elses control.
I agree that all films of the NY Towers falling look like controlled Implosions. I only have one question, how did they do it?
I watched a crew preparing a building in Las Vegas for Implosion. Many interior walls were removed. The building was vacant. Drilling and removal of interior walls and plaster and concrete covering the beams took place. It was messy, noisy, and required a lot of exposed wires running from floor to floor. If the twin towers and bldg 7 has been rigged to implode how was this accomplished with over 2,000 in the building everyday.. And it was never noticed or suspected that something wrong was going on? Wouldn’t the maintenance man in th film have thought something was fishy? I think it was a controlled explosion, but how in the world was it ever prepared , and by whom??
August 9, 2008 at 5:07 am |
First off, it’s not my movie, so I can only speculate as to why Christianity was chosen. My guess is that it is because America is primarily a Christian country. Since roughly 1/2 the movie (most of parts 2 and 3) deal with America (Federal Reserve, 9/11, America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc.) it seems reasonable to me that the primary religion of America would get addressed in Part I.
As to how they did it, I suggest that that would have been a good question for the 9/11 Commission (or NIST) to look into. Since those entities are not interested in examining controlled demolition as more than a hypothesis for which “they could find no evidence” you probably won’t get a straight answer. Me, I could only speculate as to how it might have been done and my guesses wouldn’t be very educated, not being a demolitions expert. Someone like Danny Jowenko would probably have a better chance speculating about the how question than I would.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Jowenko
August 26, 2008 at 12:55 am |
I absolutely loved this film. I think it was very well made and well presented, and encourages some important points to be considered by the viewers. Some powerful subtle persuasive tactics were used in the film to reinforce the points that were made. This obviously can be a good or bad thing depending on the intentions of the film maker. I don’t think that you can accept the film as 100 percent truth just as one should always avoid extreme or fanatical belief systems. Also, as always, it is important to read up on and explore the issues raised by the film, looking for both supporting and refuting arguments. One should try and remove the influence of emotions on their thoughts and judgments, and approach this as an adventure with an open neutral mind. This is one of the main points of the film. Whether the content is true or not it is a lesson everyone can learn. There are many other lessons one can get from the film. You are a human and your life has value. As in the analogy of the eye with the different layers of colour, you need to consider all the points of view to get a full picture in anything you do. Taking information out of context and juxtaposing it together with other information often changes its meaning or helps to support a conclusion. This is a tool that everyone should be aware of so they don’t fall victim to its persuasive power. I mean honestly, watching the film, you don’t know if most of the facts are true or accurate, but by the end there is a certainly a strong level of persuasion that one feels. So one shouldn’t accept everything at face value. In fact accepting any information at face value makes it fiction. Information needs context and investigation, whether it be knowledge investigation or pure proactive critical thought. My personal opinion is that this movie demonstrates how someone can make a powerful and persuasive argument that appears true and thus have such a powerful effect on so many. This is not however my judgment on the veracity of the movie. One might thus blindly agree and believe in everything the film says just as another might blindly or unquestioningly believe in a religious or social belief system. The movie is trying to get you to open your mind and take a proactive step in exploring the world, standing up for your own rights and fighting for justice (what ever that might be). It is exciting and I have loved reading all the different reactions to it. I find there are a lot of stubborn unfounded arguments against and for Zeitgeist that often seem to be based on emotional feelings. I have only just watched the film for the first time today, but I am definitely going to do my own research and develop my opinion openly. Lastly, the over-riding theme of the movie deals with the idea of a select few or certain institutions having control and serious influence over the masses in a number of different contexts and in a way that is not always visible. This is a very serious theme that deserves proper investigation, even outside the content of the movie. I look forward also to seeing what comes of this. Thank you for hosting such a good forum on this subject.
September 4, 2008 at 1:37 am |
Why should we divorce ourselves from our emotions while watching this movie(or any movie,book or article to that regard) and is that even possible? If there is a “Grand Scheme”, “Great manipulator(s)” or whatever you choose to call them, whose purpose is served by watching this film as an emotionless robotron? Desensitize? What would have happened if the majority of America watched emotionless as young African-American men and women were sprayed with water hoses and attacked by police dogs because they demanded to be granted the same rights and treated with the same liberty and justice as the majority of this country? What was the driving force behind transformative coalitions like the womens movement and civil rights movement? Would they ask me to watch emotionless as they were pushed off of the voting, ballots, to the back of buses and out of boardrooms?(excuse me-were they even there in the first place?) If I am Optimus Prime…who are you? And what do you stand for?
October 3, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
John Perkins’ apparently non fiction book Confessions Of An Economic Hitman has a lot to say about US economic power. If you’re reading this you should probably read the book. I’m just glad people want to know the truth. It’s a pity we haven’t got the power to get the truth told to us.
October 5, 2008 at 4:27 am |
I watched the movie Zeitgeist, and In my opinion as far as the Egyptian Myths go it did hit some true points.
For one Horus was worshipped as the god of the morning sun, known as Harmakhet, he was also called “The Light”. Also he was depicted as Ra-Harakhte…the form most familiar to us…With the Falcon Headed man. Both of them were Sun Gods worhipped in Egypt and both were atributed to Horus….Some Jewish Kid debunker on Youtube made the essertion that Ra was the sun God not Horus when actually Horus was an incarnation of Ra.
Two-depending on what versions you read Horus was of a virgin birth…seeing as his father Osiris was dead when Isis concieved him. In some version Isis finds Osirises dismembered Penis(Gross) and concives horus that way….in some versions she concieves him magically somehow. Remeber the Egyptians worshipped a patheon of Gods…and Horus, One of ancient Egypt’s oldest Gods, was worhipped in many villigas along the nile in various forms such as Horus Behudety or Horus of Edfu…so his story is bound to have different versions…could he be of virgin birth…possibly.
Three-The Ancient Egyptians had arguably the worlds first Holy Trinity….Osiris-The Father, Horus-the Son, and Isis-The devine Mother. known as Har-Se-Iset he was shown as an Infant being nursed by his mother Isis…..http://www.artgallery.sa.gov.au/MediaCentreEgyptLouvre2007/Isis%20suckling%20Horus.jpg
I don’t even have to post a picture of Mary and the Infant Jesus to show how simular it is to the Egyptian version which is THOUSANDS of years older than anything Christian.
Four-The Ten Commanments of Moses are mostly found in the Negative Confessions of the Book of Coming Fourth by Day of the Ancient Egyptians. Once Agains Years older than anything Judaic….it served as an essential Holy Book to Egyptians(Who could afford it) that would guide them throughout the afterlife. I knew about this before wathcing the movie and I was suprised they barly used this example which is a good point on their part.
The Egyptians had a Heaven( the Reeds Feield) a final judgement, a holy trinity, a holy book, ect All before Judasim and Christianity.
October 5, 2008 at 5:19 am |
Now I find it funny how christians go out of their way and their precious time to “Debunk” a movie like Zeitgeist which all in all had many faults…but had good sound facts. I find it funny that Christians so eaisly label the movie as a conspiracy and ridicule the veiwers and assert it is based on falshood when actually many things in the movie are sound fact wether Christians want to accept it or not.
I also find it funny that Christians lose their bearings on the thought that their God and their cult is based on Paganism, when Christianity if Flooded with Paganism from the Satanmas…errrr..Christmas Holiday, The Dipiction of Jesus as Baldyr the Scandanavian Peace God that Adorns so many Churches(What you thought Jeuse had blond hair and blue eyes…LOL)..The Pagan Ankha…Aka Cross sign…etc.
I also find it funny how Christians they say the movie has no “Facts” when they as Christians believe in a religion that has no facts…Starting with there being NOT ONE….record of a man named Jesus despite his importance in Rome and his Celebrity status.
Its amazing that one debunker went as far as to call his cult..”Benevolent”…LOL. I mean the absolute Pride and Ego Christians have is beyond belief. I one sentence they will tell Zeitgiest veiwers to research the facts in in another ignore the Facts themselves. How many wars were fought in the name of some so called loving God….How many people were killed and genocided by some so called “Benevolent” Christians. Like the absolute destuction and massacre of the Aztec by the Spanish Savages….The enslavent and dehumanizing of “Black” Humans by so called benevolent Christians…despite the role Blacks played in the Bible and depsite the fact that Black Ethiopians were Christians before and European….somehow they were Inferior…???? The Crusades, the Protestant movment….ect…ALL BENEVOLENT RIGHT…???
Now it really bugs me that Christians get so upset with Zeitgiest..and debunk it…but then go out in droves and buy the Left Behind books which is based on a Illogical Consiracy called the Rapture which is’nt even biblcal. Christians actually believe their benevolen god will come an take them away while us lowly hell bound Humans(Non believers) will suffer becuase we did’nt go to some church and pretend we are so holy. It shows the absolute hipocracy that plagues so many Christians. Not one Christian had even bothered to debunk the rapture….Why is that. As a former Christian myself…as a person who PERONALLY went to church and saw how Christians carried themselves and how fake they were. How they gossipped about each other….how they chrated on their wives….had sex with various partners, cussed, got drunk, lied…etc…I saw this with my own eyes and then I would see these same people all teary eyes on Sunday..Hooping and Holering and putting on a show. Yet they believe somehow that they are better than thae rest of us….What do they do that is so different….?
Why not debunk the Rapture….what about the Anti Christ another Non Biblical Conspiracy believed by Christians. The Beast of Revelation was never refered to as Anti Christ. The Beast was Nero Emperer of Rome and the Whore that sits on many waters is Rome.
Will Rodgers you attack on Islam another imperalistic controlling cult is funny seeing as how Islamic culture and Islamic Scholars preserved the teachings of the Ancient Greeks and others that would benifit the Western World while Christians shut down and considered the A. Greeks as Pagans…
It should be noted that while Islamic Scholars were preforming surgeries, medicines, engineering…ect…Christians thought Demons possed people and made them sick. While Islamic Scholars brought and embrace knowledge from all over the world..christians burned the writings and collections of the Aztec who were years ahead than Europeans in Astornomy. What makes Christianity better than Islam Is say….
Maybe if these so called debunkers would do they research they tell US to do…they would see how ass backward Christianity has been and how Christianity has held people back. They would know that at one part in history Mary Magdalin was an important part of Christianity…but becuase she was a woman she was demoted to the status of a whore
I balieve 100 percent with Bruce Crossin….Its about time we stop being divided and finally become a Human Race!!!
October 8, 2008 at 7:04 pm |
The copycat theory on Christianity is been brought up every now and then. Ancient Egyptian scholars disagree with the claims about most of the gods b/c there is not written source evidences. In other words, the original citation from Egyptian records don’t exist.
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
November 24, 2008 at 1:50 am |
The thing that bothers me about conspiracyscience.com is how hypocritical, arrogant, desperate, condescending, and rude the website’s creator is.
He makes fun of Zeitgeist because of Acharya S and other sources, yet he uses wikipedia to get a lot of his answers.. He assumes that he’s the only one who has read the 9/11 Comission Report (among people who’ve seen Zeitgeist. Supposedly, why he doesn’t think 9/11 was a false flag operation). He takes Peter Joseph’s comments out of context to make it seem like Peter has admitted to lying. He thinks the sinking of the Lusitania wasn’t a pretext to war because it took three years until the US became involved (it was actually two). Yet he overlooks the gap between September ‘01 and March ‘03. Finally, he constantly makes fun of countless of people who disagree with him and jumps at every opportunity to gloat about conspiracy theories that seem to be false.
Oh yeah, he says he hates most conspiracy theories because they have a disclaimer? I didn’t see a disclaimer on Oliver Stone’s JFK. I didn’t see any disclaimer in many of Jim Marr’s books and countless other conspiracy writers. If that isn’t enough, I’ve seen disclaimers given by people who support official theories as well. I guess we should teach Mr. Conspiracyscience.com (I don’t remember his name) the meaning of the phrase “double-standard”.
Speaking of double standards, he says the Zeitgeist creators don’t allow any dissent or any critical analysis of their films. The problem with this argument is we can actually contact the people at zeitgeistmovie.com, yet there isn’t any way to contact Mr. Conspiracyscience.com and tell him our opinion of his website. He says this is because he has recieved death threats. Who can take death threats seriously over the internet?
Well, thats enough venting for today. I would really like to write Mr. Conspiracyscience, and tell him the many errors on his site. I promise not to threaten him.
November 24, 2008 at 11:57 am |
Yeah, I pretty much agree with you Brandon. For instance, the author of the site seems to make a big deal of the “Building 7 not mentioned in 9/11 Commission report” issue, yet the actual issue is that the COLLAPSE of Building 7 isn’t mentioned in the report. Oh, and NIST has now released their final report on Building 7 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
(cough crock cough) as of the 20th, so no doubt we’ll find eventually find out what the phrase “be sure it will be posted here as quickly as possible” means to the author of the site…
http://www.webcitation.org/5cZNArUu1
and in the extraordinarily coincidental events category, we have the first ever collapse of a steel frame skyscraper which wasn’t hit by a plane due (apparently, according to NIST) solely to fire, regardless of the actual damage the building sustained and it happened on 9/11 to a building which housed a secret CIA office and the largest Secret Service field office (among other things).
“The team’s report also calls for stronger codes, standards and practices so that other buildings don’t suffer the same fate.”
Quote from http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html
and changes to building codes result…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081003122707.htm
I agree that changes should happen to prevent reoccurence. I think that standard practice should be never to house the largest field office of the Secret Service and secret CIA offices in a steel frame skyscraper which is located right across the street from a high value terrorist target. After all, extraordinary events do happen. Just ask the California couple who won two lotteries in a single day…
November 27, 2008 at 4:09 am |
I see that the Official Government Document DOESN’T mention ANYTHING about the POOLS of MOLTEN METAL flowing under ALL THREE buildings at a Temperature of WELL OVER 2000 Degrees (Thermate, which falls under the Thermite Class) a combination of Iron & Sulfate commonly used in CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS!!! Also, there’s NO MENTION (for some reason *wink*) of the FACT that there were SEVERAL EXPLOSIONS at the WTC towers BEFORE & DURING the collapse!! Open your eyes, ears & mind, people! DO NOT fall for the crap that the U.S. Govt. hands out to us!! They SEVERELY underestimate us!!
December 5, 2008 at 12:58 pm |
Well, i did some digging myself on the first part, since that is what I am most knowledgeable in… I also read the link of the dude attempting to “debunk”… guess what… between the zeitgeist movie while attempting to be factual bounces over things too generally and Mr. Winston posting even more generally inaccurate information… you get what you get a big mess on his “debunk job”. I know for a fact that his posts regarding the first half are partially inaccurate, and some of his sources he lists, he mis-read the information! Unbelieveable. I really hope there are people out there like me that really research this stuff.
In general, Mr. Winston’s views on Osiris/Horus/Isis, is confused and misguided. The egyptian religion is something that I spent a lot of time on in college (I was an anthropolgoy major), and even now when I look back through the information available on the web there is so much misunderstanding about a culture that little is known about even to this day. There were many different beliefs & deities in egypt. It isn’t as simple as a handful of gods, leave alone only one. We are talking about a culture that we cannot really comprehend. We have plenty of texts & plenty of writing from them, but we can’t literally translate the words into perfect english. In specifics, Horus was born durring the Winter solstice (which begins on Dec 21…). Do yourself a favor and just read up on Isis, Osiris, & Horus. Read more than one site, read several because the information does tend to change. I did indeed find information that Mr. Winston says he cannot find. Combined with my book knowledge from all the Anthropology/Egyptology classes I took…
Mr. Winston also makes a statement regarding the zodiac, stating that not all people subscribed to the 12 different bases of the zodiac, etc, further stating that the Maya’s zodiac had 20 stations… well he’s talking about part of one of the mayan calandars (the 20 that he is referring to is actually referring to is most likely days. He most likely went to the wiki article I quote below, got 1/4 down, saw the 20 signs labled (they are labeled as names of days), and assumed the 20 stations as in a zodiac (our 12 zodiac stations). A zodiac is not the same thing as a calandar. For those that want to see the complicated system of the mayan calandar feel free to dive into: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_Round). It should be noted and understood that our culture, as well as many others use the Gregorian calandar… That was much different than the ancient mayan calandar. The ancient mayan calandar was much more accurate. The Gregorian calandar that we use, we have a leap year to bring us back into schedule so to speak.
Oh, as for “The first part is fairly accurate, but when he begins talking about stars, there is something I would like to call into question. He claims that they “catalogued celestial groups”, while this is true for some civilizations, others such as the Inca, actually categorized the dark spots, not the stars themselves.” Go read the page he cited for yourself. The guy misread the entire source… and we all know YES they have constallations in the southern hemosphere. JEESH. The page says:
“In the Southern Hemisphere, where the sky is completely different than it is North of the Equator, people gazed not only at visible objects but also at the spaces between them, finding not only star to star constellations but “dark cloud” constellations as well.” P.S. also with very little effort I found this site that totally debunks everything he just said: http://www.geocities.com/cuscodestinationguide/home/incasastronomy.htm
Anyway, I don’t need to go on and on, but folks do your own research and you will learn more than what’s in the movie or others that are uninformed and are trying to debunk something based on their religious convictions.
All in all, the first portion that everyone is having problems with – the religious section is mostly accurate to some degree. It is over simplified and sometimes misunderstood, and sometimes slightly inaccurate, but as a whole it is pretty much correct!
January 7, 2009 at 3:34 am |
Wow, most of these comments were written by very gullible people. It’s amusing to see them all tidy and in one place like this. Good luck!
January 19, 2009 at 7:08 am |
Zeitgeist was certainly an eye opener for me. I come form a conservative evangelical christian family and have always been the odd one out, the non-conformist that will have to answer to god some day. Throughout my years, and, granted, im still young, i’ve attended services at many different churches of many different denominations. Interestingly enough i recieved the same message from them all: Submit to God and live eternally. Reject your loving, merciful God and live eternally, in agony. As a child and more when i was a teen, i figured that if either way i was going to live forever why not live a happy, unoppressed life. Though during those times im sure it was more of a “fuck authority” attitude.
Ive put a few years of college behind me now and have actually learned form text-books and professors some of what Zeitgeist filled me in on back when my brother first introduced me to the film. What i’ve learned in college, and what i’ve learned from zeitgeist cause me to lean even further towards teh side of the arguement that probally is no God in teh sence that religious figureheads have been preaching.
I’ve found my religion. It is grounded in fact. It adapts as we learn. There are theories that come forth from this religion, and when though theories are put to practice and accepted by the world as fact, they become Laws. The Laws of this religion hold true, through hell and high-water, through space and time. I happily submit to this religion for there really is no choice ( at the moment ). My religion is SCIENCE. The beauty of this “religion” is its flexibility and willingness to change what is professes as new facts emerge, but above all science doesnt threaten.
I use the term science in refrence to the universal laws, nature and everything in existance must follow. Wheather pertaining to living creatures, inanimate objects and energies, the laws of the universe do not discriminate. Things are bound to earth by gravity reagardless of wheather it’s a rock or car or dog.
Just remember folks, it wasnt science that imprissoned Galileo Galelei for suggesting a heliocentric ( sun centered ) universe. It was the church. Science welcomes the truth. If your wondering why people are finding more and more flaws in your religion, consider that your religion was probally made up in a time, well i’ll put it bluntly, but in a time when people were dumb as shit. We live in the age of information, where the discoveries of the last 100 years total more than what was learned combined in all of written human history. 2000 years ago the world as a whole was ignorant, almost infintile compared to what we know now. Frankly put, stupid people believed stupid shit.
Believe what you want to believe, that is your right as a human being. This is America and ( at the moment ) you enoy freedom of relgion. Do not forget to respect my freedoms as well tho, my freedom from your religion.
February 1, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
I was sitting here reading these “debunking” and refuting the debunking websites and i thought to myself. why waste time arguing over the internet with people that have a belief system that negates logical thinking. Most religious systems are based on “Faith” this means that even when presented with a very logical argument the “believer” must stick to what their God has told them is right this be it a book like the bible or a religous teacher. So please lets stop trying to get people to stop believing in santa claus and start discussing real issues because anyone who has attended any form ofr education has been exposed to the points in this movie.
1. anyone who has taken a history of civilization class sees the similarities of all religions to each other and how they seem to branch out from a common ancestor.
2. Anyone who has taken an American History class learns that the U.S.A has aided in the overthrow of Diplomatically elected officials of sovereign countries in order to maintain U.S. interests. Then helping implant governments that have U.S interests in mind and not the people of that country in turn violating human rights and forcing social inequality. (In my own opinion if a government has so little value for human life that it holds profit over being humane, it would not surprise me if 9/11 was an inside job)
3. Take any economic class and you can find about the many laws that try but unsuccessfully protect fair business practices .(In my opinion why do you need laws to make people be fair with each other? because the system is flawed its like trying to duct tape leaks on a dam.
So what issues pray you tell am i asking to start debating instead of wasting time with people that are protecting their faith instead of actually trying to solve a problem?
For starters i have a genetics vs conditioning disagreement with zeitgeist.
I have studied biology and from my studies I have to disagree with peter joseph as far as the degree of the effects of genetics on a persons behavior. Peter in an interview with Alex jones ballparks a 90% conditioned and 10% genetics. As a student of skinner i do have to agree with peter that conditioning far outweighs genetics but as Alex pointed out (while he made a fool of himself by acting like a child) genetics does play a very vital role in an organisms life and ambitions as I have seen in animals differential instincts and diversion from conditioned behaviors. My question is if you agree that genetics affects behavior how could we adapt to each individuals genetics in a system such as the venus project ?
wow this got long anyway wanna hear what you all think about the subject
February 8, 2009 at 8:35 pm |
Zeitgeist means “spirit of the times” in German, borrowed into English. I think people should focus a bit more upon the “spirit” of the movie: the larger social structures of today are slowly being removed from the public domain by specialization. Lawyers, economists, politicians, scientists, priests etc. all utilize specialized language (“jargon”) and specialized knowledge. This means that the structures supervised by these specialists–religion, science, the monetary system, government, education–is in the hands of an “elite”, whether by accident or design. This happens throughout history as part of new discovery, where one set of people gather, produce, utilize or configure knowledge before the larger populace takes this knowledge on. The end result is that a distance occurs between the “average joe” and the system itself. I believe Zeitgeist is simply this: a call for people in general to investigate the systems which are so important to their everyday lives. Only then can we, as a whole, as a society, move toward generating the next step of fair civilization, and this, in fact, is the true concept of democracy. Unfortunately, this usually comes to a head only when something dramatically negative occurs to society as a whole. Let’s hope that next time we can progress without this portion (although, see the news on the “global financial crisis” as evidence against this).