Zeitgeist: Eye-Opening Movie

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 31 Mar 2008 10:04

I thought this movie was interesting.

There has already been a thread about it though. To sum up the thread, Jeremy O'Wheel and Dan Feary know EVERYTHING and everyone else knows nothing and if you believe anything in that movie then you were born yesterday and have purple polka dot undies.

I think some of it was valid, but some went a bit too far.

Laroche · Post by **Laroche** » 31 Mar 2008 10:27

Yeah, I did a bunch of research after, and the dooms-day picture is a bit much.

The religious aspects in the movie are amazing, I didn't know a lot about that.

And even though this word will get modedited out, FUCK them. Everyone is a know-it-all online and even if the info isn't all valid, at least it makes people think and that's a good thing.

I personally enjoyed it, and even if 9/11 is played out, the information on the religious aspects, central banks, amero, etc. are really interesting.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 31 Mar 2008 11:20

Basically, what you guys are saying is "Alright the movie might be bullshit but hell it's entertaining and I'm a dumbfuck so maybe I'll convince myself that some of it is true".

It isn't that I know everything, it's that I know enough not to be a moron and buy into snake oil type shit.

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 31 Mar 2008 11:34

Hey Nic, a suburban white kid called us dumbfucks and morons, make sure you feel super insulted because he just owned us.

Dan Feary is perfect, he glows pure white light and his farts smell like Brut.

Laroche · Post by **Laroche** » 31 Mar 2008 11:39

I highly doubt that 100% of the movie is bullshit, and as he states on the page: "Don't take this movie for the truth, go out and do your own research".

I think it's important to get exposed to stuff like this, and if none of it ever existed, then we wouldn't question anything or think.

I'd like to see something presenting opposing opinions done with the level of research, time, effort, presentation that went into Zetigeist.

Honestly, why make it out to be something horrible when it's not?

p.s.: Sorry for reviving an old topic.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 31 Mar 2008 12:51

Hey Nic, a suburban white kid called us dumbfucks and morons, make sure you feel super insulted because he just owned us.

Dan Feary is perfect, he glows pure white light and his farts smell like Brut.

Lol, yes Mosher I was totally trying to "own" you. Either that or I genuinely do think you're just a quack for thinking that this movie is worth the time you spent to watch it. It seems people always want to make the argument about me and not the issue at hand.

Oh, and brut smells like trash and I grew up in Tumbleweed Texas which was about as far from Suburbia as you can get.

I'd like to see something presenting opposing opinions done with the level of research, time, effort, presentation that went into Zetigeist.

I'm sure there's more than enough people who already have. The problem is, and I only watched the religion section as I stated in the previous thread, is that the people who they cite as sources are generally already discredited, and are the types who published shocker books like the ones claiming Jesus screwed Mary Magdelegne. So then they cite a published source and everyone goes along with the bogus information.

So just because it took a lot of time to pull together doesn't mean anything as far as I'm concerned.

Honestly, why make it out to be something horrible when it's not?

Let's be real here. The issues this video deals with are extremely serious. So when the information presented is either an outright lie or just generally misleading, how is it anything but horrible? How is it different than propaganda that plays into what people already want to believe? There are people who have watched this video and had their whole perspective's turned upside down just because the information presented seems credible enough. Horrible is a word that comes to mind.

I dunno, maybe I'm the only one in this world who gets pissed when someone's trying to bullshit him. Are the rest of you just used to it by now?

Laroche · Post by **Laroche** » 31 Mar 2008 13:28

Hmmmm....

I had no idea about the publications being faulty. I'll have to look in to that, like I said, still researching a lot of that stuff.

And yes, it IS horrible, I didn't know about some of the stuff you said, but again, he's not saying what is on the movie is fact.

To me, it's a less offensive version of Michael Moore movies, it's an opinion presented in an effective way, though he gets preachy.

p.s: I'm not a dumbfuck because I don't have all the info yet.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 31 Mar 2008 14:30

Agreed, you're definitely not a dumbfuck.

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 31 Mar 2008 14:39

BainbridgeShred wrote:Agreed, you're definitely not a dumbfuck.

But I am.

Dan, the rest of the movie is like completely different, it's about the north american union and 9/11 faking. Not to say this means that the credibility of anything changes, but the topic certainly does.

Sometimes I'm like 'why did dan go and call me names for no reason?', then I remember that somewhere a few posts up I called him out for no reason.

Anyways, we're all like SUPER smart so we all win.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 31 Mar 2008 15:07

This was my review, but more detailed in the original topic (it's still on page 1 if you want to check it out).

First half of part 1 - fairly accurate.

Second half of part 1 - rubbish.

Part 2 - rubbish.

Part 3 - rubbish.

I find Tom's comments interesting. I actually watched the movie because Kevin C sent me a pm directly suggesting I watch it. Having watched it, I then researched a lot of the main points. I then put forward my opinion based on the knowledge I had. I totally concede that it is possible I'm wrong, but obviously I think I'm right, because if I wasn't sure, or if I thought I was wrong I wouldn't hold an opinion that is contradicted by how I feel about that opinion - it wouldn't be my opinion.

I think perhaps the movie can be useful in teaching people to think critically and how easy it is to appear convincing while completely misleading people and misrepresenting the truth, but beyond that, if you found it "eye opening" then you really should do your own research, because you've been duped.

Probably unlike some people in this topic, I'm going to avoid veiled insults and ad hominem arguments.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 31 Mar 2008 16:50

merged with existing Zeitgeist topic - dyalander

Laroche · Post by **Laroche** » 01 Apr 2008 05:18

It's funny, I can't believe how much info in this movie turns out to be false. Every little bit of research I've done on my own has been pretty revealing concerning the facts in this movie.

I still don't get why Jeremy and Dan have this "Holier then thou" attitude when discussing on page 1 and 2, but whatever. Their problem.

Anyway, goes to show you anyone can be fooled with carefully prepared information.

Though I AM still curious about the Vietnam war thing, with the ROE and all that. Seems interesting, more research is in order I thinkith...

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Apr 2008 05:50

Oh please. Dan and I have completely different attitudes. Can you please give examples of what you're talking about. It's interesting that you agree with my initial researched opinion on this movie after doing your own research. It's almost like my opinion on the issue actually is correct and backed up by the evidence. If believing experts over conspiracy theorists and being very critical of deliberate attempts at misleading people through shoddy documentaries is a "holy than thou" attitude than I'm guilty and I wish more people would have the same attitude.

Here is an actually decent tv series that people should consider watching;

Enemies of Reason

Part 1

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?do ... 3140975017

Part 2

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?do ... 5783230047

VIKINGWARRIOR · Post by **VIKINGWARRIOR** » 01 Apr 2008 05:59

Zeitgeist is great! From beginning to end.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Apr 2008 06:08

Why? Have you read the counter arguments and how do you refute them?

For example the scene where they show a whole group of people saying that the collapse of the World Trade Centre buildings looked like a control demolition has received a great deal of criticism because they collapse in the exact opposite way to every single actual controlled demolition (top to bottom instead of bottom to top). This is incredibly misleading and either shows that they don't know how controlled demolitions are carried out or they are deliberately trying to make people think that there is a similarity between the collapse and controlled demolitions of buildings when there isn't.

Do you accept this criticism or can you rebuke it?

Laroche · Post by **Laroche** » 01 Apr 2008 06:39

It's almost like my opinion on the issue actually is correct and backed up by the evidence, and further more blah blah blah

Here we go Jeremy, exactly the same thing again. It's almost condescending the way you talk. Is it an ego thing? Should I tell you why you are right? Does it even matter? Would it make you feel good about yourself if I would take the time to write a novel describing the various ways in which you are great at being right?

Everything becomes a long complicated drawn-out thing with you, even when I JUST FINISHED SAYING that YES Jeremy, YOU WERE RIGHT. Why is it long and complicated? Why the huge paragraphs?

It's over. Nothing left to say.

There's nothing left to discuss...

The point is, the specifics don't really matter, because there is so much BS in this movie (this becomes apparent after doing research on your own), that why bother researching or arguing petty details of such a film?

End of story, game over.

There's sufficient info in the first couple pages of the thread to answer any doubts.

The Actual Sized E · Post by **The Actual Sized E** » 01 Apr 2008 06:43

Jeremy wrote:If believing experts over conspiracy theorists and being very critical of deliberate attempts at misleading people through shoddy documentaries is a "holy than thou" attitude than I'm guilty and I wish more people would have the same attitude.

It's not what you say, it's the way you say it. Here's a good quote from just a few post up that exemplifies a holier than thou attitude while also hilariously contradicting itself.

Jeremy wrote:Probably unlike some people in this topic, I'm going to avoid veiled insults and ad hominem arguments.

In all honesty I find almost all of your posts to be interesting and informative and I'm glad that you post as prolifically as you do as it adds a lot of depth and content to the forum. It's just the actual process of reading your posts that tends to be grating.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 01 Apr 2008 17:20

Oh please. Dan and I have completely different attitudes

Honestly! I mean, c'mon- atleast I'm able to poke fun at my own arrogance and occasionally get a cheap laugh out of it too. All Jeremy is good for is the occasional

when he adamantly denies any wrong doing, hubris, or inaccuracy in his posting's.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 01 Apr 2008 17:33

Oh please. Dan and I have completely different attitudes.

Honestly! I mean, c'mon- atleast I'm able to poke fun at my own arrogance and occasionally I get a cheap laugh out of it too. All Jeremy is good for is the occasional

when he adamantly denies any hubris, inaccuracy, or mean spirited-ness in his posting's.

Face it Jeremy, we aren't much different. Only real difference is I support the rights of the individual and you support the hegemony of the state. Also, I couldn't accurately go by the nickname "Snaggle Tooth".

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 01 Apr 2008 17:34

Sometimes I'm like 'why did dan go and call me names for no reason?', then I remember that somewhere a few posts up I called him out for no reason.

<3