Zeitgeist the Movie 2007
This movie covers lies that have been told to us about Jesus Christ, 9/11, the depression, world wars 1 and 2, Vietnam, the current war on terrorism, and recently passed important bills that were never covered in the news.
It's fairly long, so sit down and watch it when you can see it in entirety.
post your thoughts
random note to spark interest: Did you know that there was an open borders policy passed without congress or the people that will forge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into one North Ameican Union? And that one currency will emerge called the Amero. And that plans for an african union and asian union are in the works, eventually leading into one world government?
Zeitgeist: Eye-Opening Movie
-
Sporatical_Distractions
- registered sacks offender
- Posts: 4531
- Joined: 12 Oct 2004 19:14
- Location: Guy's American Kitchen & Bar
Zeitgeist: Eye-Opening Movie
Welcome to Flavortown
Kevin Crowley
Kevin Crowley
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
-
Sporatical_Distractions
- registered sacks offender
- Posts: 4531
- Joined: 12 Oct 2004 19:14
- Location: Guy's American Kitchen & Bar
-
hacksterbator
- Washed-Up Child Star
- Posts: 4141
- Joined: 12 Jul 2003 18:33
- Location: Winterpeg, Manisnowba
- Contact:
while it contains many interesting theories, to some of which i agree, to others which i do not believe, and many of which i'm sure could be taken even further to me this movie does the same thing it says the government is doing. the real difference is that it's saying "fear the government" instead of "fear the outsiders". i imagine that the truth is somewhere in between the 2.
on a side note, while the similarities between horus and jesus are true, the film maker makes the similarities much greater through his wording. while traveling in egypt i was lucky enough to go to philae temple in southern egypt, which was built in horus's honour, and etched into the walls is the story of horus, which was transcribed.
on a side note, while the similarities between horus and jesus are true, the film maker makes the similarities much greater through his wording. while traveling in egypt i was lucky enough to go to philae temple in southern egypt, which was built in horus's honour, and etched into the walls is the story of horus, which was transcribed.
A.G.
-
QuantumBalance
- 100-Watt Warlock
- Posts: 5092
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 14:24
- Location: fractal tyedye nebulae
- Contact:
So I spent 2 hours of my life watching this video just for Kevin. I hope you take something from that, because I certainly did not.
I agree with the first part of section one. Christianity, like all religion, certainly did evolve from other previous religious views. The theory of the evolution of religion is very interesting, and something I've read a great deal on. There are a few good books out there; Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast by Lewis Wolpert. Also the work of David Sloan Wilson, Scott Atran, Jonathan Haidt, Nicholas Humphrey etc. Religion evolved for a number of reasons, and religions also evolved for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was certainly the replication and variation (which is what you need for evolution) of stories meant to be useful. We look through religious stories and it's relatively easy to trace them back to stories that were meaningful. Eventually the meaning starts changing to mean something more relevant to the people.
However for decades now, the Left in politics have been making a massive mistake. A mistake based on no evidence at all, but just their wishful thinking. If we look for culprits, post-modern philosophy is certainly a major one. The Left has been looking at religion as if people didn't believe what they say they believe. The Left has been looking at the actions of religious people, and trying to figure out what would make somebody do those acts, ignoring those religous beliefs. Terrorists don't commit terrorism because of their religious beliefs, they do it because they're oppressed (although actually if we look a little more deeper, it turns out that most of them are not oppressed, but they believe their religion is oppressed, and they believe it's their duty to fight, and die, for their religion). So the second half of part 1 is just rubbish. It totally ignores science. It doesn't present any evidence for it's claims. It's based on the false assumption that the people who don't believe in what they're preaching are the best at convincing everybody else that it's true. Why aren't the people who actually do believe it the best at convincing everybody else that it's true? Why do the non-believer frauds always rise to the top? Has anybody worked in sales? What's the most important tip to success? You have to believe in your product...
There's another question that should be asked; What does the truth or fiction of Christianity have to do with the parts 2 and 3 in the movie? Is it just trying to convince you that if you've swallowed one lie, you might fall for others as well?
Moving on to part2.
The ignorance of politics and science in this section is astounding. Even if there is some truth to their claims, the fact that they are so manipulative or ignorant destroys the credibility of any claims that are made. Because the say things that I know are false, I can't trust anything they say. They either did very little research, or they're deliberately trying to trick people into believing them. I'd lean towards the former, because I think they're convincing.
I'm going to briefly mention a few of their claims.
Not releasing security camera footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Let's imagine for a second that the public story of this event is actually true. Islamic terrorists hijacked 4 planes and then crashed 3 of them into buildings. The authorities know that this is true and that it wasn't an inside job, because they're the ones accused of it being an inside job. They know what a ridiculous claim that is. Imagine if I accused you of killing JFK, and demanded you give me proof that you didn't. If the public story is true, then why appease the radical loonies who claim it's a conspiracy?
Molten metal? Where did all that molten metal come from? There's a science experiement we did at school once. You get iron oxide (rust) and mix it with aluminium (American's spell that element "aluminum"). You then get a piece of magnesium (you could use a match or cigarette lighter, but that's less dramatic) and put it in the mixture, light the magnesium and when it reaches the iron oxide mixed with aluminium you get a chemical reaction that results in molten iron, 1000s of degrees in temperature. Nothing you use in the experiement is 1000s of degrees in temperature. Woah, where did all the molten metal come from? There's another thing to consider apart from the possibility that substances used in an office burn at higher temperatures than jet fuel, or can create chemical reactions that burn at higher temperatures than jet fuel (such as rust and aluminium, that react to create a reaction hotter than jet fuel). In cricket (probably the greatest sport known to humankind) the television coverage has started using a heat detection camera (infra red) to see if batters hit the ball or not (when they just get a small edge). So you have a cold ball being thrown and hit with a cold bat, and you can see if that happens or not with a heat detector? Cold object hitting cold object causes heat? That's actually exactly right. In a collision kinetic energy (things moving) gets converted into a number of different kinds of energy including heat. Now lets assume that the buildings did collapse because of the planes. That there were no bombs in the buildings and in the harrowing scene where the man is talking on his phone when the building collapse, he wasn't able to speak a few words after he'd been blown up. Wouldn't the energy of hundreds of tonnes of kinetic energy (falling) be converted into another kind of energy. We know that in a closed system energy is conserved, so we know that regardless of if the building was deliberately collapsed or not, the energy would have gone somewhere. We know that there would have been a great deal of friction as well. What is it that burns up rock into dust when it enters the atmosphere again? Oh yeah, friction. So there are 3 plausible ways that could generate molten metal that don't involve massive conspiracies.
We need to mention the part where they have all the different people talking about the two main towers collapsing and saying it looks like a deliberate demolition. They they show WT7 collapsing and actually compare it to a deliberate demolition to show how similar it is. Why don't they do the same thing with WT1 and WT2? Wouldn't that be convincing, if we were shown other buildings collapsing in the same manner? The similar video "Loose Change" told views to go onto youtube and watch buildings being demolished for themselves, and see how similar they are with the WT collapses. Why don't you do that now? Go find me a youtube video of another building collapsing in the same way that these two buildings collapsed. If you're lazy, just look at the WT7 comparison building collapsing. Is it the same as the other WT buildings collapsing? It's not is it. It collapse from the bottom up. The WT collapses happen from the top down. All demolished buildings are demolished from the bottom up. So either the WT 1 and 2 buildings were demolished in a way that has never been used in public before, or it truely did happen because of the plane crash. In any event, that whole segment where they're showing person after person comparing it to a controlled demolition; all those people are wrong. None of those people have ever seen a building demolished in that manner. This is either misleading, or it's bad research. "Loose Change" was based on a lot of bad research, I suspect this is the same.
One more question; In terms of the purpose of the conspiracy, why was WT7 demolished at all? As they say in the movie, most people don't even know it collapsed. So it certainly wasn't a factor in the decision to go to war, or fear of terrorism. Was that where all the evidence for the attacks was left? Were they just trying to shred old documents? What is a possible motive for destroying that building, and what evidence is there to support that motive? How different would the war on terror have been if it wasn't destroyed?
Part 3
Pretty similar to part 2. Some major factual errors and lack of understanding. They even point one out to you. Old US bank notes used to have something along the lines of "transferable for gold" on them. They talk about a central bank having this perfect scheme of lending the government money at interest, but it misses a key aspect of how economies work. Printing more money doesn't mean that there is more wealth, the total value of all the money in the system is conserved, it's just the value of each unit in comparison with other items (such as gold) that goes down. Lets say that I run the bank and I've only printed 2 dollars worth of money, which is also the exact cost of 1 bottle of milk. If I print 1 more dollar, or 30 more dollars, or whatever, the total value of all the money I've printed is still the value of 1 bottle of milk. Their conspiracy theory about the reserve bank (or whatever it's called in America) only worked if the money didn't represent anything, but they told us our successful it was before you were stopped from being able to redeem the notes with gold. Actually the changing of the words on the notes didn't change anything. Banks still back up their currency, or can account for it, with some kind of worth to the amount that they've printed. Currency is just an easier way of buying things, than the amazing complicated bartering that we'd have to be doing to get anything these days. Of course it's a service and the people who provide it make money out of it. Of course they make a lot, because it's such a valuable service and they have so much power because of it. There's no conspiracy about this.
I think in watching this video, it really demonstrates the massive misunderstanding of politics and democracy. Think of it like this. You believe you're going to do a better job running the country than your political opponent. There's an issue where your opponent strongly leans in one direction, and some people feel so strongly in the same direction as your opponent that they'll vote for whoever takes his position. However otherwise their votes will go 50% either way. Now all the people who oppose his position, are going to vote for you, no matter what your position on it is. Now clearly in this situation, taking the same position as your opponent is going to make a massive difference in winning you the election. You're going to get 50% of the votes that agree with his position and not lose any. Remember that you're sure that you're a better person at running the country than he is. Lets break down your options.
You oppose his position. You lose the election, his position is carried out anyway.
You support his position. You win the election, his position is carried out anyway but you're in control and can have more influence on the details of this decision and other decisions.
Every political decision goes through this kind of rationale. You can only make a difference if you're actually in power and if you stick too strongly to your ideals you lose. Some people would see this is corrupt, but what would be a better system? The reality is that it what it means is that the radicals of either side of politics are ignored. Politicians don't do what the hard left and right want, because they're going to vote left or right anyway, and when they do do what the hard left or right want, it's because the majority of people in the mainstream support that as well. In politics the majority gets what it wants on the issues it's prepared to vote over, and on all the other issues (which is most issues) the elected politician gets to choose for themselves.
So there is no global power conspiracy. 9/11 was not an inside job. The Pope isn't some kind of fraud. This is just a radical video by people who don't understand politics or science. They're probably being trapped by the same evolutionary side effects that lead to religion, and other delusional dogmatic beliefs. The video isn't based on evidence. I'm sure that the creators believe that it's true, but I'm also sure they believed it was true before they found what they were looking for.
There's a great book I recommend. One of my all time favourite books. It's called Valis by Philip K Dick. In light of this movie, I highly recommend it.
I agree with the first part of section one. Christianity, like all religion, certainly did evolve from other previous religious views. The theory of the evolution of religion is very interesting, and something I've read a great deal on. There are a few good books out there; Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast by Lewis Wolpert. Also the work of David Sloan Wilson, Scott Atran, Jonathan Haidt, Nicholas Humphrey etc. Religion evolved for a number of reasons, and religions also evolved for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was certainly the replication and variation (which is what you need for evolution) of stories meant to be useful. We look through religious stories and it's relatively easy to trace them back to stories that were meaningful. Eventually the meaning starts changing to mean something more relevant to the people.
However for decades now, the Left in politics have been making a massive mistake. A mistake based on no evidence at all, but just their wishful thinking. If we look for culprits, post-modern philosophy is certainly a major one. The Left has been looking at religion as if people didn't believe what they say they believe. The Left has been looking at the actions of religious people, and trying to figure out what would make somebody do those acts, ignoring those religous beliefs. Terrorists don't commit terrorism because of their religious beliefs, they do it because they're oppressed (although actually if we look a little more deeper, it turns out that most of them are not oppressed, but they believe their religion is oppressed, and they believe it's their duty to fight, and die, for their religion). So the second half of part 1 is just rubbish. It totally ignores science. It doesn't present any evidence for it's claims. It's based on the false assumption that the people who don't believe in what they're preaching are the best at convincing everybody else that it's true. Why aren't the people who actually do believe it the best at convincing everybody else that it's true? Why do the non-believer frauds always rise to the top? Has anybody worked in sales? What's the most important tip to success? You have to believe in your product...
There's another question that should be asked; What does the truth or fiction of Christianity have to do with the parts 2 and 3 in the movie? Is it just trying to convince you that if you've swallowed one lie, you might fall for others as well?
Moving on to part2.
The ignorance of politics and science in this section is astounding. Even if there is some truth to their claims, the fact that they are so manipulative or ignorant destroys the credibility of any claims that are made. Because the say things that I know are false, I can't trust anything they say. They either did very little research, or they're deliberately trying to trick people into believing them. I'd lean towards the former, because I think they're convincing.
I'm going to briefly mention a few of their claims.
Not releasing security camera footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Let's imagine for a second that the public story of this event is actually true. Islamic terrorists hijacked 4 planes and then crashed 3 of them into buildings. The authorities know that this is true and that it wasn't an inside job, because they're the ones accused of it being an inside job. They know what a ridiculous claim that is. Imagine if I accused you of killing JFK, and demanded you give me proof that you didn't. If the public story is true, then why appease the radical loonies who claim it's a conspiracy?
Molten metal? Where did all that molten metal come from? There's a science experiement we did at school once. You get iron oxide (rust) and mix it with aluminium (American's spell that element "aluminum"). You then get a piece of magnesium (you could use a match or cigarette lighter, but that's less dramatic) and put it in the mixture, light the magnesium and when it reaches the iron oxide mixed with aluminium you get a chemical reaction that results in molten iron, 1000s of degrees in temperature. Nothing you use in the experiement is 1000s of degrees in temperature. Woah, where did all the molten metal come from? There's another thing to consider apart from the possibility that substances used in an office burn at higher temperatures than jet fuel, or can create chemical reactions that burn at higher temperatures than jet fuel (such as rust and aluminium, that react to create a reaction hotter than jet fuel). In cricket (probably the greatest sport known to humankind) the television coverage has started using a heat detection camera (infra red) to see if batters hit the ball or not (when they just get a small edge). So you have a cold ball being thrown and hit with a cold bat, and you can see if that happens or not with a heat detector? Cold object hitting cold object causes heat? That's actually exactly right. In a collision kinetic energy (things moving) gets converted into a number of different kinds of energy including heat. Now lets assume that the buildings did collapse because of the planes. That there were no bombs in the buildings and in the harrowing scene where the man is talking on his phone when the building collapse, he wasn't able to speak a few words after he'd been blown up. Wouldn't the energy of hundreds of tonnes of kinetic energy (falling) be converted into another kind of energy. We know that in a closed system energy is conserved, so we know that regardless of if the building was deliberately collapsed or not, the energy would have gone somewhere. We know that there would have been a great deal of friction as well. What is it that burns up rock into dust when it enters the atmosphere again? Oh yeah, friction. So there are 3 plausible ways that could generate molten metal that don't involve massive conspiracies.
We need to mention the part where they have all the different people talking about the two main towers collapsing and saying it looks like a deliberate demolition. They they show WT7 collapsing and actually compare it to a deliberate demolition to show how similar it is. Why don't they do the same thing with WT1 and WT2? Wouldn't that be convincing, if we were shown other buildings collapsing in the same manner? The similar video "Loose Change" told views to go onto youtube and watch buildings being demolished for themselves, and see how similar they are with the WT collapses. Why don't you do that now? Go find me a youtube video of another building collapsing in the same way that these two buildings collapsed. If you're lazy, just look at the WT7 comparison building collapsing. Is it the same as the other WT buildings collapsing? It's not is it. It collapse from the bottom up. The WT collapses happen from the top down. All demolished buildings are demolished from the bottom up. So either the WT 1 and 2 buildings were demolished in a way that has never been used in public before, or it truely did happen because of the plane crash. In any event, that whole segment where they're showing person after person comparing it to a controlled demolition; all those people are wrong. None of those people have ever seen a building demolished in that manner. This is either misleading, or it's bad research. "Loose Change" was based on a lot of bad research, I suspect this is the same.
One more question; In terms of the purpose of the conspiracy, why was WT7 demolished at all? As they say in the movie, most people don't even know it collapsed. So it certainly wasn't a factor in the decision to go to war, or fear of terrorism. Was that where all the evidence for the attacks was left? Were they just trying to shred old documents? What is a possible motive for destroying that building, and what evidence is there to support that motive? How different would the war on terror have been if it wasn't destroyed?
Part 3
Pretty similar to part 2. Some major factual errors and lack of understanding. They even point one out to you. Old US bank notes used to have something along the lines of "transferable for gold" on them. They talk about a central bank having this perfect scheme of lending the government money at interest, but it misses a key aspect of how economies work. Printing more money doesn't mean that there is more wealth, the total value of all the money in the system is conserved, it's just the value of each unit in comparison with other items (such as gold) that goes down. Lets say that I run the bank and I've only printed 2 dollars worth of money, which is also the exact cost of 1 bottle of milk. If I print 1 more dollar, or 30 more dollars, or whatever, the total value of all the money I've printed is still the value of 1 bottle of milk. Their conspiracy theory about the reserve bank (or whatever it's called in America) only worked if the money didn't represent anything, but they told us our successful it was before you were stopped from being able to redeem the notes with gold. Actually the changing of the words on the notes didn't change anything. Banks still back up their currency, or can account for it, with some kind of worth to the amount that they've printed. Currency is just an easier way of buying things, than the amazing complicated bartering that we'd have to be doing to get anything these days. Of course it's a service and the people who provide it make money out of it. Of course they make a lot, because it's such a valuable service and they have so much power because of it. There's no conspiracy about this.
I think in watching this video, it really demonstrates the massive misunderstanding of politics and democracy. Think of it like this. You believe you're going to do a better job running the country than your political opponent. There's an issue where your opponent strongly leans in one direction, and some people feel so strongly in the same direction as your opponent that they'll vote for whoever takes his position. However otherwise their votes will go 50% either way. Now all the people who oppose his position, are going to vote for you, no matter what your position on it is. Now clearly in this situation, taking the same position as your opponent is going to make a massive difference in winning you the election. You're going to get 50% of the votes that agree with his position and not lose any. Remember that you're sure that you're a better person at running the country than he is. Lets break down your options.
You oppose his position. You lose the election, his position is carried out anyway.
You support his position. You win the election, his position is carried out anyway but you're in control and can have more influence on the details of this decision and other decisions.
Every political decision goes through this kind of rationale. You can only make a difference if you're actually in power and if you stick too strongly to your ideals you lose. Some people would see this is corrupt, but what would be a better system? The reality is that it what it means is that the radicals of either side of politics are ignored. Politicians don't do what the hard left and right want, because they're going to vote left or right anyway, and when they do do what the hard left or right want, it's because the majority of people in the mainstream support that as well. In politics the majority gets what it wants on the issues it's prepared to vote over, and on all the other issues (which is most issues) the elected politician gets to choose for themselves.
So there is no global power conspiracy. 9/11 was not an inside job. The Pope isn't some kind of fraud. This is just a radical video by people who don't understand politics or science. They're probably being trapped by the same evolutionary side effects that lead to religion, and other delusional dogmatic beliefs. The video isn't based on evidence. I'm sure that the creators believe that it's true, but I'm also sure they believed it was true before they found what they were looking for.
There's a great book I recommend. One of my all time favourite books. It's called Valis by Philip K Dick. In light of this movie, I highly recommend it.
-
Sporatical_Distractions
- registered sacks offender
- Posts: 4531
- Joined: 12 Oct 2004 19:14
- Location: Guy's American Kitchen & Bar
I don't even know what you're saying here.Jeremy wrote:So I spent 2 hours of my life watching this video just for Kevin. I hope you take something from that, because I certainly did not.
Thanks for your insight Jeremy! I'll have to watch it again with those ideas in mind.
Welcome to Flavortown
Kevin Crowley
Kevin Crowley
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-A.htmlI agree with the first part of section one. Christianity, like all religion, certainly did evolve from other previous religious views. The theory of the evolution of religion is very interesting, and something I've read a great deal on. There are a few good books out there; Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast by Lewis Wolpert. Also the work of David Sloan Wilson, Scott Atran, Jonathan Haidt, Nicholas Humphrey etc. Religion evolved for a number of reasons, and religions also evolved for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was certainly the replication and variation (which is what you need for evolution) of stories meant to be useful. We look through religious stories and it's relatively easy to trace them back to stories that were meaningful. Eventually the meaning starts changing to mean something more relevant to the people.
This website should help you a lot in regards to some very dubious "Christ-like Stories" that have sprung up into consideration in modern times. No doubt, some stories of the Bible were certainly adapted from older legends, but I'm willing to bet a lot of things brought up in the movie are pretty easily discounted on the website. It basically challenges every supposed Biblical-contradiction, and you can search either by letter or by book. When I have two hours to kill I'll take a look at the movie and give my opinion. Sometime tells me though that Jeremy wont spend 2 hours reading the site (Much less two minutes), and pass any opposing views off as heretical.
The movie puts forward the view that the entire Jesus story was adapted from other religions, and gives examples of countless other religions where their saviour was born from a virgin at Christmas and died at Easter. It points out that the three kings, the cross, the star in the East the 12 disciples etc. are all stories that evolved from astrological phenomenon, not real events (and are consistent across religions). It has nothing to do with contradictions.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
zeitgeist the movie
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
this is an intresting movie i found on the net.
i really like the part about religion and money.
enjoy
this is an intresting movie i found on the net.
i really like the part about religion and money.
enjoy
Andreas Hoffmann
Re: zeitgeist the movie
AUTsider wrote:http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
this is an intresting movie i found on the net.
i really like the part about religion and money.
enjoy
It's not interesting, it's just rubbish.
Let me summarise the movie in one line for everybody;
There is a massive global conspiracy that has been going on for over a hundred years and they're going to make us all have microchip implants.
-
King Monkey
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2745
- Joined: 18 May 2003 04:39
- Location: Sydney, Australia
[Merged with existing Zeitgeist topic as per request - King Monkey]
Ian Pritchard - http://www.ausfootbag.org
'People, just play Footbag and stop being dickheads!' - Michał Biarda
'People, just play Footbag and stop being dickheads!' - Michał Biarda
-
QuantumBalance
- 100-Watt Warlock
- Posts: 5092
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 14:24
- Location: fractal tyedye nebulae
- Contact:
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
By casting the opinion that "some get it more than others", aren't you just implying that you know more than anyone else and putting yourself on a pedastool?hehe you all are funny
some of what the movie says is true and some is not
its interesting how much you think you all know
some of you get it more than others
no matter what you think you understand
strive to open your mind and expand
the horizon of your intuition
!
Fucking tool.
-
QuantumBalance
- 100-Watt Warlock
- Posts: 5092
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 14:24
- Location: fractal tyedye nebulae
- Contact:
I agree with Dan, but more tactfully.
If some of it is correct and some isn't; why don't you enlighten us with your actual opinions. How can people react to your posts?
Aren't you just saying; "I know the truth about this movie, and other people don't?" Couldn't that be seen as insulting and belittling?
Having an open mind does not mean that believe everything you are told. In fact that's impossible because every theory has a counter theory. If you say you have an open mind because you believe some of this, then aren't you closing your mind to the counter theory that the bits you believe are wrong?
The reality is that an "open mind" is somebody who looks directly at the evidence and makes a judgement based on evidence, rather than ideology.
I've looked at the evidence of this video, and the evidence surrounding the video, and I've reached a conclusion. I was prepared to watch it, and indeed agreed with the first half of part 1, and then I started disagreeing, and constantly disagreed until the credits rolled.
If you tell us which bits in particular you are think are true, then I can respond and tell you why I agree or disagree and we can actually have a meaningful exchange of ideas. If instead you post belittling comments with nothing factual included, all we can think is that you think you know more about the subject than everybody else, but that you're not going to share your greater knowledge with us.
If some of it is correct and some isn't; why don't you enlighten us with your actual opinions. How can people react to your posts?
Aren't you just saying; "I know the truth about this movie, and other people don't?" Couldn't that be seen as insulting and belittling?
Having an open mind does not mean that believe everything you are told. In fact that's impossible because every theory has a counter theory. If you say you have an open mind because you believe some of this, then aren't you closing your mind to the counter theory that the bits you believe are wrong?
The reality is that an "open mind" is somebody who looks directly at the evidence and makes a judgement based on evidence, rather than ideology.
I've looked at the evidence of this video, and the evidence surrounding the video, and I've reached a conclusion. I was prepared to watch it, and indeed agreed with the first half of part 1, and then I started disagreeing, and constantly disagreed until the credits rolled.
If you tell us which bits in particular you are think are true, then I can respond and tell you why I agree or disagree and we can actually have a meaningful exchange of ideas. If instead you post belittling comments with nothing factual included, all we can think is that you think you know more about the subject than everybody else, but that you're not going to share your greater knowledge with us.
-
QuantumBalance
- 100-Watt Warlock
- Posts: 5092
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 14:24
- Location: fractal tyedye nebulae
- Contact:
Well said, and understood.
What I understand is what you just stated, that every theory has a counter theory. Sometimes it seems evident which side is most likely true, and sometimes it does not. So, in some ways we can never know unless we were there. For example one theory of 2012 is that the planets will align with the center of the universe and humans will blow ourselves up, while a select few transcend. Another is that nothing is gonna happen unless we push for it to happen, come planetary alignment or not. No matter which one I believe in, I know that 2012 will come (If I make it to then), and that no matter what happens, I should still try and learn more, and become capable assisting positive change (I guess this is just my self declared mission). So, I am acting on faith but not certainty of what is true. So I guess to sum this all up the enlightened truth that I didn't mean to be snobbish about was just what jeremy stated that I am aware that the more I know, the more I know I don't know.
-SK
What I understand is what you just stated, that every theory has a counter theory. Sometimes it seems evident which side is most likely true, and sometimes it does not. So, in some ways we can never know unless we were there. For example one theory of 2012 is that the planets will align with the center of the universe and humans will blow ourselves up, while a select few transcend. Another is that nothing is gonna happen unless we push for it to happen, come planetary alignment or not. No matter which one I believe in, I know that 2012 will come (If I make it to then), and that no matter what happens, I should still try and learn more, and become capable assisting positive change (I guess this is just my self declared mission). So, I am acting on faith but not certainty of what is true. So I guess to sum this all up the enlightened truth that I didn't mean to be snobbish about was just what jeremy stated that I am aware that the more I know, the more I know I don't know.
-SK