ZEITGEIST, The Movie

brettDbass

Kurious
brettDbass
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
1,385
News has reached me (via the Randi MySpace profile) of a new 9/11 conspiracy video, Zeitgeist. They also have their own website http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

The MySpace conspiracy chat forums are all excited about it, although there is some disagreement about the highly religious (apparently strongly Catholic) content.


google video said:
What does Christianity, 911 and The Federal Reserve have in common?
Click to expand...
Zeitgeist.com said:
Zeitgeist was created as a not for profit work to inspire people to start looking at the world
from a more critical perspective.
Click to expand...


Couldn't find any reference to it via the forum search facility (although you'll probably prove me wrong in a heartbeat), so I thought I'd share here. Enjoy.
 
I'm 6 minutes in and frankly insulted they would call this a movie. It's a music video at the moment and not a very good one.

edit: Jesus, I have my subwoofer on the lowest setting and it is far too bassy, whoever EQd this did not have a good set of monitors. Also 15 minutes in, still nothing interesting.

edit: This gets even better, 'horizon' is apparently from 'horus'. It is not, it is from 'horizontem'.
 
Last edited:
Also sunset is from the Egyptian god Set. I did see a beautiful Sunhorus this morning.
 
A couple of conspiracists are buzzing about it- apparently it's quite anti-religious, which is odd for a conspiracy movie.

I have only watched the first 6 minutes or so- it's a black screen with some unnamed person giving a lecture. A lot of non-specific tripe so far.

This is probably going to be another one of those sophists movies. Going on and on and not saying anything specific or supported.

When conspiracists start making movies like the MythBusters make shows, I'll be interested.
 
Just skipped around as much as I could stand to watch. Imagine "The God who wasn't there" " Loose Change" and "America: Freedom to Fascism" put in a cannon.... fired off.... and then re-edited together. And I do mean that. Footage from those three movies were used.
 
Aah, I see.
The conspiracists' chats I'd been seeing all seemed to suggest the content was very much pro-religion. I might guess they're as wrong about most things in life as they are about 9/11.

Sounds like I'm missing nothing by not having watched it yet.
 
I am 1 hour and 31 minutes in. This is the most unadulterated, pressure-packed barrel of bull[rule8] I have yet seen in my life.

Part One: Why the Jews and the Christians Are Evil
Part Two: Why 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Part Three: Why the International Bankers Have Been Getting Away With It For Centuries

All of our favorites are here. It moves from CT to CT so fast that a library would have be dedicated to debunking the whole thing. It's insidious.

ETA: OMG, they used a clip of Carl Sagan at the end! Sweet Sufferin' Jeebus.
 
Last edited:
I watched it last week and while I enjoyed the fruitcake first third about religion because it was new to me, the 9-11 nonsense was the same old, same old. I did not finish the last segment about the international bankers.
 
Who is the rather pompous and overly verbose quasi-postmodernist at the beginning?

I watched as far as the Flight 175 impact pornography complete with car crash sound effects.
 
e^n said:
edit: This gets even better, 'horizon' is apparently from 'horus'. It is not, it is from 'horizontem'.
Click to expand...

:eek: I read that and my brain stopped. Quick! What year is it?!?!?11
 
Brainster said:
I watched it last week and while I enjoyed the fruitcake first third about religion because it was new to me, the 9-11 nonsense was the same old, same old. I did not finish the last segment about the international bankers.
Click to expand...

"Fruitcake first third" is right. I am an atheist, and my head pounded three holes into the drywall watching that nuttiness.

Anyway, the whole thing's plagiarized and we are starting to get bombarded with this over at DU. Somebody wants me to point out some lies in the silly thing, and is upset with me because I say things like "Well, start at about the beginning, and right around where the end is? That's all lies."

Here's where I'm pointing people to for more information:

The God Who Wasn't There analysis
Loose Change Guide
Debunking Federal Reserve CTs
Income Tax myths

I'm liking what I see at the GWWT analysis because the guy seems to be like me, ready to accept the basic premise but stoked about how the numbskull goes about "proving" it.
 
Apparently the truther community is buzzing about it. A truther here, I believe, or at SLC blog called it, I'll let you guess....undebunkable, and the best movie from the truth movement.

I will not watch it, as reviews here tell me all I need to know.

TAM:)
 
I didn't get far in. I listened to the guy lecturing in the dark, inside the echoey (presumably empty) lecture hall, watched the flashy thing trying to give me a seizure, and pretty space stuff (I liked that), then the BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM thing. I noticed there's over 2 hours of this stuff and gave up.
 
Last edited:
I would like to hear about this movie. I have not been able to watch it due to strict policies.

The policy is that I will not watch anything that makes me sit for 10 minutes listening to sinister music while displaying quotes. If someone has a point to make, they would not have to rely on cheap tricks.

If there is a version where all this crap is edited out, i would be really interested in watching.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
I would like to hear about this movie. I have not been able to watch it due to strict policies.

The policy is that I will not watch anything that makes me sit for 10 minutes listening to sinister music while displaying quotes. If someone has a point to make, they would not have to rely on cheap tricks.

If there is a version where all this crap is edited out, i would be really interested in watching.
Click to expand...
From the sound of it, there wouldn't be anything left. :D
 
Jonnyclueless said:
I would like to hear about this movie. I have not been able to watch it due to strict policies.

The policy is that I will not watch anything that makes me sit for 10 minutes listening to sinister music while displaying quotes. If someone has a point to make, they would not have to rely on cheap tricks.

If there is a version where all this crap is edited out, i would be really interested in watching.
Click to expand...

The originals. LOL.

Actually, I'm serious. Merola hasn't just borrowed heavily from other CT films out there - the movie is nothing but wholesale blocks of other people's materials. It has the tacit approval (or outright approval) of some, though - Prison Planet recognizes the use of Terror Storm on an announcement about the piece.

This seems to be Merola's video for his live presentation, which would presumably include his live musical accompaniment to many parts of the video that lack other sound. Merola is really interested in brainwashing people, and like most brainwashed subjects, the converts are running around trying to "unbrainwash" everyone by making them watch the movie.
 
boloboffin said:
Merola hasn't just borrowed heavily from other CT films out there - the movie is nothing but wholesale blocks of other people's materials. It has the tacit approval (or outright approval) of some, though - Prison Planet recognizes the use of Terror Storm on an announcement about the piece.
Click to expand...

It's a recognition that this stuff is all seat-of-the-pants and that maybe somebody will come up with the ultimate mix that will turn us all into Zombies for 9-11 Denial. Or maybe lots of people delivering their own personal message will turn enough into semi-"Truthers" to expand the market for tee shirts and videos.

That said, I have long been a proponent of the type of marketing these folks are using; "Give it away and eventually loyal customers will pay for it."
 
T.A.M. said:
Here is the version with all the crap edited out....()

TAM;)
Click to expand...
That's what I said... :p

(Well, almost.)

Edit: Huh? The [post] code makes an embedded window with the other post in it? That's not what the help seems to say it does?
 
so called "generally well-educated crowd"?

You know this discussion has been stated in someone's blog (do a google search for Zeitgeist Movie The Great Realization) as being "where a generally well-educated crowd picks apart at it a bit."

Hardly well-educated to me. Most of you have discredited it after seeing only 6 minutes of it, despite it having a 9 minute introduction of almost entirely music (although I agree this introduction is a little unneccesary).

"'horizon' is apparently from 'horus'" I've now seen it twice and I didn't once hear anyone mention horus leading onto horizon. Even if i did miss it, twice, surely there are plenty of other more relevant statements that you could focus on discrediting than one small point regarding language. Afterall that part of the film was focussing on religion, something that you all have avoided to discuss.

My advice to you so called well-educated crowd is that maybe you should educate yourself by watching the film entirely before passing such self-righteous judgement on it.

My review? It's certainly flawed, it's unneccesarily melodramatic and it's hypocritical at times for lacking substance in it's convictions. However, it's also very refreshing, educating, challenging, mind opening... it certainly can do no more harm than your government and media does in the same amount of time.

I'm all for being cynical, I think it's an essential prerequisite for reading any newspaper these days. However, you guys all seem to be capable of only skepticism... i'm still waiting too see evidence of educated discussion.

The 2nd part about 9/11 is the film's weakest part, but it's there for a reason. The 3rd part of the film is extremely hard to swallow, but something everybody should be aware of, so, in the unlikely case that it is true, at least we can see it coming.
 
mnky said:
You know this discussion has been stated in someone's blog (do a google search for Zeitgeist Movie The Great Realization) as being "where a generally well-educated crowd picks apart at it a bit."

Hardly well-educated to me. Most of you have discredited it after seeing only 6 minutes of it, despite it having a 9 minute introduction of almost entirely music (although I agree this introduction is a little unneccesary).

"'horizon' is apparently from 'horus'" I've now seen it twice and I didn't once hear anyone mention horus leading onto horizon. Even if i did miss it, twice, surely there are plenty of other more relevant statements that you could focus on discrediting than one small point regarding language. Afterall that part of the film was focussing on religion, something that you all have avoided to discuss.

My advice to you so called well-educated crowd is that maybe you should educate yourself by watching the film entirely before passing such self-righteous judgement on it.

My review? It's certainly flawed, it's unneccesarily melodramatic and it's hypocritical at times for lacking substance in it's convictions. However, it's also very refreshing, educating, challenging, mind opening... it certainly can do no more harm than your government and media does in the same amount of time.

I'm all for being cynical, I think it's an essential prerequisite for reading any newspaper these days. However, you guys all seem to be capable of only skepticism... i'm still waiting too see evidence of educated discussion.

The 2nd part about 9/11 is the film's weakest part, but it's there for a reason. The 3rd part of the film is extremely hard to swallow, but something everybody should be aware of, so, in the unlikely case that it is true, at least we can see it coming.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the forum mnky.

I have not watched it. if I had to watch every single CT video that rises from the swamp, I would have to quit my day job, and it pays the bills. As a result, I rely on the opinions of those from this 9/11 Debunking Subforum, who do watch it, to see whether there is anything new or exciting to watch and trash. In this case it appears to be the same old diatribe from a 9/11 pov. As far as the other two sections go...does not interest me anyway.

Oh, and you are not likely doing yourself any favors in terms of welcoming here, by referring to us as "So Called" educated crowd.

TAM:)
 
Matilda said:
I didn't get far in. I listened to the guy lecturing in the dark, inside the echoey (presumably empty) lecture hall, watched the flashy thing trying to give me a seizure, and pretty space stuff (I liked that), then the BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM thing. I noticed there's over 2 hours of this stuff and gave up.
Click to expand...

my bold

T.A.M. said:
Here is the version with all the crap edited out....()

TAM;)
Click to expand...

mnky said:
You know this discussion has been stated in someone's blog (do a google search for Zeitgeist Movie The Great Realization) as being "where a generally well-educated crowd picks apart at it a bit."

Hardly well-educated to me. Most of you have discredited it after seeing only 6 minutes of it...
Click to expand...

Thanks all, for saving me the time and the sanity.

First impressions are important. If something relies on flash-cuts, or flashes of some other kind, or music, or it sucks for the first six minutes, that's all one needs to see.

But some people here did watch more, and the rest was the usual CT nonsensical mess. No big surprise.

There are many things competing for our attention. What duty compels us to watch crap?

First posts are often telling, too.
 
mnky said:
You know this discussion has been stated in someone's blog (do a google search for Zeitgeist Movie The Great Realization) as being "where a generally well-educated crowd picks apart at it a bit."

Hardly well-educated to me. Most of you have discredited it after seeing only 6 minutes of it, despite it having a 9 minute introduction of almost entirely music (although I agree this introduction is a little unneccesary).

"'horizon' is apparently from 'horus'" I've now seen it twice and I didn't once hear anyone mention horus leading onto horizon. Even if i did miss it, twice, surely there are plenty of other more relevant statements that you could focus on discrediting than one small point regarding language. Afterall that part of the film was focussing on religion, something that you all have avoided to discuss.

My advice to you so called well-educated crowd is that maybe you should educate yourself by watching the film entirely before passing such self-righteous judgement on it.

My review? It's certainly flawed, it's unneccesarily melodramatic and it's hypocritical at times for lacking substance in it's convictions. However, it's also very refreshing, educating, challenging, mind opening... it certainly can do no more harm than your government and media does in the same amount of time.

I'm all for being cynical, I think it's an essential prerequisite for reading any newspaper these days. However, you guys all seem to be capable of only skepticism... i'm still waiting too see evidence of educated discussion.

The 2nd part about 9/11 is the film's weakest part, but it's there for a reason. The 3rd part of the film is extremely hard to swallow, but something everybody should be aware of, so, in the unlikely case that it is true, at least we can see it coming.
Click to expand...

I've watched the entire thing, mnky, and it's something the scarab dragged in from start to finish.
 
Hi, everyone. Long-time JREF visitor, but I just signed up last night after viewing Zeitgeist.
I watched all three parts. Part one had me intrigued, part two had me skeptical, and by the time part three was over, I was honestly scared.
I did a google search looking for dissenters of the movie. Coincidentally enough, it brought me here, the same site I check every Friday for my newest skeptical news.
Anyway, my point for posting is to simply ask; what proof do we have that this is all bunk? I'd like to lay a few of the internet message boards to frequent to rest. I've read that this simply restates things from other more famous videos.
Anyway, please give me some debunking material for this film!
Thanks.
 
Tonberry2k said:
...
Anyway, please give me some debunking material for this film!
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Try posting specific assertions from the film one by one, and see what people say.

I, for one, simply couldn't take it seriously--anything finding big links between 9/11, Federal Reserve, and Christianity is nonsense.

It seemed mostly to consist of non sequiturs and red herrings. It simply didn't hang together.

When someone says "everything is related" I reach for the DSM-IV or the "off" button.

But, again, maybe there were particular statements that you could get from it. If so, your work posting textual assertions from the film would be a service.

There are people here with expertise in each of the many areas the film covers--but I didn't think it was worth watching closely.
 
Dipping in, I notice that they quote Dr. Steven Jones.

from the Wiki:

Like many professors at BYU, Jones has an interest in archaeology and the Book of Mormon.[4] For example, he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence regarding the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas.[5]

Jones also claims to have discovered evidence that Jesus Christ visited the ancient Mayans. His paper on the subject is no longer on the BYU website, but it is available elsewhere.[6]
 
Then we have the usual crypto ultra right-wing paranoia about the Fed and money supply.

On this board, one poster who knows a lot about this is JonnyFive (sp?).

There are also threads on the subject--at least one current one.
 
Ok, here's one:

"...to create a controlled population, utterly malleable in the hands of the few..."


This is the central tenet of conspiracy thinking--everything's being controlled by shadowy elites--maybe the Scottish freemasons, or reptoid shape-shifters, or, the JOOOOOS.

It just isn't that way. Things are highly decentralized, there IS no over-arching narrative.
 
Tonberry2k said:
Hi, everyone. Long-time JREF visitor, but I just signed up last night after viewing Zeitgeist.
I watched all three parts. Part one had me intrigued, part two had me skeptical, and by the time part three was over, I was honestly scared.
I did a google search looking for dissenters of the movie. Coincidentally enough, it brought me here, the same site I check every Friday for my newest skeptical news.
Anyway, my point for posting is to simply ask; what proof do we have that this is all bunk? I'd like to lay a few of the internet message boards to frequent to rest. I've read that this simply restates things from other more famous videos.
Anyway, please give me some debunking material for this film!
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Heh Tonberry2k, welcome to the forum...officially.

As you have read above, I avoided watching it after some comments from people I trust on this site.

If you have any particular claims the movie makes that confuse you, have you worried, or even convinced, do the following...

1. Is the claim they make backed by SPECIFIC EVIDENCE. If yes, go to Question 2, if not, than it is mere speculation and opinion, and should be treated as such.

2. Is the evidence from a reliable source without any anti-govt or other bias? if yes, than go to #3, if no, than consider the source suspect, and hence the evidence itself.

3. Present the specific arguement they make here at the forum as a single topic or posting, along with the referenced evidence they site, and we will all likely have a go at it.

TAM:)
 
Oh, I wasn't aware of another, more active topic on this subject. I didn't mean to bump a stagnant thread.
Thanks for the input, guys. I'll look around the forum for some more comments on this video.
 
No Tonberry, this is the thread. What gives you the impression the thread was stagnant. I merely was stating that I did not watch the video, because others who have, basically told me it held nothing new in the area of 9/11, and the other two parts I wasnt really interested in anyway. Please take my earlier suggestion seriously. If you have an issue it discusses, which you wish to discuss, bring said issue up as a singular topic, and I am sure others will chime in.

TAM:)
 
Well, the religion bit is all bunk anyway, so I don't need any explanation there. Same with the 9/11 stuff. I've heard it all before.
The new stuff to me is the Wold Bank. If anyone could explain the conspiracy there and debunk some of the points this movie brings up, I'd be very grateful. Thanks!
 
Tonberry2k said:
Hi, everyone. Long-time JREF visitor, but I just signed up last night after viewing Zeitgeist.
I watched all three parts. Part one had me intrigued, part two had me skeptical, and by the time part three was over, I was honestly scared.
I did a google search looking for dissenters of the movie. Coincidentally enough, it brought me here, the same site I check every Friday for my newest skeptical news.
Anyway, my point for posting is to simply ask; what proof do we have that this is all bunk? I'd like to lay a few of the internet message boards to frequent to rest. I've read that this simply restates things from other more famous videos.
Anyway, please give me some debunking material for this film!
Thanks.
Click to expand...

I suggest for the claims in the second part that you check out 9-11 Myths; Mike's site is very well organized, as is Debunking 9-11. There are any number of good books on the Federal Reserve; one that I enjoyed personally was Secrets of the Temple, by William Greider which while written from a leftist perspective is not CT.
 
Just viewed part three. Scary. Hit the Federal Reserve site for this:

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
Click to expand...

The last part seems like circular logic by which you need to be a member to receive stock and you need to have a certain amount of stock to be a member. So can a bank without stock become a member? It wouldn't seem so.
 
A few questions...

Does anyone know if some of the main statements made in part 1 of this movie are in fact true?

1. Would "The Three Kings" of Orians belt actually line up with Sirius, as to be pointing towards the sunrise on December 25th, (in ~4AD of course.)

2. Does the sun, when viewed from the northern hemisphere, at the winter equinox "stop" moving south (perceivably), for three days, and then start to move north again?

3. On the winter equinox, does the sun set in the vicinity of the southern cross?

4. Is Moses believed to have been alive in ~2150 BC?
 
1. The three stars of Orion's belt don't line up. Any line approximated from their general position will always describe the same line with Sirius. I have found no evidence yet that anyone called those three stars the Three Kings independently of the Christian legend.

Does it line up with the rising of the sun on Christmas morning? Absolutely not. I went to a site called Your Sky and found the view of the sky over Jerusalem on 12 December 4 BC. At sunrise, Orion and Sirius are not even in the sky. They are in the sky 5 hours earlier, at midnight, but a line starting at Sirius and going through the belt is pointing at exactly due WEST. And I believe GWWT draws the line as starting at the belt and going through Sirius, which puts the intersection with the horizon SSE, well south of the sunrise.

I checked 1 CE. Same thing. It's a flat out lie.

2. It depends on how strong your perceptions are. Ancient civilizations could mark the exact day of the equinox, so the "stop motion" would be beside the point.

3. Absolutely not. It's the Southern Cross for a reason. It's in the South. At that point in time, the Southern Cross was just barely visible at the extreme southern part of the sky in Jerusalem.

4. Moses is not believed to have been alive at all. The story of the Exodus doesn't fit any scholarly account of history available.
 
Good to see this topic. I made a topic about this movie when the craze was just starting. I would like to hear more about it.

I was very skeptical first seeing it. Even other atheists were jumping on this bandwagon.
 
boloboffin said:
Does it line up with the rising of the sun on Christmas morning? Absolutely not. I went to a site called Your Sky and found the view of the sky over Jerusalem on 12 December 4 BC. At sunrise, Orion and Sirius are not even in the sky. They are in the sky 5 hours earlier
Click to expand...
Does that web program account for the precession of the equinoxes? I wouldn't think that it would move 5 hours in 2000 years, but still I wonder whether that program is accurate for 2000 years ago.
 
Archaeoastronomy

arockincanada said:
Does anyone know if some of the main statements made in part 1 of this movie are in fact true?

1. Would "The Three Kings" of Orians belt actually line up with Sirius, as to be pointing towards the sunrise on December 25th, (in ~4AD of course.)

2. Does the sun, when viewed from the northern hemisphere, at the winter equinox "stop" moving south (perceivably), for three days, and then start to move north again?

3. On the winter equinox, does the sun set in the vicinity of the southern cross?

4. Is Moses believed to have been alive in ~2150 BC?
Click to expand...

1. The three stars are closely (but not exactly) lined up with each other, and a line can be drawn from them at a slight angle to Sirius. This configuration is well recognized and often used by stargazers to locate Sirius.

Orion appears in the Dec 20-21 Jerusalem sky shortly after sunset in ~4 BC. A line drawn from the belt through Sirius (as depicted in the film) would be pointing at the East/Southeast horizon, approximately where the sun would rise the following morning.

2.You mean the winter SOLSTICE. From Wikipedia: "The name is derived from Latin sol (sun) and sistere (to stand still), because at the solstice, the Sun stands still in declination, that is, its movement north or south is minimal."

3. Again, you mean the winter solstice. At the winter solstice, the sun would have set at its furthest southern point on the western horizon.

From Wikipedia: "Due to precession of the equinoxes, the stars comprising Crux [the southern Cross] were visible from the Mediterranean area in antiquity....Although these stars were known to the ancient Greeks, gradual precession of the equinoxes had lowered them below the European skyline so that they were forgotten there. For example at the latitude of Athens in 1000 B.C., Crux was clearly visible, although it was low in the sky. However, by 400 A.D., most of the constellation never rose above the horizon for Athenians. "

4. I don't know.

The Zeitgeist movie used a great deal of what can charitably be called "artistic license" in laying out the case for the mythological underpinnings of Christianity. Joseph Campbell's exhaustive studies in the field of comparative mythology do a much better job of this, and more convincingly, in my opinion. Also of interest along these lines (particularly the subfield of archaeoastronomy), is Hamlet's Mill by Georgio Santillana and Hertha von Dechend.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom