[+] for image

looooooool yep!

fuck zeitgeist. just listen to chomsky, if you're too lazy find info yourself.

Chomsky (y)

ye chomsky owns ;) just reading a book from him

At least he's pro-legalization.

nvm

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php - scroll down a bit.

it's ok. i didn't need a response. i thought u wrote something entirely different, due to me being intoxicated.

First one was rubbish, this one is much better

This Venus Project has it's merits, but it seems too unrealistic. Ignorance and comfort in this lifestyle would make it almost impossible to realize.

Does this actually expound any of the 'facts' without just stating something that might be fraudulent and then moving on?

41 minutes, Globalization is described as the system by which the 'corportocracy' controls the world.

DONE!

I'm going to keep watching it because it is presented rather well, yet so broadly defines its topics that is loses all sense of credibility.

You can't just plonk out this gigantum social theory and then not even begin to explain its components. If you could do that and actually make sense there wouldn't be an entire school of education geared toward identifying its purpose.

It's a survey not a university project.

The movie is a documentary, and isn't an advertisement for the Venus Project. For that information, you should visit their web page.

The economic theory is very solid but the way its presented is abit to controversial. Although thumbs up for using a reference from Network, one of my all time favorite film.

You should definatley check it out if you enjoy watching Zeitgeist.

Very nice.

Ah well, back to work !

what a film like this lacks by its nature, is credibility.
but i was surprised by how obvious they try to manipulate instead of showing (what they call) facts.
for example just some mins into the whole thing, they compare two graphs that show the development of dept and money over time. the graphs look (very roughly) the same and its claimed that they indeed are almost the same. but if u look just a bit closed, you see that the graphs dont even use the same scale. i mean, come on, what a joke.

dose it matter if the scale is the same?
the point was that the debt and money supply follows the same trend.

i dont really care about the debt/money correlation, my point was that i hate the way they try to show everything as if it would perfectly fit into their theory even if its ist just one tiny indicator

If it was indeed the correlation, how else do you suggest they showed it? With tons of quotes from various sources?
Is it really necessary? Mind that this is a documentary and if all documentaries had to prove their stuff you could easily get the History channel, National Geographics and Discovery channel shut down.

But then again, I get your point, lots of documentaries are known to be full of BS. Farenheit 911 comes to my mind. But but, due to some proper debunking most people know, Michael Moore is full of bs, now. So I guess it's up to the viewer to check up on if a documentary is true or not.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

very interesting as always.

i dont know if i can sit through 2 hours of this, i have to watch it bit by bit and really be in the mood.

what else is new

would be awesome if someone would provide with anti-zeitgeist material like the one that was made torwards the first movie.

That's why I posted it here, hoping for some proper debunking. Guess I hoped for too much.

url?

i think you misread :D

ohh, sorry. ><

Why would you believe the anti-zeitgeist any more than you believe zeitgeist?

because it's not hard to refute their shit

Please, do elaborate.

dunno movie fact vs real world fact?

first zeitgeist only had books cited as sources to discourage people to verify their "facts". most often their claims were contradicted by their own sources, being far fetched exaggerations/analogies or pulled from context in meaningless ways.

Those were all about religion anyway. They could make stuff up all day and still not rival the stupidity that is the religion itself.

nono.. they say stuff like :" the egiptians had a prophet, he was born under a falling star etc etc". ofcourse all archeological evidence says otherwise, including every egiptology scientist on this earth. it's easily verifiable. I only watched the first 5 mins of it tho, they pretty much imagine bullshit out of thin air and present it as fact in their "documentary".

ofcourse all archeological evidence says otherwise, including every egiptology scientist on this earth.

How much do you even know about Egyptology?

not much at all. but I can read, hope that qualifies.

So you are unable to verify the facts either way.

nope.

they say "Horus was a prophet. Horus was born with the shooting star. Horus had 12 apostles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

it's the only one I actually cba to check.

Refuting a claim with wikipedia is absurd, at best.

oh yes.. the wikipedia argument. I guess citing new age conspiracy propaganda movies is much more credible.

No, both are equally untrustworthy.

alright then.

feel free to cite a credible egyptology source that claims the following:

"Horus was a prophet. Horus was born with the shooting star. Horus had 12 apostles."

I'm eagerly awaiting your reply.

I don't care either way. I'm not here to promote or refute their claims. All I'm saying is that you don't have enough information to make a decision - and you're no better for trying to make a decision without that information than those who blindly follow it.

When the anti-zeitgeist crap came out, people instantly disbelieved zeitgeist simply because the site said "NO UR WRONG." It's so easy to let other people make a decision for you.

sry didn't realise you were trolling. good work tho.

Trolling? Hardly. Just pointing out your hypocrisy. If you need an excuse to duck out of the conversation, by all means, carry on.

sigh... my hypocrisy, bail out?
son what part of SCIENCE and FACT as opposed to LIES and PROPAGANDA did you not understand?

You call me a troll when it's obvious that you don't have an argument. You're tired of arguing because you know that your line of defense will get you nowhere.

You have yet to provide me any scientific or factual proof either way. You've already admitted that you know nothing about Egyptology, and then you try to pass off some cliff notes, that don't even go into any detail on the issue, as a basis for your claims. You are literally trying to refute facts in the same way that zeitgeist is.

ok, since you obviously want to get destroyed into oblivion in this discussion, I will do this, because you're an American and I am bored.

alright then, here we go...

Zeitgeist movie says:

"Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior."

now, let's find a *CREDIBLE* egyptology source shall we... ok, how about this one?

http://www.guardians.net/hawass/horus.htm

in case you're wondering who Dr. Hawass is:

http://www.guardians.net/hawass/background.htm
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/field/explo...awass.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187259,00.html

Now let's analyse his article about Horus and compare it to the Zeitgeist movie:

1. "Horus was born on December 25th"
nope, nothing there

2. of the virgin Isis-Meri
Meri? Mary? nope, nothing there
virgin? nigga plz...

3. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east
nope,nothing there, this is getting old...

4. three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior
...

So yes, I'm sure some of these very important Zeitgeist "facts" would at least be mentioned in a *CREDIBLE* egyptology article about ancient Egypt's most important deity.

oh and btw
UR WRONG.

You quoted a source that doesn't speak on the subject, and then claim that it proves or disproves something? This is your problem - you think you can just do a google search and understand a subject based on a few soundbites. If you really think you understand everything about Horus because you read a few undetailed and unrelated sentences on a website, you're even worse than the authors of zeitgeist.

So yes, I'm sure some of these very important Zeitgeist "facts" would at least be mentioned in a *CREDIBLE* egyptology article about ancient Egypt's most important deity.

Instead of saying "IT SHOULD BE THERE", why not actually find sources of information that say when/where/how/etc Horus was born. Why not actually try to find some detailed info on his life? Just like me, you probably don't care one way or the other - it's just not worth the time to research. It's all redundant and nobody should need this much evidence to disprove religion.

you're confused. this is not about disproving religion AT ALL. this is about disproving obvious untruths about a certain ancient civilisation's believes in an amateur propaganda movie, which calls itself a documentary. if you don't understand that by now you should probably look up terms "fact" and "documentary".

maybe you should call your local museum, record the call and post it.
he'd probably go all "LLULZ THIS WASNT BOUT HUROS IN TEH FIRST PLAEC" on you, tho.

see below.

yup, it's funny how even tho he gets his ass served left and right he still uses the same rhetoric as if he just conquered the world. my guess is he's trolling. at least I hope he is.

most of the time i think he is, just 'cause he makes me laugh with his predictable posts.

see ... again he's telling you your "arguments" (facts) fail, 'cause he thinks they fail.
he's awesome.

Link to a single fact?

see #88
first link.

Did you read it at all? This provides no insight to the issue, nor is it a detailed source of information on Horus. Additionally, it cites no outside sources. There is NO conflicting evidence in that link having anything to do with the claims made in Zeitgeist.

Oh? Please point out a location where you provided opposing facts to any point in Zeitgeist. Go on, all you need is one.

"Horus was known as the son of Isis and Osiris and inherited the throne of his father"

Isis. Not Isis-Mary Joseph the son of Israel. kthxbye

Once more, but with some substance.

I farted

If you paid attention to the movie, the point of bringing up these points is do help the viewer draw the conclusion that Christianity was, in fact, based on ancient Egyptian (and other) gods. If someone needs this kind of "proof" to dispute religion, they don't understand their faith to begin with. Clearly, you didn't pay attention to the movie (not surprising) and you don't understand the finer points of the position to begin with. ADD much?

but it isn't. hello, anyone there? you believers crack me up.

I don't believe it any more than I disbelieve it. I certainly won't jump on the bandwagon to say it's fake just because some random site refuted it with nothing more than "NO UR WRONG." However, I also don't care if it's true or not, as it has no relevance to anything.

I can see your arguments breaking down. Please, use this opportunity to claim I am a troll so you can duck out - you have NO substance, and you're not even fun to try to educate.

Have you considered starting a cult? (or joining one?)

Heh, Hawass. That guy is one of the biggest reasons we dont know jack about pyramids. He is all about money, fame and power to himself. In the 90's he used to change he's "scientific facts" every second year, depending who he was working for. When he was Chief Inspector at the Giza, you couldnt even study anything there, if you didnt state first that you agreed with Hawass's theorys, and even if you found out something, he would take the credit.

And also only an ignorant person would take wikipedia as more reliable than this forum for example.

All I know is he is cited as pretty much the nr.1 source about ancient egypt everywhere + he's the most famos egyptologist of today. That's why I picked him. Again, if you have other credible egyptology sources that support the Zeitgeist story, feel free to share.

All I know is he is cited as pretty much the nr.1 source about ancient egypt everywhere

So you did a google search. Amazing how you base your standards on the reliability of information. =DDDD

What do you think he should do to make his arguments valid?
Call the guy to ask about Horus?
Fly over there to ask the guy in person?
Spend 50yrs alone in a pyramid?

Would what you, Vedic, see as a fact?

Start with providing multiple and direct conflicting sources of information from potentially credible sources. This has yet to be done.

see #109.

Zahi Hawass

In 2002 he was appointed Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. As of 2008, he is considered the highest-ranking archaeologist in Egypt.

Oh, and i read the article. If Jesus is an almost exacpt copy of Horus, I THINK, he'd put one or two sentences about the issue into that text.

This is one credible source, sure. I would not take his word alone, but you still have not provided information from him that directly conflicts with anything from Zeitgeist.

That's maybe because real scientists wouldn't give a goddamn crap about stupid idiots making a "documentary".

I'm sure if you would show that shit to egyptologists, they'd crap their pants in laughter.

Several of the reference sources to Zeitgeist WERE Egyptologists.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm

Go nuts. Again, feel free to find direct facts that fall into conflict with any of their claims. I'll salute you if you do, but until that time, nobody has provided any proof-positive either way as far as if Zeitgeist is true or not.

Also, RAGED.

who?

You, cutie.

Why?

Dunno, could be that you fail.

any facts for that?

Only the ones you provided.

elaborate.

it's 8am and I've been up all night. I'd love to keep trolling you two, but I'm fucking tired. If you're still around when I get up, I'll try to piss you off again in another thread.

sleep tight, buddy.

:DDDDDDDD

Ooh, an edit.

I THINK

It doesn't matter what you think - find the facts.

Also i know i'm assuming right there. But you know, i sometimes use common sense to judge stuff.

The discussion is about facts.

Again, I don't believe Zeitgeist any more than I disbelieve it. I can't prove one way or another, and I don't care. I won't stand around and let you guys try to say that it's been proven false, however, until you can back it up.

"Warsow is a mod"

"QW isn't dead"

give up he is always trolling, and once you prove him wrong on the frst thing he will just alter his statement

maybe it's a social experiment in trolling. how long can you keep people replying to your posts with no substance whatsoever. :)

come on, wikipedia is 99% correct, so unless tourist edited it moments before he posted (which you can check up on btw) you can go su in the corner.

That said, why discuss about the religion part anyway? Zeitgeist 1 was filled with horrid "OMG 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!11" stuff. Why not rebuff that, tourist, you numbskull.

Jebus

Being 99% correct about a small portion of an issue without giving you the whole story does not help. Wikipedia makes people think that they can somehow bypass learning about a subject and just snag the headlines.

because

I only watched the first 5 mins of it

numbskull

Why even open your mouth then? Gtfo my journal

because there was enough bullshit in those first 5 minutes to build the pyramids. raged kraut nerd.

the problem with wikipedia is that the information is often not wrong but inexact, for example they often mix up technical terms and such.

that's probably correct given the scope of the whole thing, but it does usually present the current scientific consensus about major science/art branches (history, literature, physics, chemistry etc) rather well.

so I have little reason to doubt it does as well in case of history of ancient Egypt. it's not exactly my point of interest but the one source I supplied above agrees completely with what's written on wikipedia.

i wouldn't listen to anti-zg more than i listened to this movie. i'm not very familiar with world economy so i can't really make a statement if this movie is truth or just made up facts (like the old ZG was at parts).

thanks for babysitting though, jerk.

i can't really make a statement if this movie is truth or just made up facts (like the old ZG was at parts).

Well, then an anti-zeitgeist wouldn't do you any good since you'd have to go and fact check it all yourself anyway.

or i could just think "maybe its this way" and "maybe its not this way", like i do with conspiracy theories.

like a discussion, you know?

you're an idiot.

would you care to back that up?

or are we just throwing insults here?

you're a pig

emo!

no wait it's you again.

You are an optimistic, enthusiatic person.

if you knew me irl you wouldnt say it sarcastic :)

actually I didn't mean either statement honestly, since as you said I don't know you. Same as your reply last time, I hope ;)

Many of the economic terms he is using in the film are real world economic practices. And it is true that the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) use things like privitization and trade liberalization as remedys to a certain countrys poor economy. And it is true that in many cases these practices have resulted in the immense failures the movie list. Not to mention Africa and the East Asia Crisis.

Where the movie sort of dies in the arse is when it fails to mention that countries can choose to refuse these fronts by bodies such as the World Bank or IMF and decide there own economic remedys for whatever they see to be the problem with their economy. Ethiopia and South Korea are examples.

And finally, these economic practices have been identfied as backward and not geared toward fixing modern 21st century economies.

'Globalization and it's discontents'' by Joseph Stiglitz is a very informative book if you are interested in learning what this movie attempts to explain but fails.

feel free to fill me in if ive made any mistakes

hah I was like "this sounds familiar!" and then you mentioned the book for my former lectures :D

$

Where the movie sort of dies in the arse is when it fails to mention that countries can choose to refuse these fronts by bodies such as the World Bank or IMF and decide there own economic remedys for whatever they see to be the problem with their economy. Ethiopia and South Korea are examples.

isnt that when they supposedly get assassinated?

Killing someone is validation. Ignoring them works much better.

i was talking about the movie on topic

man, not this crap again...

oh noes, now again, whenever there is some discussion someone will post it saying:

"LOOLZ OPEN UR EYEZZ NEWBSS THRUTH IS HERE"

if the banks control the world, why are they getting raped so badly right now?

from what i've understood its because the economic system is flawed

nah, i think its more cos they all bought things that were advertised as being secure and of value, hoping to get stable interest payments for their investments. Problem was, the 'security' wasnt there, and interest payments starting faltering, due to the fact that the collective income they hoped to see from the mortgage payments were failing... the worst thing is that they bundled those shitty mortgages into all kinds of financial products, so noone really knows whats worth what anymore.

The root of the problem was excessive lending to people who wouldnt be able to pay off the debt if something shook up the system. Essentially; bankers had too much confidence, in eachother and in the belief that growth would never stop. Now, the problem is that a) they have all these worthless assets and are waywayway overstretched in terms of their lending ratios ( the amount of money they lend with respect to how much cash they have in boxes under the bed) and b) they all dont trust each other anymore.

Once the trust and confidence comes back, everything will go back to normalish.

It's the small banks who are getting raped, not the big central bank called FED.

the fed is a consortium of banks amongst other things, not an independant banking entity that generates a profit. at least as far as im aware.

I also wouldnt say that some of the banks were small... such as Fortis or some of the other US investment/Insurance giants...

doesnt matter since the FED is a reptilian conspiracy bent on making us more fat and chewy so that cthulu can have a good meal when he wakes up... :PPP

It's the small banks who are getting raped, not the big central bank called FED.

^ this.

idk i think that free 700 billion dollars those banks are getting is pretty good evidence to support the claims of their status.

Why can't I have a free million dollars ffs :(

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/...;ch=289023 :D

;'(((((((((((((((

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081006150152.aspx

is there a richer guy in the world? ;D

they are not getting the money as a present...

right

Not really free, though.

not all banks lose. some of them win by mergers etc.

The big banking families are not raped at all, they are transferring assets from small time bankers and wannabe yuppies in to their hands. Hell, they just gave themselves almost trillion dollars of tax-payers money and bought huge corporations with couple bucks a share.

The biggest problem in the world is, that most people are too busy entertaining themselves to actually find out how the system works, so they are in the mercy of people running it.

And so you can be aware in the future, FED is making as much money to it's owners as possible just like any corporation is obligated to do. The difference is that you can not buy (or sell) it's shares freely, so it's a private party, serfs not invited.

nice

C:\money created

I'm sure Zeitgeist 3 will come out with the prove that Jamerio is connected with some related things. Zeitgeist 3: Jammerium

ITT: Gullible's Travels

I'd recommend reading through this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125650