If you have 2 hours, and want to know more about Christianity, our government, 9/11 and the national debt, take the time to watch this. Or not, whatever.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

**WARNING**
In my personal opinion, this movie might seem disturbing to someone who is a devout Christian.

In wikipedia non est, ergo non est.

Yeah, you're probably right. If you can't find it on Wikipedia, it doesn't exist, right?

"Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper."

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

Why not? This implies that these people can't have an open mind and accept what they view... I'm extremely conservative (not in the neo-conservative way), but I'll definitely give this shot when I have the time.

Is it a "The government caused the towers to collapse" video? If so, what is there argument. Right now, I am too lazy to watch it...

I suppose that needs an edit; meant no offense.. I just meant to say "watch out" because there's some information in that movie that really challenges what many of us have been taught our whole lives.

The Scientific Method in a nutshell:
Generate a hypothesis, experiment/research ALL aspects of a problem, then come to conclusion based on ALL of the research

The Conspiracy Method in a nutshell:
Make up a conclusion, experiment/research parts of a problem that seem relevant, then fortify that conclusion by throwing out all results that contradict the argument.

When a video uses "Loose Change" as a source, I find it very difficult to imagine the rest of the video isn't just as illogical.

Apart from that: I imagine about 95% of the people who watch this video either have done little to no research on the subjects and/or will not do any more in the future. This is very unfortunate, as it breeds multitudes of individuals who think that, by watching a single video, they have stumbled upon some secret treasure trove of knowledge and understanding that is a sufficient substitute for study and research.

Skip the first 5", complete waste of your life...

Oh, and nothing like showing emotional imagery, to try and make your rational argument... (I know that I have only watched the first 5 retarded wasted minutes, but I prefer for someone to just leave the bullshit out when they make an argument, not show some stupid emotion-inducing pictures/imagery...)

Yes, George Carlin is what will sway me...

Wait, we have 12 jurors in the jury box. Does that mean that they represent the 12 constellations and that the judge represents the sun???? This reminds me on the thing a while ago where they tried to pick letters out of the bible at even intervals so they could "decipher" things...

EDIT:: BIBLE CODES OOOOOOOOOHHHH

and they ran the same cypher with moby dick, and got similair results ? gotta love conspiracy theorists. they give me a baseline for "crazy" and thus entertain me.

First of all, if we're going to say something is illogical, we should logically explain why this is so, or cite a source that does.

It's probably true that the strong majority will not do any research on their own, which is unfortunate, but also completely expected. If citizens felt the need to prove to themselves some discovery in science, things would get out of control. The truth is, no one has the time (or resources) to do the work for themselves, so researchers do. Hence, this film. Like all things, it should be taken for what it is - information - not absolute and final truth.

I'm not going to personally defend this movie, but I will say that it succeeded in raising my interest in the questions surrounding why we're in this war, and what may or may not be in store for us in the near future because of it.

They have a list of references. Check it out:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm

If that's what they represent to you, then sure. I found a lot of the stuff about Jesus interesting, but confusing as well.

I thought the part about the sun lowering in the sky on Dec.22 for three days across the Crux constellation then rising again on Dec. 25 was the most fascinating thing in the whole movie, as was the explanation of why we celebrate easter when we do.

Also, the part about the federal reserve and its privatization in the early 20th century.... Wow.

On evoking emotions to sway people:

GW Bush evoked strong patriotic emotions for winning over our country, but he presented no substantial evidence to justify his decisions. The only justification he gave was 9/11, time after time. While a strong motivator, this was not evidence. We need to open our eyes to this, and begin to see things for ourselves.

If you will recall (and most people choose not to) our country was in a state of panic after 9/11, and I remember the VAST majority of Americans saying something to the affect of, "Its been two weeks why haven't we nuked someone over this?" Although it is not the popular belief now Bush was criticized by both parties for waiting as long as he did. A plane hitting the side of a building is what won us over, not Bush. Has he used these emotional images and rhetoric to attempt and keep support in his war efforts? Of course, all presidents would. The bottom line is America lead Bush into this war originally.

If you want to see things for yourself don't follow some low effort, moronic, biased conspiracy theory film. Find out yourself. Watch multiple films and draw your own conclusions. Come on, a soap opera writer could have created that crap.

This is all without mentioning the fact that they you totally ignore his original criticism. When he says, "Don't use emotional imagery, use facts." You say, "...but Bush did it." So since Bush is a hack for allegedly using such tactics, we can agree that this video is a hack for doing the same."

I have done research on some of the subjects portrayed in the film. Since a) my findings are very different from those given in the film and b) the other subjects don't concern me, I come up with my own logical assumption that, if I were to research the other subjects presented, I would likely find their claims lacking substantiation.



That list is BOGUS. Let us take, for example, the part 2 source list. It is a list of 'sources' who did research on the 9/11 CONSPIRACY: that it was an inside job; each of those sources nitpicked their findings in order to support their conclusion... NOT ONE of those sources is substantial i.e. a peer-reviewed journal or published data report. Another example of 'the conspiracy method.'



Alright then: an easier task. Take a two or three tidbits of information out of each part, and do a quick background check on it. Look at the context from which various quotations are pulled, etc. Conspiracy theorists love to remove things from context in order to make their claim.