Zeitgeist - Movies

[Mr I]

How long have you been off test? Your mind is wondering big time bro. Only thing I know about illuminati was 2pac called himself that. Lol

Nah, he was a big time believer in its existence, as was John Lenon, Bob Marley and many others

The film was interesting as others have said, just saying, not like you have to watch it

[Mr I]

Carl Sagan has been dead for over15 years thus he wasn't part of the movie.

They used his name and clips of him to twist his words and take him out of context to try and back up their propaganda horse shit.

Oh I see, well einstein has been dead a while too but the theory of relativity is still er 'relevent'

[Bouncer]

carl was a man of science, not conspiracy and propaganda.

Carl Sagan - 'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Symphony of Science) - YouTube

[Bouncer]

Oh I see, well einstein has been dead a while too but the theory of relativity is still er 'relevent'

you said "carl is in the movie" as to imply he was part of the movie. you know what you were implying in order to try and get me to watch that rubbish.

[Mr I]

carl was a man of science, not conspiracy and propaganda.

Carl Sagan - 'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Symphony of Science) - YouTube

so now your saying the movie is propaganda? what because Scrum spouted some hyperbole and you were impressed with some long words strung together lol!

seriously fuck off you retard, I watched it and enjoyed it, thats all, if you don't want to watch it then cool but don't drag me into an argument about the content of it when you haven't even fucking watched it because I won't take you seriously, I can't because you haven't watched it.

Take you shot FFS:rofl:

[Mr I]

you said "carl is in the movie" as to imply he was part of the movie. you know what you were implying in order to try and get me to watch that rubbish.

Don't watch it bouncer, done.

[Bouncer]

so now your saying the movie is propaganda? what because Scrum spouted some hyperbole and you were impressed with some long words strung together lol!

seriously fuck off you retard, I watched it and enjoyed it, thats all, if you don't want to watch it then cool but don't drag me into an argument about the content of it when you haven't even fucking watched it because I won't take you seriously, I can't because you haven't watched it.

Take you shot FFS:rofl:

Just a quick glance at the wiki link YOU posted tells me all i need to know.

"Conspiracy theory and propaganda
A review in The Irish Times entitled "Zeitgeist: the Nonsense" wrote that "these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."[25] Other reviews have characterized the film as "conspiracy crap",[26] "based solely on anecdotal evidence" and "fiction couched in a few facts",[27] or disparaging reference is made to its part in the 9/11 truth movement.[18]
Some journalists have focused on it as an example of how conspiracy theories are promulgated in the Internet age. For example, Ivor Tossell in the Globe and Mail argued that contradictions in the film are overwhelmed by passion and effective use of video editing:
The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular.... It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context. It derides the media as a pawn of the International Bankers, but produces media reports for credibility when convenient. The film ignores expert opinion, except the handful of experts who agree with it. And yet, it's compelling. It shamelessly ploughs forward, connecting dots with an earnest certainty that makes you want to give it an A for effort.[28]
Filipe Feio, reflecting upon the film's Internet popularity in Diário de Notícias, stated that "Fiction or not, Zeitgeist: The Movie threatens to become the champion of conspiracy theories of today."[29]
Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, mentioned Zeitgeist in an article in Scientific American on skepticism in the age of mass media and the postmodern belief in the relativism of truth. He argues that this belief, coupled with a "clicker culture of mass media", results in a multitude of various truth claims packaged in "infotainment units", such as Zeitgeist, Loose Change, Poltergeist or The Twilight Zone.[30]
Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, called Zeitgeist "a fast-paced assemblage of agitprop", an example of unethical film-making.[31] She accuses Peter Joseph of "implicit deception" through the use of unreferenced and undated assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, "comically" self-defeating, the nature of "twisted evidence" and use of Madrid bomb footage to imply it is of the London bombings amount to ethical abuse in sourcing. In later versions of the movie a subtitle is added to this footage identifying it as from the Madrid bombings. She finishes her analysis with the comment:
Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film's determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.
TheMarker[9] characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. TheMarker also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity." TheMarker wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by the Irish Times[25] (see above). TheMarker further wrote that Joseph is now trying to distance himself as far as possible from the conspiracy claims of the first film, and that an updated version of the film, released in 2010, dropped the claim on the unification of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. TheMarker additionally wrote that Joseph said that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because the claims are designed to create a dramatic effect. In addition, TheMarker also quotes Joseph as saying: "You need to make the information you present compelling, otherwise people get bored to death. So some people think I'm extreme, what can I do."[9][32]"

[Bouncer]

Don't watch it bouncer, done.

thats like saying dont join the KKK black fella. you dont have to tell me, i was never going too. :rofl:

[Mr I]

Just a quick glance at the wiki link YOU posted tells me all i need to know.

"Conspiracy theory and propaganda
A review in The Irish Times entitled "Zeitgeist: the Nonsense" wrote that "these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."[25] Other reviews have characterized the film as "conspiracy crap",[26] "based solely on anecdotal evidence" and "fiction couched in a few facts",[27] or disparaging reference is made to its part in the 9/11 truth movement.[18]
Some journalists have focused on it as an example of how conspiracy theories are promulgated in the Internet age. For example, Ivor Tossell in the Globe and Mail argued that contradictions in the film are overwhelmed by passion and effective use of video editing:
The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular.... It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context. It derides the media as a pawn of the International Bankers, but produces media reports for credibility when convenient. The film ignores expert opinion, except the handful of experts who agree with it. And yet, it's compelling. It shamelessly ploughs forward, connecting dots with an earnest certainty that makes you want to give it an A for effort.[28]
Filipe Feio, reflecting upon the film's Internet popularity in Diário de Notícias, stated that "Fiction or not, Zeitgeist: The Movie threatens to become the champion of conspiracy theories of today."[29]
Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, mentioned Zeitgeist in an article in Scientific American on skepticism in the age of mass media and the postmodern belief in the relativism of truth. He argues that this belief, coupled with a "clicker culture of mass media", results in a multitude of various truth claims packaged in "infotainment units", such as Zeitgeist, Loose Change, Poltergeist or The Twilight Zone.[30]
Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, called Zeitgeist "a fast-paced assemblage of agitprop", an example of unethical film-making.[31] She accuses Peter Joseph of "implicit deception" through the use of unreferenced and undated assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, "comically" self-defeating, the nature of "twisted evidence" and use of Madrid bomb footage to imply it is of the London bombings amount to ethical abuse in sourcing. In later versions of the movie a subtitle is added to this footage identifying it as from the Madrid bombings. She finishes her analysis with the comment:
Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film's determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.
TheMarker[9] characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. TheMarker also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity." TheMarker wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by the Irish Times[25] (see above). TheMarker further wrote that Joseph is now trying to distance himself as far as possible from the conspiracy claims of the first film, and that an updated version of the film, released in 2010, dropped the claim on the unification of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. TheMarker additionally wrote that Joseph said that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because the claims are designed to create a dramatic effect. In addition, TheMarker also quotes Joseph as saying: "You need to make the information you present compelling, otherwise people get bored to death. So some people think I'm extreme, what can I do."[9][32]"

So your quoting an irish times review, a country that its basically a theocracy of catholic faith and suprise suprise they're against something that denounces religion as bullshit?! Newsflash, you also denounce religion so if the irish times were to review you they would be equally as damming!

You quoting the irish times is like the kkk quoting malcolm x in support of their argument

[Bouncer]

So your quoting an irish times review, a country that its basically a theocracy of catholic faith and suprise suprise they're against something that denounces religion as bullshit?! Newsflash, you also denounce religion so if the irish times were to review you they would be equally as damming!

You quoting the irish times is like the kkk quoting malcolm x in support of their argument

just because the movie happens to take a dim view on religion does not mean its not a bunch of bullshit.

its clear what the movie does. it does exactly what I do when i compare branch and Phil. i use arguments and pics that are convenient for phil while ignoring any positives or pluses for branch.

the movie did 1 thing very well, editing. they took things out of context and used the media when it was beneficial to them to tell their story.

[Mr I]

Until you have experience of the topic please refrain from commenting further

[Bouncer]

Until you have experience of the topic please refrain from commenting further

the people involved with the Salem Witch Trials or hunt for bigfoot had much experience in those subject. it doesnt mean they have a fucken clue what they were doing or saying anymore then me on the subject.

bullshit is bullshit. you dont need to taste a turd to know its shit.

now kindly stfu and get back to hormona mr i that i like instead of fucken creeper weirdo mr i. :thumup:

[Mr I]

the people involved with the Salem Witch Trials or hunt for bigfoot had much experience in those subject. it doesnt mean they have a fucken clue what they were doing or saying anymore then me on the subject.

bullshit is bullshit. you dont need to taste a turd to know its shit.

now kindly stfu and get back to hormona mr i that i like instead of fucken creeper weirdo mr i. :thumup:

Totally irrelevent and retarded comments, like I says, don't watch it, heaven forbid you actually get to know the subject matter before blurting out your comments:thumup:

[Bouncer]

like I says, heaven forbid

what southern state are you from again? :rofl:

[Bouncer]

here mr i. you wanna learn something check out real science and ideas!

TED: Ideas worth spreading