Zeitgeist: Part 1 (possible screening)

Submitted by Red Omen on Sun, 06/17/2007 - 11:38pm

Ideas

Jeremy Z put this on Facebook, and the first part is absolutely jawdropping. I watched a couple seconds of the rest, and it looks like Loose Change conspiracy theory bullshit, so we can do without it (in my opinion, and I will protest to my last breath if the rest of you want to show the whole thing).

Here it is. Watch the other parts if you must, but take them with an enormous grain of salt.

The problem I have with

Submitted by chris on Mon, 06/18/2007 - 10:33pm.

The problem I have with showing even just the first part is that since the rest of it is so filled with factual errors, I would demand alot of fact checking on things in the first part. Even if everything in the frist part turned out to be factually correct we would still be having to contend with the guilt by association due to the factual errors of the rest of the film.

Interesting, but only if it's true.

Submitted by regis. on Tue, 06/19/2007 - 3:43pm.

Now if only we had some anthropology experts to comment on the claims of the movie... hmmm, Allie?

Come on. A pope's miter is a fish head...? That's a bit of a pointless stretch.

Bleh

Submitted by Allie on Wed, 06/20/2007 - 1:21am.

I don't have time to watch it. But apparently it isn't all that, so shall I pass on it?

Well I watched a bit of the

Submitted by chris on Tue, 06/19/2007 - 8:37pm.

Well I watched a bit of the first part again, and then did some searches to try to confirm some of their 'facts', and it seems some of them are.... uhmmm..... well, not exactly facts. So I would have to vote 'no' on showing this film.

?

Submitted by carlos on Wed, 06/20/2007 - 12:44am.

What statements are you calling into question, and what are your sources?
---------------------------------
"Alphonse Robert Alda, at the age of two years and three months, finds solace from worldly cares in a briar pipe."

One example is that some of

Submitted by chris on Wed, 06/20/2007 - 6:29pm.

One example is that some of the statements regarding what knowledge was known about astronomy does not match up with when history tells us this knowledge was first required by people in that region of the earth. The slow progression of the stars over long periods of time wasn't known until(the best evidence suggest) around 300 BCE. But the movie out right states that Moses represented the coming of a new age and the bull represents the old age which occured around 2000 BCE. Even if the story of Moses isn't true(which I am sure it isn't) the myth, at least, is about that old. Therefore that can't be the reason he was mad with the people for worshipping the golden bull they made.

After watching more of the movie I have become convinced that people like Jordan Maxwell, David Icke, and Jim Marrs will be associated with it in some way. (Total nut jobs)

P.S. If I am right about people like the aboved mentioned being associated with this movie then there is a reason for the stretch about the pope's fish hat. That reason being the unspoken implication(at least unspoken in the what I have watched, haven't watched all parts yet all yet) that the people running the RCC, even today, know that it is a hoax, and it is all just a big conspiracy to control people to some end. That end most likely being a one world government controlled by a very small group that has existed for thousands of years. Yes, I am talking about the Illuminati.