On Aug 10, 3:08Â pm, turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:> On Aug 10, 12:39Â am, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>> At the end, you will see truth greater than the sum of its parts, (and
>> its parts are perhaps the most challenging ever taking in every major
>> controversy over the millenia.)
>
>> If you find anything worthy of your attention for discussion after
>> this, then go and play with your scalextric set.
>
>> Im going to risk spoiling it for you by pointing to the 'last page',
>> which actually hasnt been written.
>
>> Make a comparison between what is already being introduced, and our
>> dna molecule.
>
>> I dare you !
>
>> BOfL
>
>
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
>
> Any transcription of this to post ot the newsgroup?
>
> I found problems with the "waiting to be dead" idea right off the bat.
>
> Too subjective. Too poetical. Unreal. Bullshit. Childish. Came to the
> same conclusions as a teenager.
Teenager? That figures.
I read CosmicConspiracy in the 70's, was told the auther, Stan Deyo
(ex CIA) was told to leave the US and go as far away as possible..
Perth WA,), the same week I finished it, I was talking, without
knowing it, to his brother in law, while I was conducting his fitness
appraisal, but you havnt had similar experiences, so why would you see
any significance to such events. BTW, similar experiences have
followed me around most of my life.
I strongly sensed much validity in what he was saying, but didnt see
any evidence of the technological requirements to bring it about. Very
clear today.
>
> "A feature article in The Stranger has stated the film is based solely
> on anecdotal evidence, while others have criticized it for using
> unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs,
> quotes, and book citations without page numbers.
One of the first lectures I attended when I started life as a
structural engineering student, was on he foundations of the twin
towers. I dont need anecdotal evidence to inform me that the collapse
of the towers was a pancake effect, and that tower three didnt fall in
sympathy. Probem for people like you, it that because there is
anecdotal evidence, you believe thats all there is, which is a good
protection of your 'status quo'.YOu look for epistemological
evisdence, and yet dont believe the evidence of your own eyes. Look at
plane crach sites, and compare with the Pentagon site. If Bush wanted
to dispel doubts on that part of episode, he could have released the
cctv footage of the event, that was in fact 'classified' instantly.
> In a piece entitled
> "Internet idiocy: the latest pandemic", an opinion piece in the
> Arizona Daily Wildcat refers to the film as "internet bullshit",
> saying that "witty sayings, fear tactics and a cool, assertive air all
> enable them to convince the unwitting public of their points" while
> another in the Irish Times called it "unhinged" and accused it of
> offering nothing but "surreal perversions of genuine issues and
> debates."
Which bits, the myth of Horus, the symbology of paganism. the actions
of GW's grandaddy, the collapse of both towers in the same way by
plaane crash,(absolutely impossible), the removal of the gold
standard, or the 'natural' collapse of the stock markets. The "Irish
Times"? Did you lknow that Irish football is played mostly with the
hands?
Ive said endless times here, believers believe because they havnt yet
figured things out for themselves. When you have, you see clearly the
differenc between infirmation and confirmation.
Fact is, its no big deal as far as Im concerned. Ive had a grasp of
the 'process' for many years now. Im interested only in the 'observer'
not the observation. When the part that you described as 'scary' comes
out, there are some that are capable of recognising confirmation.
Talking of scary, a large %% of the US population were scared wittless
back then, even though as many people died from guns and cars monthly.
Irrational? Of course, but what an environment in which to reduce
constitutional freedoms.
What would you think the adgenda is of people pointing this stuff out?
It s clear as crystal what the agenda of the 'manipiulators' is.
>
> In the Gauntlet, Jordyn Marcellus wrote it was ironic that the film's
> viewers "have blindly followed the documentary without doing their own
> research."
Followed in what way? Taken up arms? There are a %% who will be equally
impressed by both sides of the debate. As usual.
> He states that, though the film is "well-edited and is
> truly compelling", it "glosses over inconvenient facts," uses
> "deceptive filmmaking" and that "for a film that rails against
> deception, there's a lot of deception implicit in its creation."
Such as? The movie is full of citations and historical facts, but
being a movie, one has to interpret the information in front of your
own eyes
>
> On March 10, 2008, director Peter Joseph removed the "Clarifications"
> section from the film's official site, a section which The Gauntlet
> believed "alluded to dishonest filmmaking tactics that would otherwise
> help to discredit the film." It was replaced by a Q&A Section that
> "attempts to smack down" the film's critics."
So you see opportunities for Q and A as a 'smack down attempt'?
That figures also. You do it much of the time.
BOfL
