http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Some will watch some of the movie and think this is bullshit and turn it off without seeing the entire thing. Others will say, what a bunch of nut jobs. Do they really believe this? But to those who do watch the entire thing and keep an open mind I thank you and ask for thoughts on the matter.

I realize it is a long video, but trust me, if you value your life I suggest you watch every second of it

I watched about a quarter of it so far and decided I'd get the torrent and watch the rest through that. There's nothing at all unreasonable about what's been said, indeed some of it seems radical, it's less radical than people who decide to take everything in the bible literally. I would like to see some of the sources on those other gods but honestly couldn't be bothered; it was always well known that Jesus wasn't the first of his kind, he was just the longest lasting (to this day). I do however find it absolutely hilarious that the cross may be an ancient pagan astrology symbol.

EDIT: Will comment again later but two criticisms are that the beginning sequence is boring and redundant, also the voice-over guy is being too direct; they are still only possibilities.

I thought it was sad and depressing...but some of it I do agree upon but others are well just an opinion, one must watch out for opinions and hope that those opinions don't come into fault and judge entirely on what one might believe/think...thanks for sharing the link it was quite interesting to watch

Interesting concept for a film but not very original, and their attempt to go in several different directions at once really hamstrings the film.
As for the the portions on 9/11, being an engineer and having worked with explosives I can probably disprove many of the statements they made regarding the collapse faster than the explosives would have worked.
Its a good thing they are not presenting any of the main items as fact since many of them would fail upon further investigation and use of a wider base of sources.

Part1: I like the ideas presented and it makes sense that any and all religions would be based off astrology. Watching that part actually brings back a lot of my respect for Christianity in regards to its possible mythological origins as well as it's moral code. Unfortunately it's many a moron who takes absolutely everything literally that has crushed my perceptions.

Part2: Well of course many questions could be asked about 9/11 and many things can be said but what's the point. Even if proof was found that the whole thing was a set up who would believe it.....the country will believe whatever its government tells them. Most of those who don't believe the government wont say so of fear of persecution. Others will either leave or be disposed of. It's the way the worlds always been.

Part3: In terms of commercial reign, most of this was obvious and again, there's not much you can do as an individual. Commercial operations rule and unless you can spark large scale revolts, nothings going to change. The more power you have the more chance you'll get away with things, if governments are partially responsible for some of the things this video claims, no one will ever really know.

As Mnemeth said an investigation and wider sources would not support the claims here, it would only result in tail chasing.

thanks to jonny for pointing it out: it was by far the very healthiest torrent i've ever seen.
but that might not matter that much: i bet that most of the people have better things to do than searching for the truth. even if the truth is outthere (to set us free?)
that may be childish, but i hope to live long enough to see a good anime made by this. afterwards
until then, a paraphrase: turn off your tv and stand up. you are real. entertainment is illusion.
thank you for putting it up

My 2cents.

I watched this film last week because a friend from high school recommended it to me, gushing about how very interesting Zeitgeist is, and how it blew him away. Being bored at work anyway I decided to spare 2 hours, even though my friend's descriptions of the film made it sound like another sensationalist conspiracy theorist's wannabe-documentary.

I watched every minute of it. What a sham.

Within the first 2 minutes I knew this was not going to be good. Any decent documentary will not start out with a vague meaningless montage, and for a full 7 minutes nonetheless? For such heavy-weight claims they're about to make, the viewer needs serious hardcore evidence rather than being prepped for upcoming assertions with a bunch of emotional captures of war and 9/11 along with random images of space and the Earth.

Another example of their non-scholarly, subjective approach: They show the Madrid bombings of 2004 when talking about the morning of the London bombings of 2005, for "creative expression and example"; it means they wanted to make a greater emotional impact on the viewer.

The claims in the film are nothing new (e.g. international bankers nonsense) except I personally haven't heard the astrology slant about Christianity before. But my understanding is that their basic astronomy facts are already wrong. I didn't know constellations were not fixed relative to each other and moved around and lined up only on certain days of the year. wtf?

And I'm certainly not a conspiracy theory buff, but I've heard the 9/11 stuff before. I'm also certain that someone doing real research has debunked them already. So I won't get into that.

Speaking of research, the Sources page was ludicrous.

The religion segment gives a special thanks to Acharya S for her consultation. red flag. Then I notice that I've never heard of many of these publishers/publications before...for good reason. For example, The Book Tree is a publisher that take it upon themselves to enlighten the public and provide them with "controversial" material "that would otherwise not be available", aka stuff no respectable publisher will publish. What kind of well-researched documentary takes information indiscriminately from dubious sources?

So as I'm sure you can gather, I had a very difficult time taking the film with any seriousness. My opinion:

Zeitgeist is aimed at the average ignorant gullible individuals who are not intellectually curious (aka too lazy to do research on their own and check up on the facts), and people who are already inclined to believe the film's message.

There is nothing wrong with questioning authority/reality and searching for the 'truth', but it is offensive to attempt to disillusion people with questionable 'facts' put together to make groundless claims that the filmmaker obliquely asserts as truth.

There was only one, real solid thing this movie taught me:
Knowledge is power and the key to self-independent freedom in today's world. Otherwise, you're simply not going to get very far. Because what are you indeed, if you have your education taken away? Just ask yourself that, where would you be if you had no secondary school nor university study? You'd be almost no different from a slave, really.

I believe in what buddha said and did so I don´t believe in god or any "higher energy/power"
I believe in the skills of human

I saw this a bit ago when someone else posted it somewhere else saying it was a proof that religion is false or something. Well, i saw the first half hour anyway, which was all the guy asked us to see, and I'm not in a place where i can watch the rest now anyway.

In any case, its compelling in some ways, but not for intelligent reasons. Interestingly, most of it is just in presentation and emotional appeal, showing imagery and tone, and phrasing in just such a way as to make you think about a thing the way they want you to, but didn't really make intellectual arguments as much as they want you to believe. They did do some, but not that much.

They also had alot of inaccuracies on the Christian side, which also makes me suspicious on how accurate they were on the other sides which i know less about.
For instance: They claimed that one of the Egyptian hyroglyphs showed several parts of the story of Jesus in relation to Horus, including the Immaculate Conception. Thing is, I didn't see the Immaculate Conception there, and they didn't actually point it out. I think they didn't actually k now what the Immaculate Conception is, like many. The Immaculate Conception is the conception of Mary. This also isn't in the bible and wasn't really doctrinated until around the 19th century, maybe a bit earlier.

Also, when they show the art of Jesus with the Halo with a cross behind his head, thats not ACTUALLY a cross in the Halo. I thought so too until I had taken courses and studied the art involving such imagery. You might think that the lower part of that "cross" is being blocked by Jesus' head and neck, but its actually not there. Its supposed to be three rays, which represent Jesus as a member of the Trinity. In rare instances that such art shows the Father or Holy Spirit, they have the same. And theres even one image of the Trinity which uses such style, but has each one with only one of the rays, Jesus with the left ray, Holy Spirit with the top, and Father with the right.

In some of their examples of connections, they seemed to be pulling at rather far fetched straws. There seems to be no real reason for how they intereprete some things, like the following of the water jug carrier, except to suit their argument.

Also, the thing with the 12 apostles doesn't hold that well. You see, thats quite clearly, if anything, related to the twelve tribes of Israel. Now, Israel/Jacob and his sons are generally considered historical figures, but they don't really have to be for this relation to be the case. The fact is, Israel or not, there were 12 close together tribes that claimed common ancestry and each associated with one of 12 brothers. These tribes constituted individual nations/governmental/social bodies which made up a loose confederacy for a time. These tribes later united under one kingdom with a line of kings and a more centralized governmental system, and expanded their land for a while, although they kept their basic heritage associations with the various brothers, and the original tribal land areas and boundaries were still considered. Later, the one nation split into two nations based on the various tribes going to one or the other, the land and people of 10 tribes went into the northern Kingdom, and 2 went to the southern kingdom. Later of course both were conquered at various times by various groups, but the descendents did keep in mind the 12 tribes as it was rather important to their culture, and even represented in some situations a class distinction, such as with the Levites being of a priestly class.

There are a various other issues with that part. But i do find it also interesting that other scholars like, say, C.S. Lewis saw much of the same information, or gathered it themselves, and came to very different conclusions. For instance, in C.S. Lewis' "Abolition of Man", he lists in the appendix the progression of the moral law and various things and displays the writings from many sources, including the Book of the Dead, Confusious, and others, and doesn't say that they are the same, but evolutions of each other, which is interesting because zeitgeist took one of the same comparisons and ignored their differences and instead said they were simply equivalent, whereas C.S. Lewis says that they are very similar and do end up saying almost the same thing, but one goes slightly further than the other showing a kind of evolution in moral code.

The cross idea is a bit interesting though, seeing as how we very much do know that people really were crucified at that time and other times and areas on crosses, which is where the Christians get theirs from, and that part of the reason such a form was used was because it was an effective way of displaying great suffering to those who opposed whoever, and was very, very painful indeed. But, Christians didn't use the cross as their symbol for little while, and the circle thing isn't all that common, although in non-protostant uses, a Crucifix is common, which is the cross with a body on it, which is a bit different than the pagan symbol. But in any case, alot of pagan things have been taken and turned into Christian things, for cultural and conversional reasons, and aren't really that problematic.

There are loads more issues to point out and discuss, but i think i've been typing long enough.