So funny when religious people feel it neccessary to try to "prove" that they don't believe in BS. He tries to portray himself as logical and he talks a lot about science but he doesn't really address anything really compelling about the movie. Total word salad. lmao;)
I really don't get how this debunks zeitgeist. I can't believe that people with the info that we have now that they would believe the mythology of the Bible. I wish people would wake up so we could get rid of religion altogether. That would end so many of the worlds problems....so glad to see that more people disliked this more than liked it. There is hope for people yet;)
I really don't get how this debunks zeitgeist. I can't believe that people with the info that we have now that they would believe the mythology of the Bible. So weird. I wish people would wake up so we could get rid of religion altogether. That would end so many of the worlds problems....
@MrDannyVolt Never gonna give you up or anyone, Mr. DannyVolt. Episode one and two will get a remake someday, don't worry. Overall though, the series did get through to its creator who has since changed his tone and format, following the path of better citation and prime sources in his newest film (well the first half of it anyways). That and all the thank you letters I get from people who now can't believe they took so much at face value, made it very much worth my time. =)
lol all this video shows, is that the dude who made it is just butt hurt that he found out that jesus was as credible as santa claus and the boogey man, and is just trying to prove the Zeitgeist director wrong, which he failed miserable, Zeitgeist is built on facts which can be found in modern museums and history books world wide. Thumbs up if you think this kid sounded outta breath with his feeble little girl body turning red in anger after he watched Zeitgeist :P get wrecked scrub
@ZeroUnlmtd No, I was very hurt in the head trying to follow the sources that supposedly grounded this work however. I do not care what Truth is so long as you seek it out fully. Coming up with your own version based off of phone-tag is simply not acceptable in a society where you can find a book at the click of a button and check the sources to see where all this info supposedly came from. Someone trying to start a movement shouldget it done right. Watch the rest of the series. 3 on is better
@VinnfordSansbury are you retarded? their facts were founded in the original copies of any publication they've researched, not some app on an iPhone, yet again your still wrong, u obviously didn't search for their sources because they're clearly listed and easily accessible, which most of the symbols of the zodiak and the ages are on scriptures and paintings in MUSEUMS you moron, look kid nobody is telling you not to believe in jesus or allah or whatever disney character you prefer to worship
@ZeroUnlmtd The whole series is about examining these sources he listed, but as I discovered most were poorly executed with mutated information at each step until it was totally different than the original. So prove me wrong. Go ahead and find some information that disproves any of the mistakes made by the author that I pointed out. If there is something that I overlooked, I will gladly correct the video. In one of the videos I actually contacted a museum. I think you'll like it.
@ZeroUnlmtd - I guess the name sums up the mentality. If you really have to comment, state something of substance with fact and not some mumbo jumbo regurgitation of what Zeitgeist claims. Zeitgeist may well be based on facts which can be found in history books and museums but so too can facts about Jesus' existence and facts written about in the Bible. Do some more research Dude.
@arfabee2010 so what museum has jesus' body in there? or better yet what history book has jesus in it? sure the gregorian calendar goes by B.C. and A.D. but since our gregorian calendar is a copy of the mayan calendar with jesus and pals in it its not a very reliable source now is it, and if you wanna talk about mumbo jumbo go figure why more than half of the world doesn't even use our calendar or the A.D. in their years ..... nigger the only mumbo jumbo on this page is the video itself
@ZeroUnlmtd - I guess the name sums up the mentality. If you really have to comment, state something of substance with fact and not some mumbo jumbo regurgitation of what Zeitgeist claims. Zeitgeist may well be based on facts which can be found in history books and museums but so too can facts about Jesus' existence and facts written about in the Bible. Do some more research Dude.
each one of us has to take his or her own path to find the real truth that has been been forbidden from us. I'm not saying that that the Movie is completely correct, but personally, even as someone who was raised catholic all my life, this path and or knowledge that I'm taking makes far more sense that anything than anything that Ive ever "felt" in my soul. I wish you good luck, but you have to understand that more and more people are following theirselves nw rather than what is embedded
@awakeningmysoul I am a hard-core scholar. I do not find the truth to be lame at all, but if you can find error in what is said here please enlighten me.
@boumar19721972 Where in my videos did you see me trying to prove Jesus was real because the Bible said so? Did you even watch the series? I really think you should do that first before making me out to be some fundamentalist. The point of the series is not to determine if Jesus existed, rather show people how flawed the citations are in order to help them sort out how much of this stuff used to support the argument was true to begin with. Please watch all the videos and comment again.
i like that you made filims about Zeitgeist and the way you handle it with citing sources etc. but i got the impression that you dont really understood some of the sentences you quoted.
The film has nothing to do with The Zeitgeist Movement.
Further, if a film presents a quote from some guy. Does that mean the film maker and its followers need to belive in evrything the guy said? Thats just ridiculus, and thats how u base ur arguments.
This isn't just one youtube clip, its a series that honestly hasn't been finished yet. When it is, we're going to take the most relavent parts and put them in the final version. Episodes one and two focus on the overall philosophies that the film introduces to the viewer before presenting their argument. The tone of these supporting quotations set the tone for the rest of the film.
God willing hopefully the zeitgeist [ born into this world destined to be in the unknown-ed group ] will be shown the truest path. my sympathy & empathy to them all. please do more research, study, reasoning, logic......IN religion & science admission of a created being been created by A CREATOR
I'm not arguing. I'm stating a fact that this "now is the now" philosophy is scientifically inaccurate. The movie promotes feeling stuff out instead of thinking about it logically. I'm trying to show people that kind of thinking is backwards and that we should adopt the opposite mindset.
Point 4 "we actually experience fantastic precision, always,"
We all experience precision but whether we are aware of this precision and can process it correctly is a different matter. Our actions do not have to be precise in order to experience precision. When he talks about experiencing, it doesn't mean the process of interpretation which is the way you took it to be.
also point 3 to say NOW is not NOW just because we can not process the information quickly fast enough is false.
Finally, someone who has a solid argument against this who is on point. You sir win the secret award for arguing straight to the point without assumption. It is the perception of humanity that is flawed though, which hinders our experience. Though one could argue we DO experience some precision and observe the precision of the universe, always is just too broad. Quantum mechanics must also account for a level of chaos and is a science of probability. As for now, its just not so definitive.
A latency between external events and internal cognitive recognition is not a good enough reason for us to say we don't experience 'now'!
You assume that 'now' is external to consciousness somehow, yet it is arguable that 'now' is not some external point in time but the internal point of perception. Why do are you so certain that your definition of 'now' is applicable to the 'now' as talked about by the guy in the film?
Man that sucks! I've never realised the lack of consideration you 'tri-milleninarians' must suffer from in everyday life. People really should be more aware of this issue!
An external event may precede my coginition of that event but that doesn't define what now is as far as I am concerned because everything that happens 'now' is not external to us.
If I feel happy I experience that now!
If I think of a magical chicken named Wrinkly-Sam. I am experiencing that now!
Which means your sight is flawed in relative to some arbitary standard. From the point of view of 'blindness' your sight is 'superior'.
In pure terms of 'experience' your relative 'poor sight' is (I assume) unhindered as another's ability to experience their relative good sight.
Poor sight may subjectively hinder certain experiences in certain circumstances. But whether that can be extrapolated to be true in all situations for all people is to me, suspect.
You're convinced, obviously, that these conspiracies are true, that the US government and its corporate puppet masters engineered 9/11, that Jesus never existed and that Christianity was just a corruption of ancient pagan astrotheology by the rulers to control the unwashed masses through fear and abuse. Right? If you don't believe that, it's pretty cynical to use that to support some project.
all the known planets in the universe (apart from earth) are barren of life, so we're the exception. are you arguing that humans are alien to nature? Gaiaism is religion. all animals "damage" the biosphere. want examples? see cattle gas effect on global warming, see invasive species, etc. earth has no feelings and cares nothing for anything. it's a ball of rock with some life on top of it, and doesn't know or care if it thrives or dies.
Global warming is very debatable, so you are incorrect there. Cow's have been around for how long? And if they do affect anything, it's because of the unnatural mass production of cows by man. Invasive species is caused by man's tampering with nature, so you incorrect again. As for present day scientific knowledge, there is the possibility of, what some may perceive as "god". However the closest concept that it could be compared to is Gaia, not Jesus. BigSteelGuy nailed it in a previous comment
Perhaps I should have called it "Global Climate Change." In any case, it's pretty clear that living species are having an effect on it. If we humans can have an effect, it's not a stretch at all to think that millions of cattle can't have an effect either. Even if we are indirectly causing it by corporate farming methods, it's still something beyond "industrial pollution." The phrase "tampering with nature" is problematic, because humans are part of nature and always will be.
I would be careful how you use the term Gaia. It's a very broad and mostly scientific term. Although derived from mysticism, only a small majority that follow the Gaia pholosophy see it as a deity. It has a close connection to Pantheism, and the same can be said for it as well. Many great minds in history believed in scientific Pantheism and the Gaia philosophy.
Well if understood in a mystical way, then it is religion, not science.
It doesn't matter how many "great minds" believed in Pantheism or philosophy, scientifically speaking, than believed in Theism or Atheism. Given your disdain for the beliefs of others, it would be highly hypocritical, I think, for you to try to defend certain religious beliefs as untouchable.
My philosophy is the two should never contradict. Ha ha. This part is just about the intro and whats technically true and untrue etc. As far as 9/11 and the Fed I am going line by line so that will come later.
So why is that religious people are told they're delusional and utopian, but then people think you can do the same things religion can do "in a totally peaceful way" using only human effort? Is that really so much more realistic? I think both this attitude and the "we're too stupid to deserve to live" arguments are just shallow whining, honestly.
So why is that religious people are told they're delusional and utopian.
>>>
People say that you are delusional because you believe in something that has no proof to support it. That's kinda the definition of delusional. And judging by history alone I would have to say that religion is definitely dystopian. I find it to be an insult that you would even compare something like the Venus Project to mans corrupt creation of "religion".
There is not a lot of personal improvement involved with donating money to the Venus Project either. Maybe if people just went and DID it without worrying about the money there would be some deeds to match their "faith" in the project.
Until you actually learn about the Venus Project you should refrain from offering your distorted opinions. The project is based on common sense, don't compare it to irrational shit like religion. Scientology is just as foolish as any other religion.
I don't consider it a conspiracy. How many people need to accept this theory before it's not labeled as a conspiracy? There are millions. And I do know a fair amount of history. Especially political history in the last 100 years. Which is why I fully support ZG. There's probably not a single aspect of government that's not corrupt. The Venus Project is a workable theory. It's not the end all be all of world change. Jacque said himself that smarter people could and will improve upon it.
The theory is that there is a vast conspiracy. It doesn't matter how many people believe in it (you of all people should appreciate the logic of that statement). Rather, it is whether that theory can be established VIA HARD EVIDENCE beyond reasonable doubt. Not mere innuendo, not mere "suspicion." Otherwise it is merely something taken on faith, on hearsay. Lots of people believe in ghosts, UFOs, and dozens of contradictory conspiracies. Many people believe in creationism. Doesn't make them true
I'll rephrase this a little. Religion is based on very vague proof. As in Christianity's case, there is more solid proof against it than vague proof to support it.
The trouble is that conspiracy theorists will always get in trouble for "not citing sources" so what they end up doing is giving an impressive list of footnotes and links... trouble is that this might as well be sawdust filler, because the sources they come from are worthless. failing that, they'll use real sources (hoping nobody will check them) but take them out of context. you can actually cite somebody who is saying the opposite of what you're saying, such that it looks like they agree.
And the same could be said for the opposite side. Blah Blah Blah, arguing just for the sake of arguing. A generalized comment to all "conspiracy theorists". This is the way it is huh?
Obviously "Peter Joseph" thinks Dorothy Murdock is a genuine researcher and wants to use her work to support his claims. She obviously supports his work. No conspiracy in that, just facts. If "Peter Joseph" didn't want conspiracy nutjobs on his side, why did he construct a "documentary" that combined the top three conspiracy theories of the day, borrowed from other films, into one movie and pitch it to the "truth" community?
I just find it funny that supporters of the establishment like to ignore all the horrible things that the US government does on a daily basis and then act like they are innocent on other matters. It's absolutely beyond ridiculous. Even though the government is destroying their lives in every turn they still want to support it. Talk about sheep. And this irrational religious logic plays right into that. I feel ashamed for the average intelligence of the people. (Cont.)
I think it's funny, Shukuri23, that you started talking about "supporters of the establishment" as if somehow that is what I was saying all along. By pointing out the faulty logic and flawed conclusions of a conspiracy theory, I am not de facto a "supporter of the establishment." I think criticisms of the government, corporations, religion, etc. should be based on solid logic and evidence, not this kind of nonsense. You do more harm to the cause of truth by promoting that bs.
Sorry XSC, but you seem to be a total supporter of the establishment. Why else would you, or anyone else for that matter, try to debate the complete common sense talked about in addendum. I find it slightly acceptable for someone to say "it will never work". I guess I just have more education and/or don't turn a blind eye to the evils of the government. There is seriously not a single aspect of this "corpratocracy" that does not seek to fuck you over for profit.
Why don't you SHOW US this "100% evidence." Simply because it came out of "Peter Joseph's" mouth doesn't mean squat. millions of websites exist proclaiming everything as "truth" from big foot to the loch ness monster. that's called hearsay. show us the evidence. again you've strawmanned everyone here who doesn't believe in your precious ZG. are you even listening?
You've already seen it. If you have a problem with it, then look into it yourself. Most of it relies on common sense (i.e. the monetary system), and if you don;t have common sense then I can't help you.
I was referring to Addendum. Which you, yourself have told me that you haven't watched. Youy would need to watch ZG addendum, Designing the Future and Read the Venus Project PDF to even be able to form a proper opinion. And also listen to the questions adressed about the VP on ZG's Bi-weekly BlogTalkRadio show.
(Cont) And then the supporters of the establishment want to create derogatory terms to insult anyone who disagrees with it, like "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" and lump them in as a group. How many times does the government have to totally fuck your life before you've had enough of it? It would not be that difficult to completely change the world tomorrow, in a completely peaceful way. Sadly people have been made too stupid, lazy and indoctrinated by the establishments to care. (cont)
I'm mad at the government for a reason, very good reasons in fact. You should be too. ZERO EVIDENCE IN FAVOR????? AND MUCH AGAINST????? You're kidding right? Have you been living in a cave? You can say whatever you want about, what you would call "coincidental evidence" of religion. But governmental parts of ZG are backed by 100% evidence and none against (although the debunkers have tried and failed every time). I'm done with you. I can't debate such a closed mind.
I wasn't referring to the religious part. But zero evidence! What a blatantly stupid comment. Be careful on the 9/11 parts of ZG. A lot of NIST's claims completly disregard the laws of physics. And also remember that some of Peter's arguments are based on probability. And the probabilities are usually highly in favor of his claims.
No wiggle room for your closed mind, is what I think you meant to say. The majority of ZG pt. 1 can be found in the Egyptian "Book of the Dead". It's a pre-Christian source and it's right there in black and white for you to read, no if's, and or but's about it. And I've found many other things in the "book" as well that were not mentioned before. But fear not, if you are too lazy to read it, I will present it to you and the rest of the world in long overdue time.
I'm not mad at the government for made up reasons (ie: "9/11 was an inside job" "want to plant rfid tags into us to control us" "banks started all wars in the world to get rich" "christianity created by the state to control masses"). Neither should you be. don't live in a fantasy
9/11 was an inside job. WTC7 anyone? RFID's are currently being used and have been used in the past for shady reasons. Banks may not have started all the wars, but they certainly got rich off of them. Just look at Haliburton. And religion has to be, by far, the best way to control the masses.
(cont) They would rather go learn about what Tom Cruise is doing in his personal life, instead of learning a little about what their government is doing around them. Honestly, sometimes I think this world would be so much better off if humanity never existed. The majority of people's stupidity just completely goes against the betterment of the world. The struggle seems almost pointless. Maybe I'll just become a robot too.
Honestly, sometimes I think this world would be so much better off if humanity never existed.
>>>
You speak as if "the world" is an intelligent being who has feelings and such. Is this what you meant? I don't think a ball of rock and water "cares" about anything, much less what some intelligent animals on its surface think or say (or even do). The self proclaimed "humanity is a disease of stupidity" elitist talk is really cliched though.
Again this is where your limited view on "god" that your religion has taught you comes into play. Earth is basically a singular living organism. This is Einstein's theory all over again. And it is a fact that humanity is destroying it. Animals don't destroy the earth in any way whatsoever, only humans. And yes I do consider myself above that, cliche or not. Are you honestly trying to actually tell me humans are not destroying our planet??? Really???
If you throw out Gerald Massey (and by necessity Dorothy Murdock aka "Acharya S" who is dependent upon him), you lose a huge chunk of the "authority" behind "Peter Joseph's" claims in part 1. If I wrote a masters thesis on Church history and took 1/3rd of my citations from Alexander Hislop, unless I was doing a history of conspiracy theories or something, it would be a failing grade
It's "Peter Joseph's" responsibility to check the veracity of the sources he's quoting from to promote his arguments, wouldn't you say?
though the folks who blindly believe him (and his sources) seem utterly hypocritical, as they turn and attack people for questioning those, when supposedly the whole point was to "question what you read/hear." apparently only conspiracy theorists are infallible
Horribly put. This stupid comment completely disregards the facts of nature and science. This world can only function as a whole. Yes, water may not "care" as you put it, but all the other lifeforms who need it to survive do care if it's rendered undrinkable.
not so, the earth, like all other planets "functions" just fine without any biological life. Your own statement that the world would be "better off" without humanity betrays your acceptance of this. It's the belief that somehow the human species is against nature is what you're stuttering with. the "earth" is not a being that has cares or desires or goals. to say so would be a faith claim. so don't mock my god while expecting me to worship yours
Biological life is a part of Earth. So the term Earth obviously refers to it as a whole. So yes, Earth would be far better off without the vast majority of humans. Anyone that damages the biosphere is obviously damaging all the living organisms that depend on it. Man is the only organism on Earth that damages biosphere. Do you have some kind of point here? This seems like a really stupid debate. Are you trying to defend man's horrible actions to our planet or something?
the trouble with biblical prophecy, is that from an early Christian perspective, it was 95% about calling people back to God and establishing that Jesus was the Messiah and the Savior of Mankind. Nowadays these dispensationalists and end-timers try to use the bible like a crystal ball to tell us precisely which boogeymen in world politics to fear and/or hate.
You're wrong. Almost all spirituality today is independent from reason. Because it deals with the supernatural. Supernatural is a term of ignorance. So religion is an uneducated guess. That's not reason, it's insanity.
Your argument here is called "A Red Herring fallacy". You dance around the real issues with pointless arguments. Just because he had one good quote that was used, doesn't mean that Peter believes everything taught by the guy.
"Peter Joseph" quotes these folks dozens of times. I think it's more than just one quote he's up on. Now it's true that conspiracy theorists often misrepresent the sources they claim to be quoting, but in these cases, he's using sources that really don't have any credibility, hence "garbage in, garbage out."
Mostly all of them are very good and true quotes. But those are just a part of Peter's "artistic expression" and do not represent the the main points of the video. This guy is attempting to defame his character with pointless evidence. Again, it's a Red Herring fallacy. And I still see you're going on with your "Peter Joseph" conspiracy theory. Haha
So if "Peter Joseph" is blatantly wrong on some point or misquoting someone, then it's just to be seen as "artistic expression" rather than an error or dishonesty? Great. Next time somebody corrects me on a point of fact in debate, I'll try this excuse and see how people react. ;)
But Peter did not misquote someone and was not wrong on "some point". This argument should be directed towards the original person who said it. I hope this response was a joke, because you're more intelligent than this XSC.
It's not a "conspiracy" I'm pointing out. "Peter Joseph" is one guy who wants to share his viewpoint. He wants to promote the "Venus Project" and carve out a little space for himself in the conspiracy/truther "community." So he makes a "documentary" in cooperation with "Acharya S." A conspiracy of two people? No, just silly propaganda backed by poor research, taking advantage of angry, but uneducated folks.
Who said Peter wants to "carve out a little space for himself in the conspiracy/truther community."?? And who said he was in "cooperation with Acharya S"? He was only given permission to use her work. Then later she wrote the Zietgiest part 1 companion book. She said she would have made ZG part 1 a little different. I think she implied she would have fixed a few of his shitty references.
I'm saying those things, because they're painfully obvious. So you're saying it was a complete accident that he just so happened to release a movie blaming 9/11 on banks and the US government, asserted that a new world order was forming from corporations and politicians to take away all freedom and that religion was all pagan astrotheology, right at the time when similar movies had been released?
ie: "your grandfather did this to my grandfather, etc" and any category to organize against "the common foe" will do.
I specifically mentioned the dispensationalists with the end timers. Again, they're a small group, relatively speaking, and a small upstart one. they've lost a lot of ground since the late 19th century (but got a brief boost in the 1980's and during the "Y2K" hysteria).
Dispensationalism is a good one too. Has a lot to do with today's end-times Prophecy driven followers. Those are a funny bunch. Always trying to predict the end.
It's just erroneous to say "Evangelicals say Catholics are going to hell," because that would be speaking of a very small number (like some of those end-timey fundamentalist conspiracy theorists) within the broad umbrella of "evangelicalism" if he means "all Catholics." To most Evangelicals, it's not membership or non-membership that counts, but internal disposition (ie: "true faith").
Yeah, but we're talking about what most think of Catholics TODAY, not what some Protestants reasoned was why they needed to quit the Catholic Church in the 16th century. they don't want to BE Catholic and they think something is wrong with the institution (often), but that's different than saying "they're heathens."
I wouldn't call these "wars," unless you're talking about Northern Ireland or something, but that has more to do with politics
The Catholic Church as an institution needs to follow the examples of the Early Church Fathers and get a grip on what is happening in their world and adjust accordingly. They have the best of intentions, well, 95% of them... but we all know what happens with good intent and no research.
Technically, Catholic believe that they are already connected to the Saints via their baptism and talking to them should be even easier than talking to someone right next to you, including Mary. However, some Catholics take it way too far. Most don't take their faith far enough though and you couldn't tell them apart from any other faith if you didn't know any better. ;-)
youtube isn't representative of the world... it specifically attracts the "activists" and conspiracy nuts, who never had a forum before, and suddenly think they're the first person to have thought of this stuff. Look, once again I admit this stuff is out there, but looking at what the main denominations actually teach and what the average person believes is a lot different than narrowing it down to a few pundits and saying they speak for everyone. Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson don't speak for all
"youtube isn't representative of the world... it specifically attracts the "activists" and conspiracy nuts, who never had a forum before, and suddenly think they're the first person to have thought of this stuff. "
I think evangelical protestants speak of "the Church" and mean the invisible body of true believers on earth, but they realize that people implicitly understand they aren't speaking only of their local congregation or even their denomination. Those anti-Catholics typically believe that the Catholic institution's are wrong, so if somebody is a "true Christian" they are just misinformed or a believer INSPITE of being a member (though a few hardliners would say any member is automatically damned)
These hardliners are more numerous than you think. They damn the institution and even the mere utterance of calling oneself a Catholic. Not as bad as calling oneself a Muslim or Atheist. But still evokes the same hostile reaction.
A better reply would be that factions within the Fundamentalist Evangelical group think Catholics are not saved, thus going to hell. Not that my original statement is untrue in total. This is one of the main reasons behind the Protestant movement...corruption.
I know they (Protestant groups who feel that being Catholic is a one way ticket to the hot place) exist in numbers, but on the world scale? They're pretty insignificant. Don't forget there's like a billion Catholics, and we're talking a percentage of Protestants. The average Protestant probably doesn't know about this stuff or doesn't care. As for the "worship" of Mary and the Saints, we don't do that, but that's probably a greater misconception than that Muslims "worship a moon god."
You see, most Evangelical Protestants view "The Church" as an invisible body of "true believers" who have real faith which will endure to the end and THESE (and only these) will be saved (go to heaven). Everyone else will have died "in their sins" (ie: not having their sins forgiven, which is what having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as their lord and savior brings) and thus warrant the punishment of hell. So for them, baptist, catholic, methodist, really doesn't matter in the end.
Each denomination is different, but the film just kind of lumps them together and fails to make a clear distinction in the intro. However, more organized denominations like Catholics and Anglicans need to make distinctions between the church as a body of faith and the church as the human organizational/institutional body.
I agree. I have seen plenty of fundamentalist responses to Zeitgeist which have basically said "yeah, the stuff about religion is true... but only about the Catholics, they are the bad guys who tried to mix the Bible with paganism!" and absolve themselves of having to deal with the actual history. A good example is KeithTruth's response to Zeitgeist (or the guy from "Nowhere to Run").
Actually, most people start off with religion from the cradle. I think people who are planning to continue their existence beyond just this human flesh or to find inner peace could also be put in that category too. There are all types. Now if I may ask, what do you think of the series in general and its approach to breaking down the subjects discussed in the movie?
religion is out of date. its a tool for enslavement. free your mind.
anyways, he didnt rip anything from anyone. he used copyright free material and put it all together in an easy to follow video. anyways, get a telescope.
Faith is like the North Star of the Heart. An anchor for the soul. Anyways, thats just my opinion. If I didn't believe it then I wouldn't. ;-)
A lot of this stuff Mr. Joseph seems to have made up from nowhere. As far as owning a telescope, I used to have a very nice one. I think its in storage at the moment. Do you think this would help expand my understanding of the cosmos in some meaningful way if I broke it out?
Anyways, what specifically do you think is wrong with my videos?
Wow, 37 seconds in and already a MIS-QUOTE!!! Peter Joseph never uses the term "IMITATION".... it's "Personification" genius, since you're so interested in details!! I'm so tired of all these weak ass videos about part one of Zeitgeist and everyones 'opinion' about it.... the movie had 3 parts.... presented as a WHOLE... with a completely different message than what all you religious fanatics obsess over. Outdated Constructed Behavior!!
Wow! I didn't catch that at all. Thank you. I'll be sure to fix that in the final version. Don't worry, I am not going to stop at the religious stuff. I'm going to go through the entire movie. The first part just happens to come first of course. ;-)
I meant you no harm personally. I'm just aggravated with everyones ridiculous ability to be closed minded about this film. I mean... it's only like 34 minutes of one dudes movie... there's so much more important information and depth to it than some religious interpretation. Think about it... how reliable is any source really..?? In the end, we all make up our own minds anyway :)
I understand there are a lot of people who don't think about it or investigate it, but I AM investigating it and whats more showing my work. I believe anyone who is open source and professional is much more reliable than people who claim they have all the answers with little to show for it. You're right, its only 34 minutes long. It tries to re-educate you without any real teaching, just telling. Thats why something like this is needed: In depth analysis. Dont be TOO quick to close your mind
Close my mind?? LOL :) **note my channel = 500+ videos!! I'll watch anything at least 3 times... and I fight Youtube to show it to you too!! They shut my old account down a few months back.... too much info for them I guess LOL *ps: I think you narrate just fine btw ;)
There you go. Fight the powah! Do not make up your mind too much or too often. :-) Thanks. I think people are just used to hearing people talk with the bass up to 11 all the time is all. Once I finish the first part of the series I'll go back, make a summary film in more studio like conditions, maybe hire Leonard Nemoy, lol.
If someone rattled off misinformation for 34 minutes, you can bet I'd begin to question everything they said, not just the next hour or two that followed! This is a great series... pity that the folks who need to hear it the most will dismiss it so quickly.
That's a pretty blanket statement (and thus an untrue one). Most Evangelicals believe that to be "saved" one has to have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" otherwise one goes to sell for their sins. They set this apart from "good works" or membership in any church or organization. As such, they admit that Catholics can be saved, but they look at this individually. They would agree that just as there are Catholics who are not "saved" there are professed "Evangelicals" who are not saved.
incorrect. In order to be saved one must have faith in Jesus Christ, just as the thief on the cross next to Jesus. A personal relationship is something you develop over time not something one has instantly like salvation.
The barers of truth and falsity lie not in the words we use nor those in combination with their prepositions; the barers of truth and falsity lie in statements. Your focus is all off: sorry. As of yet, You haven't discussed any of the flaws in the movie. To find these, I would recommend abandoning any preconception and look to other areas. I'll give you a hint - astronomy.
Don't worry Chaz. The next episode will hit on those points. These two episodes were mostly practice and getting down our format. In addition, I felt it only fair to be totally comprehensive and to show that not everything from the movie is total junk.
...you're going to need it. You may also want to look into some etymological issues as well if you're actually out to accomplish something; cause all this focus on again, the words Mr. Joseph used instead of his statements is infantile at best. If you are going to debunk a scholarly work, you need to be scholarly - not
religious. so like I said, good luck. I think that if you give up on the fox-esque spin stuff (i.e. words instead of statements), you may have a chance at eliciting a response from Pete. If I see some progress in the next one, I will give you some direction.
Wow are we being Fox-esque? Thats definately NOT what we were going for. I've traced most of the movie's origins back to what appears to be a single source which is just one in a long line of gradual permutations of "maybes" that suddenly turned in to a fact in the next telling. (Look up Anacalypsis) The rest seems to be filler from bad wikipedia articles that did something similar, taking ideas suggested in the talk section and quoting them as fact in the next breath.
The etymology won't be difficult. Noam Chompsky's work in the field is sure to assist me in that department as well as actually showing why these word association games only work in English.
On the great collapse: Youre statement is VERY falsel... absolutely false, this was true until Hubble. Now we are certain that the universe is not slowing its pace but expanding exponentially. Go take Astrobiology. And get someone else to narrate this beast.
If you would like to help me fix the astronomy part I will gladly correct the mistake. Where should I go to read up on this?
Also, I'm sorry you don't find my narration suitable for the film. If you want to help with the project by narrating I could send you a copy of the script for episode 3 as soon as I'm done re-writing it and give it a shot! DVD or studio quality in wav format is prefered.
A man on Coast to Coast am said it perfectly about Zeitgeist that if a film is put out and the person went to great lengths to put together a boat load of information base them off of facts and put them in a movie, and share it with the world Free. Then that really means there is no profit into spreading the film.
There is so much crap and disinformation all over the place in this world. So the only way to discern is by listen and feel from your heart, not your head about the information.
Well, I am doing the same thing, but in a more transparent manner. Unless people volunteer to help me I am going to shell out my own money because I believe that education and learning how to sort good knowledge from uncertain sources is really important in today's culture.
If you just shut your eyes and start going around following all the warm fuzzies you get you will one day walk blindly in to a bed of coals.
You can disregard any of my posts and that is fine, I'm just still shocked till this day people are still trying to debunk the films because it hammers into an old paradigm belief system.
Kinda like telling people the planet is round when they believed it was flat for the longest time. I can tell you that if A Movie doesn't cost a dime to watch and it cost thousands to make it. Where is the motive for a film that is free? Getting truth out
I do not mind answering. I think this kind of discussion is healthy for our society. People need to learn to listen, really listen and not just react. It was almost a year ago now that I saw this film and I've given the subject a lot of thought. I think people who do not study the old belief systems are caught not knowing what to believe when something like this comes out. Thats why I'm doing this series.
Zeitgeist does take in money from Amazon selling DVD's by the way.
I totally don't trust Amazon and i never shop there anymore, they charge way more for alot of things, it is only $5 for the Dvd at the Website, but you can download the movies Free and burn them to disk like i have. So other than buying the blank Dvd's and sleeves the movie is FREE.
By the way are you doing a series on the other 2
Zeitgeist Addendum and Zeitgeist Orientation guide video?
I will remain flexible on this issue and do whatever I think I am obliged to do. Maybe someone else will do it before I do while I'm working on this project. I highly encourage everyone to dig deep in to the wealth of knowledge in collegiate spirit.
Also, going to the FAQ section of the Zeitgeist website you will find that the director invested money from freelance work he did and then re-touched the movie once it got popular. You just have to trust he's telling the truth or keep searching
Of course that in the past christians did worship the sun Ra but over time it got distorted, mixed, and misinterpreted.
As for the now moment, that is really when you are watching your self conscious when you are aware that you are spirit and not the body, the now will take you deeper than time itself.
The sources are all over the place, alot of them are in Egypt and on alot of walls covered in symbolism.
So funny when religious people feel it neccessary to try to "prove" that they don't believe in BS. He tries to portray himself as logical and he talks a lot about science but he doesn't really address anything really compelling about the movie. Total word salad. lmao;)
lisadavisshields71 5 months ago
I really don't get how this debunks zeitgeist. I can't believe that people with the info that we have now that they would believe the mythology of the Bible. I wish people would wake up so we could get rid of religion altogether. That would end so many of the worlds problems....so glad to see that more people disliked this more than liked it. There is hope for people yet;)
ladyintheradiator187 5 months ago
I really don't get how this debunks zeitgeist. I can't believe that people with the info that we have now that they would believe the mythology of the Bible. So weird. I wish people would wake up so we could get rid of religion altogether. That would end so many of the worlds problems....
ladyintheradiator187 5 months ago
@ZeroUnlmtd - I'm not your nigger. The only real mumbo jumbo is the absolute rubbish you write. In case you don't know - Jesus was resurrected dummy.
arfabee2010 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZeroUnlmtd - Im mot your nigger. The only real mumbo jumbo is the absolute rubbish you write. In case you don't know - Jesus was resurrected dummy.
arfabee2010 10 months ago
@ZeroUnlmtd - Im mot your nigger. The only real mumbo jumbo is the absolute rubbish you write. In cas you don't know - Jesus was resurrected dummy.
arfabee2010 10 months ago
dude you are funny. give up.
MrDannyVolt 1 year ago
@MrDannyVolt Never gonna give you up or anyone, Mr. DannyVolt. Episode one and two will get a remake someday, don't worry. Overall though, the series did get through to its creator who has since changed his tone and format, following the path of better citation and prime sources in his newest film (well the first half of it anyways). That and all the thank you letters I get from people who now can't believe they took so much at face value, made it very much worth my time. =)
VinnfordSansbury 1 year ago
lol all this video shows, is that the dude who made it is just butt hurt that he found out that jesus was as credible as santa claus and the boogey man, and is just trying to prove the Zeitgeist director wrong, which he failed miserable, Zeitgeist is built on facts which can be found in modern museums and history books world wide. Thumbs up if you think this kid sounded outta breath with his feeble little girl body turning red in anger after he watched Zeitgeist :P get wrecked scrub
ZeroUnlmtd 1 year ago
@ZeroUnlmtd No, I was very hurt in the head trying to follow the sources that supposedly grounded this work however. I do not care what Truth is so long as you seek it out fully. Coming up with your own version based off of phone-tag is simply not acceptable in a society where you can find a book at the click of a button and check the sources to see where all this info supposedly came from. Someone trying to start a movement shouldget it done right. Watch the rest of the series. 3 on is better
VinnfordSansbury 1 year ago
@VinnfordSansbury are you retarded? their facts were founded in the original copies of any publication they've researched, not some app on an iPhone, yet again your still wrong, u obviously didn't search for their sources because they're clearly listed and easily accessible, which most of the symbols of the zodiak and the ages are on scriptures and paintings in MUSEUMS you moron, look kid nobody is telling you not to believe in jesus or allah or whatever disney character you prefer to worship
ZeroUnlmtd 1 year ago
@ZeroUnlmtd The whole series is about examining these sources he listed, but as I discovered most were poorly executed with mutated information at each step until it was totally different than the original. So prove me wrong. Go ahead and find some information that disproves any of the mistakes made by the author that I pointed out. If there is something that I overlooked, I will gladly correct the video. In one of the videos I actually contacted a museum. I think you'll like it.
VinnfordSansbury 1 year ago
@ZeroUnlmtd - I guess the name sums up the mentality. If you really have to comment, state something of substance with fact and not some mumbo jumbo regurgitation of what Zeitgeist claims. Zeitgeist may well be based on facts which can be found in history books and museums but so too can facts about Jesus' existence and facts written about in the Bible. Do some more research Dude.
arfabee2010 10 months ago
@arfabee2010 so what museum has jesus' body in there? or better yet what history book has jesus in it? sure the gregorian calendar goes by B.C. and A.D. but since our gregorian calendar is a copy of the mayan calendar with jesus and pals in it its not a very reliable source now is it, and if you wanna talk about mumbo jumbo go figure why more than half of the world doesn't even use our calendar or the A.D. in their years ..... nigger the only mumbo jumbo on this page is the video itself
ZeroUnlmtd 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZeroUnlmtd - I guess the name sums up the mentality. If you really have to comment, state something of substance with fact and not some mumbo jumbo regurgitation of what Zeitgeist claims. Zeitgeist may well be based on facts which can be found in history books and museums but so too can facts about Jesus' existence and facts written about in the Bible. Do some more research Dude.
arfabee2010 10 months ago
Even if all the little facts, you talk about, really are wrong, the fundamental statement of the movie is still correct!
AkkuPunkTour 1 year ago 2
Chrono Trigger? O[]o
Cacmypants 1 year ago
@Cacmypants Chrono Trigger Over Clock Remixes to be exact.
VinnfordSansbury 1 year ago
@VinnfordSansbury Ahh, indeed
Cacmypants 1 year ago
each one of us has to take his or her own path to find the real truth that has been been forbidden from us. I'm not saying that that the Movie is completely correct, but personally, even as someone who was raised catholic all my life, this path and or knowledge that I'm taking makes far more sense that anything than anything that Ive ever "felt" in my soul. I wish you good luck, but you have to understand that more and more people are following theirselves nw rather than what is embedded
awakeningmysoul 1 year ago
your arguements are pretty lame. I don't think that you truly understand the movie. You're probably a hard core christian.
awakeningmysoul 1 year ago
@awakeningmysoul I am a hard-core scholar. I do not find the truth to be lame at all, but if you can find error in what is said here please enlighten me.
VinnfordSansbury 1 year ago
@VinnfordSansbury I can prove that Jor-El existed by using the DC Comics! If you can use the Bible to prove Jesus existed!
boumar19721972 1 year ago
@boumar19721972 Where in my videos did you see me trying to prove Jesus was real because the Bible said so? Did you even watch the series? I really think you should do that first before making me out to be some fundamentalist. The point of the series is not to determine if Jesus existed, rather show people how flawed the citations are in order to help them sort out how much of this stuff used to support the argument was true to begin with. Please watch all the videos and comment again.
VinnfordSansbury 1 year ago
i like that you made filims about Zeitgeist and the way you handle it with citing sources etc. but i got the impression that you dont really understood some of the sentences you quoted.
ofm2k7 1 year ago
man, this video, contrary to what you SAY in it, presented me with MORE information in the 1st 2min40secs of video, then 6 brains can process...
And I'm a pretty fast processer, mind you...
You contradict yourself and make your work be in vain.
40+ bubbles and infos in 2 min.40 seconds + the audio ?
get real...
slow it down, make it simple.
setapan35 1 year ago
The film has nothing to do with The Zeitgeist Movement.
Further, if a film presents a quote from some guy. Does that mean the film maker and its followers need to belive in evrything the guy said? Thats just ridiculus, and thats how u base ur arguments.
TZMNorway 1 year ago
@TZMNorway
This isn't just one youtube clip, its a series that honestly hasn't been finished yet. When it is, we're going to take the most relavent parts and put them in the final version. Episodes one and two focus on the overall philosophies that the film introduces to the viewer before presenting their argument. The tone of these supporting quotations set the tone for the rest of the film.
VinnfordSansbury 1 year ago
God willing hopefully the zeitgeist [ born into this world destined to be in the unknown-ed group ] will be shown the truest path. my sympathy & empathy to them all. please do more research, study, reasoning, logic......IN religion & science admission of a created being been created by A CREATOR
mandore100 1 year ago
NOW IS NOW!! theh brain? ears? those are youre arguements?
ignae 2 years ago
I'm not arguing. I'm stating a fact that this "now is the now" philosophy is scientifically inaccurate. The movie promotes feeling stuff out instead of thinking about it logically. I'm trying to show people that kind of thinking is backwards and that we should adopt the opposite mindset.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
Jace ftw!
Bertelhauch 2 years ago
YES!
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
every where I go in you tube, I find that HATERS have been there before me!
DAng Those Haters!
m0okasaur 2 years ago
Hatred is hard to unlearn.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
Point 4 "we actually experience fantastic precision, always,"
We all experience precision but whether we are aware of this precision and can process it correctly is a different matter. Our actions do not have to be precise in order to experience precision. When he talks about experiencing, it doesn't mean the process of interpretation which is the way you took it to be.
also point 3 to say NOW is not NOW just because we can not process the information quickly fast enough is false.
oneidKing 2 years ago
Finally, someone who has a solid argument against this who is on point. You sir win the secret award for arguing straight to the point without assumption. It is the perception of humanity that is flawed though, which hinders our experience. Though one could argue we DO experience some precision and observe the precision of the universe, always is just too broad. Quantum mechanics must also account for a level of chaos and is a science of probability. As for now, its just not so definitive.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
I'd actually proffer the possibility that you make the assumption that the perception of humainity is flawed!
'Flawed' is a value judgement against a notional idea of 'perfection' which is simple fantasy.
For example what is perfect vision? If we set a standard can we ever know if a greater vision is possible?
GodOfSpoons 2 years ago
And what do you mean by our perception hinders our experience? How exactly have you measured this?
GodOfSpoons 2 years ago
A latency between external events and internal cognitive recognition is not a good enough reason for us to say we don't experience 'now'!
You assume that 'now' is external to consciousness somehow, yet it is arguable that 'now' is not some external point in time but the internal point of perception. Why do are you so certain that your definition of 'now' is applicable to the 'now' as talked about by the guy in the film?
GodOfSpoons 2 years ago
Honestly for an 108 year old you should know better! :0)
GodOfSpoons 2 years ago
I'm actually 3000+ y/o but there was a limit. ;-) All I can say is if I said something wrong it must be senioritis.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
Man that sucks! I've never realised the lack of consideration you 'tri-milleninarians' must suffer from in everyday life. People really should be more aware of this issue!
:0)
GodOfSpoons 2 years ago
Because time is relaitve with no clear horizon.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
An external event may precede my coginition of that event but that doesn't define what now is as far as I am concerned because everything that happens 'now' is not external to us.
If I feel happy I experience that now!
If I think of a magical chicken named Wrinkly-Sam. I am experiencing that now!
GodOfSpoons 2 years ago
I wear glasses
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
Which means your sight is flawed in relative to some arbitary standard. From the point of view of 'blindness' your sight is 'superior'.
In pure terms of 'experience' your relative 'poor sight' is (I assume) unhindered as another's ability to experience their relative good sight.
Poor sight may subjectively hinder certain experiences in certain circumstances. But whether that can be extrapolated to be true in all situations for all people is to me, suspect.
GodOfSpoons 2 years ago
Oh thats deep! Good philosophical question there.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
"Which is why I fully support ZG."
I don't support what I know to be lies.
You're convinced, obviously, that these conspiracies are true, that the US government and its corporate puppet masters engineered 9/11, that Jesus never existed and that Christianity was just a corruption of ancient pagan astrotheology by the rulers to control the unwashed masses through fear and abuse. Right? If you don't believe that, it's pretty cynical to use that to support some project.
XSC3 2 years ago
I like how you pronounce Zeitgeist in the proper German way. You're so PC Vinnford. ;-P
Shukuri23 2 years ago
Ha Ha. It just slipped out. German Film class will do that to you.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
all the known planets in the universe (apart from earth) are barren of life, so we're the exception. are you arguing that humans are alien to nature? Gaiaism is religion. all animals "damage" the biosphere. want examples? see cattle gas effect on global warming, see invasive species, etc. earth has no feelings and cares nothing for anything. it's a ball of rock with some life on top of it, and doesn't know or care if it thrives or dies.
XSC3 2 years ago
Global warming is very debatable, so you are incorrect there. Cow's have been around for how long? And if they do affect anything, it's because of the unnatural mass production of cows by man. Invasive species is caused by man's tampering with nature, so you incorrect again. As for present day scientific knowledge, there is the possibility of, what some may perceive as "god". However the closest concept that it could be compared to is Gaia, not Jesus. BigSteelGuy nailed it in a previous comment
Shukuri23 2 years ago
Perhaps I should have called it "Global Climate Change." In any case, it's pretty clear that living species are having an effect on it. If we humans can have an effect, it's not a stretch at all to think that millions of cattle can't have an effect either. Even if we are indirectly causing it by corporate farming methods, it's still something beyond "industrial pollution." The phrase "tampering with nature" is problematic, because humans are part of nature and always will be.
XSC3 2 years ago
I would be careful how you use the term Gaia. It's a very broad and mostly scientific term. Although derived from mysticism, only a small majority that follow the Gaia pholosophy see it as a deity. It has a close connection to Pantheism, and the same can be said for it as well. Many great minds in history believed in scientific Pantheism and the Gaia philosophy.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
Well if understood in a mystical way, then it is religion, not science.
It doesn't matter how many "great minds" believed in Pantheism or philosophy, scientifically speaking, than believed in Theism or Atheism. Given your disdain for the beliefs of others, it would be highly hypocritical, I think, for you to try to defend certain religious beliefs as untouchable.
XSC3 2 years ago
My philosophy is the two should never contradict. Ha ha. This part is just about the intro and whats technically true and untrue etc. As far as 9/11 and the Fed I am going line by line so that will come later.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
So why is that religious people are told they're delusional and utopian, but then people think you can do the same things religion can do "in a totally peaceful way" using only human effort? Is that really so much more realistic? I think both this attitude and the "we're too stupid to deserve to live" arguments are just shallow whining, honestly.
XSC3 2 years ago
>>>
So why is that religious people are told they're delusional and utopian.
>>>
People say that you are delusional because you believe in something that has no proof to support it. That's kinda the definition of delusional. And judging by history alone I would have to say that religion is definitely dystopian. I find it to be an insult that you would even compare something like the Venus Project to mans corrupt creation of "religion".
Shukuri23 2 years ago
There is not a lot of personal improvement involved with donating money to the Venus Project either. Maybe if people just went and DID it without worrying about the money there would be some deeds to match their "faith" in the project.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
Shukuri23, then you're a flaming hypocrite of the first order. I'd seriously rethink your rhetorical strategy if I were you...
The Venus Project makes about as much sense as Scientology. Or Shakerism, or Raelism, or any of the other utopian religion/philosophies out there.
XSC3 2 years ago
Until you actually learn about the Venus Project you should refrain from offering your distorted opinions. The project is based on common sense, don't compare it to irrational shit like religion. Scientology is just as foolish as any other religion.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
until you learn about history, perhaps you should refrain from imposing your conspiracy theories upon it?
XSC3 2 years ago
I don't consider it a conspiracy. How many people need to accept this theory before it's not labeled as a conspiracy? There are millions. And I do know a fair amount of history. Especially political history in the last 100 years. Which is why I fully support ZG. There's probably not a single aspect of government that's not corrupt. The Venus Project is a workable theory. It's not the end all be all of world change. Jacque said himself that smarter people could and will improve upon it.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
The theory is that there is a vast conspiracy. It doesn't matter how many people believe in it (you of all people should appreciate the logic of that statement). Rather, it is whether that theory can be established VIA HARD EVIDENCE beyond reasonable doubt. Not mere innuendo, not mere "suspicion." Otherwise it is merely something taken on faith, on hearsay. Lots of people believe in ghosts, UFOs, and dozens of contradictory conspiracies. Many people believe in creationism. Doesn't make them true
XSC3 2 years ago
I'll rephrase this a little. Religion is based on very vague proof. As in Christianity's case, there is more solid proof against it than vague proof to support it.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
utopianism is akin to a religion
XSC3 2 years ago
The trouble is that conspiracy theorists will always get in trouble for "not citing sources" so what they end up doing is giving an impressive list of footnotes and links... trouble is that this might as well be sawdust filler, because the sources they come from are worthless. failing that, they'll use real sources (hoping nobody will check them) but take them out of context. you can actually cite somebody who is saying the opposite of what you're saying, such that it looks like they agree.
XSC3 2 years ago
And the same could be said for the opposite side. Blah Blah Blah, arguing just for the sake of arguing. A generalized comment to all "conspiracy theorists". This is the way it is huh?
Shukuri23 2 years ago
Obviously "Peter Joseph" thinks Dorothy Murdock is a genuine researcher and wants to use her work to support his claims. She obviously supports his work. No conspiracy in that, just facts. If "Peter Joseph" didn't want conspiracy nutjobs on his side, why did he construct a "documentary" that combined the top three conspiracy theories of the day, borrowed from other films, into one movie and pitch it to the "truth" community?
XSC3 2 years ago
I just find it funny that supporters of the establishment like to ignore all the horrible things that the US government does on a daily basis and then act like they are innocent on other matters. It's absolutely beyond ridiculous. Even though the government is destroying their lives in every turn they still want to support it. Talk about sheep. And this irrational religious logic plays right into that. I feel ashamed for the average intelligence of the people. (Cont.)
Shukuri23 2 years ago
I think it's funny, Shukuri23, that you started talking about "supporters of the establishment" as if somehow that is what I was saying all along. By pointing out the faulty logic and flawed conclusions of a conspiracy theory, I am not de facto a "supporter of the establishment." I think criticisms of the government, corporations, religion, etc. should be based on solid logic and evidence, not this kind of nonsense. You do more harm to the cause of truth by promoting that bs.
XSC3 2 years ago
Sorry XSC, but you seem to be a total supporter of the establishment. Why else would you, or anyone else for that matter, try to debate the complete common sense talked about in addendum. I find it slightly acceptable for someone to say "it will never work". I guess I just have more education and/or don't turn a blind eye to the evils of the government. There is seriously not a single aspect of this "corpratocracy" that does not seek to fuck you over for profit.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
Why don't you SHOW US this "100% evidence." Simply because it came out of "Peter Joseph's" mouth doesn't mean squat. millions of websites exist proclaiming everything as "truth" from big foot to the loch ness monster. that's called hearsay. show us the evidence. again you've strawmanned everyone here who doesn't believe in your precious ZG. are you even listening?
XSC3 2 years ago
You've already seen it. If you have a problem with it, then look into it yourself. Most of it relies on common sense (i.e. the monetary system), and if you don;t have common sense then I can't help you.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
No one has room to call something BS, when they haven't even watched it.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
I've watched ZG multiple times. it's still stupid, every time
XSC3 2 years ago
I was referring to Addendum. Which you, yourself have told me that you haven't watched. Youy would need to watch ZG addendum, Designing the Future and Read the Venus Project PDF to even be able to form a proper opinion. And also listen to the questions adressed about the VP on ZG's Bi-weekly BlogTalkRadio show.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
(Cont) And then the supporters of the establishment want to create derogatory terms to insult anyone who disagrees with it, like "conspiracy theorist" or "truther" and lump them in as a group. How many times does the government have to totally fuck your life before you've had enough of it? It would not be that difficult to completely change the world tomorrow, in a completely peaceful way. Sadly people have been made too stupid, lazy and indoctrinated by the establishments to care. (cont)
Shukuri23 2 years ago
Being mad at the government isn't an excuse to chase after stupid theories with zero evidence in favor (and much against), like the BS in Zeitgeist.
Otherwise we should all believe in space aliens taking over the world, because the government is corrupt, so therefore everything is true.
XSC3 2 years ago
I'm mad at the government for a reason, very good reasons in fact. You should be too. ZERO EVIDENCE IN FAVOR????? AND MUCH AGAINST????? You're kidding right? Have you been living in a cave? You can say whatever you want about, what you would call "coincidental evidence" of religion. But governmental parts of ZG are backed by 100% evidence and none against (although the debunkers have tried and failed every time). I'm done with you. I can't debate such a closed mind.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
ZG is a mixed bag. Some stuff is supported and some is not. As most things in life its not either extreme.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
I wasn't referring to the religious part. But zero evidence! What a blatantly stupid comment. Be careful on the 9/11 parts of ZG. A lot of NIST's claims completly disregard the laws of physics. And also remember that some of Peter's arguments are based on probability. And the probabilities are usually highly in favor of his claims.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
Part 1, part 2, AND part 3 of ZG the movie, even the final addition are stupid in the extreme, period.
No amount of wiggle room for you, I'm afraid, Shukuri23.
XSC3 2 years ago
No wiggle room for your closed mind, is what I think you meant to say. The majority of ZG pt. 1 can be found in the Egyptian "Book of the Dead". It's a pre-Christian source and it's right there in black and white for you to read, no if's, and or but's about it. And I've found many other things in the "book" as well that were not mentioned before. But fear not, if you are too lazy to read it, I will present it to you and the rest of the world in long overdue time.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
I'm not mad at the government for made up reasons (ie: "9/11 was an inside job" "want to plant rfid tags into us to control us" "banks started all wars in the world to get rich" "christianity created by the state to control masses"). Neither should you be. don't live in a fantasy
XSC3 2 years ago
9/11 was an inside job. WTC7 anyone? RFID's are currently being used and have been used in the past for shady reasons. Banks may not have started all the wars, but they certainly got rich off of them. Just look at Haliburton. And religion has to be, by far, the best way to control the masses.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
(cont) They would rather go learn about what Tom Cruise is doing in his personal life, instead of learning a little about what their government is doing around them. Honestly, sometimes I think this world would be so much better off if humanity never existed. The majority of people's stupidity just completely goes against the betterment of the world. The struggle seems almost pointless. Maybe I'll just become a robot too.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
>>>
Honestly, sometimes I think this world would be so much better off if humanity never existed.
>>>
You speak as if "the world" is an intelligent being who has feelings and such. Is this what you meant? I don't think a ball of rock and water "cares" about anything, much less what some intelligent animals on its surface think or say (or even do). The self proclaimed "humanity is a disease of stupidity" elitist talk is really cliched though.
XSC3 2 years ago
Again this is where your limited view on "god" that your religion has taught you comes into play. Earth is basically a singular living organism. This is Einstein's theory all over again. And it is a fact that humanity is destroying it. Animals don't destroy the earth in any way whatsoever, only humans. And yes I do consider myself above that, cliche or not. Are you honestly trying to actually tell me humans are not destroying our planet??? Really???
Shukuri23 2 years ago
Earth has actually adapted over a long period to allow life to survive on it. This is basic science.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
If you throw out Gerald Massey (and by necessity Dorothy Murdock aka "Acharya S" who is dependent upon him), you lose a huge chunk of the "authority" behind "Peter Joseph's" claims in part 1. If I wrote a masters thesis on Church history and took 1/3rd of my citations from Alexander Hislop, unless I was doing a history of conspiracy theories or something, it would be a failing grade
XSC3 2 years ago
It's "Peter Joseph's" responsibility to check the veracity of the sources he's quoting from to promote his arguments, wouldn't you say?
though the folks who blindly believe him (and his sources) seem utterly hypocritical, as they turn and attack people for questioning those, when supposedly the whole point was to "question what you read/hear." apparently only conspiracy theorists are infallible
XSC3 2 years ago
Well put.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
Horribly put. This stupid comment completely disregards the facts of nature and science. This world can only function as a whole. Yes, water may not "care" as you put it, but all the other lifeforms who need it to survive do care if it's rendered undrinkable.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
not so, the earth, like all other planets "functions" just fine without any biological life. Your own statement that the world would be "better off" without humanity betrays your acceptance of this. It's the belief that somehow the human species is against nature is what you're stuttering with. the "earth" is not a being that has cares or desires or goals. to say so would be a faith claim. so don't mock my god while expecting me to worship yours
XSC3 2 years ago
Biological life is a part of Earth. So the term Earth obviously refers to it as a whole. So yes, Earth would be far better off without the vast majority of humans. Anyone that damages the biosphere is obviously damaging all the living organisms that depend on it. Man is the only organism on Earth that damages biosphere. Do you have some kind of point here? This seems like a really stupid debate. Are you trying to defend man's horrible actions to our planet or something?
Shukuri23 2 years ago
Sorry, I thought you replied to another question. I really hate the inefficient comment system that YouTube uses.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
learn to swim
bongcouver 2 years ago
good advice, strange context
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
the trouble with biblical prophecy, is that from an early Christian perspective, it was 95% about calling people back to God and establishing that Jesus was the Messiah and the Savior of Mankind. Nowadays these dispensationalists and end-timers try to use the bible like a crystal ball to tell us precisely which boogeymen in world politics to fear and/or hate.
XSC3 2 years ago
You're wrong. Almost all spirituality today is independent from reason. Because it deals with the supernatural. Supernatural is a term of ignorance. So religion is an uneducated guess. That's not reason, it's insanity.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
Your argument here is called "A Red Herring fallacy". You dance around the real issues with pointless arguments. Just because he had one good quote that was used, doesn't mean that Peter believes everything taught by the guy.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
"Peter Joseph" quotes these folks dozens of times. I think it's more than just one quote he's up on. Now it's true that conspiracy theorists often misrepresent the sources they claim to be quoting, but in these cases, he's using sources that really don't have any credibility, hence "garbage in, garbage out."
XSC3 2 years ago
Mostly all of them are very good and true quotes. But those are just a part of Peter's "artistic expression" and do not represent the the main points of the video. This guy is attempting to defame his character with pointless evidence. Again, it's a Red Herring fallacy. And I still see you're going on with your "Peter Joseph" conspiracy theory. Haha
Shukuri23 2 years ago
So if "Peter Joseph" is blatantly wrong on some point or misquoting someone, then it's just to be seen as "artistic expression" rather than an error or dishonesty? Great. Next time somebody corrects me on a point of fact in debate, I'll try this excuse and see how people react. ;)
XSC3 2 years ago
But Peter did not misquote someone and was not wrong on "some point". This argument should be directed towards the original person who said it. I hope this response was a joke, because you're more intelligent than this XSC.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
It's not a "conspiracy" I'm pointing out. "Peter Joseph" is one guy who wants to share his viewpoint. He wants to promote the "Venus Project" and carve out a little space for himself in the conspiracy/truther "community." So he makes a "documentary" in cooperation with "Acharya S." A conspiracy of two people? No, just silly propaganda backed by poor research, taking advantage of angry, but uneducated folks.
XSC3 2 years ago
Who said Peter wants to "carve out a little space for himself in the conspiracy/truther community."?? And who said he was in "cooperation with Acharya S"? He was only given permission to use her work. Then later she wrote the Zietgiest part 1 companion book. She said she would have made ZG part 1 a little different. I think she implied she would have fixed a few of his shitty references.
Shukuri23 2 years ago
I'm saying those things, because they're painfully obvious. So you're saying it was a complete accident that he just so happened to release a movie blaming 9/11 on banks and the US government, asserted that a new world order was forming from corporations and politicians to take away all freedom and that religion was all pagan astrotheology, right at the time when similar movies had been released?
XSC3 2 years ago
ie: "your grandfather did this to my grandfather, etc" and any category to organize against "the common foe" will do.
I specifically mentioned the dispensationalists with the end timers. Again, they're a small group, relatively speaking, and a small upstart one. they've lost a lot of ground since the late 19th century (but got a brief boost in the 1980's and during the "Y2K" hysteria).
XSC3 2 years ago
Dispensationalism is a good one too. Has a lot to do with today's end-times Prophecy driven followers. Those are a funny bunch. Always trying to predict the end.
gizmo2084 2 years ago
It's just erroneous to say "Evangelicals say Catholics are going to hell," because that would be speaking of a very small number (like some of those end-timey fundamentalist conspiracy theorists) within the broad umbrella of "evangelicalism" if he means "all Catholics." To most Evangelicals, it's not membership or non-membership that counts, but internal disposition (ie: "true faith").
XSC3 2 years ago
...corruption of the man made Catholic institution over the centuries, that is.
gizmo2084 2 years ago
Yeah, but we're talking about what most think of Catholics TODAY, not what some Protestants reasoned was why they needed to quit the Catholic Church in the 16th century. they don't want to BE Catholic and they think something is wrong with the institution (often), but that's different than saying "they're heathens."
I wouldn't call these "wars," unless you're talking about Northern Ireland or something, but that has more to do with politics
XSC3 2 years ago
The Catholic Church as an institution needs to follow the examples of the Early Church Fathers and get a grip on what is happening in their world and adjust accordingly. They have the best of intentions, well, 95% of them... but we all know what happens with good intent and no research.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
There's also that problem with worshiping any other gods besides the true God; i.e. the Saints and Marry.
Lol, oh don't ya just love these religious wars!
gizmo2084 2 years ago
Technically, Catholic believe that they are already connected to the Saints via their baptism and talking to them should be even easier than talking to someone right next to you, including Mary. However, some Catholics take it way too far. Most don't take their faith far enough though and you couldn't tell them apart from any other faith if you didn't know any better. ;-)
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
watch?v=-X71U9OO1rM
watch?v=eRUZ8u9gJ2Y
gizmo2084 2 years ago
youtube isn't representative of the world... it specifically attracts the "activists" and conspiracy nuts, who never had a forum before, and suddenly think they're the first person to have thought of this stuff. Look, once again I admit this stuff is out there, but looking at what the main denominations actually teach and what the average person believes is a lot different than narrowing it down to a few pundits and saying they speak for everyone. Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson don't speak for all
XSC3 2 years ago
I should give you my commentary on the Evangelicals and the difference of their world view.
Something the Catholics are familiar with. Just not in this century.
gizmo2084 2 years ago
"youtube isn't representative of the world... it specifically attracts the "activists" and conspiracy nuts, who never had a forum before, and suddenly think they're the first person to have thought of this stuff. "
Great comment.
ReceivingJesus 2 years ago
I think evangelical protestants speak of "the Church" and mean the invisible body of true believers on earth, but they realize that people implicitly understand they aren't speaking only of their local congregation or even their denomination. Those anti-Catholics typically believe that the Catholic institution's are wrong, so if somebody is a "true Christian" they are just misinformed or a believer INSPITE of being a member (though a few hardliners would say any member is automatically damned)
XSC3 2 years ago
These hardliners are more numerous than you think. They damn the institution and even the mere utterance of calling oneself a Catholic. Not as bad as calling oneself a Muslim or Atheist. But still evokes the same hostile reaction.
A better reply would be that factions within the Fundamentalist Evangelical group think Catholics are not saved, thus going to hell. Not that my original statement is untrue in total. This is one of the main reasons behind the Protestant movement...corruption.
gizmo2084 2 years ago
I know they (Protestant groups who feel that being Catholic is a one way ticket to the hot place) exist in numbers, but on the world scale? They're pretty insignificant. Don't forget there's like a billion Catholics, and we're talking a percentage of Protestants. The average Protestant probably doesn't know about this stuff or doesn't care. As for the "worship" of Mary and the Saints, we don't do that, but that's probably a greater misconception than that Muslims "worship a moon god."
XSC3 2 years ago
You see, most Evangelical Protestants view "The Church" as an invisible body of "true believers" who have real faith which will endure to the end and THESE (and only these) will be saved (go to heaven). Everyone else will have died "in their sins" (ie: not having their sins forgiven, which is what having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as their lord and savior brings) and thus warrant the punishment of hell. So for them, baptist, catholic, methodist, really doesn't matter in the end.
XSC3 2 years ago
Each denomination is different, but the film just kind of lumps them together and fails to make a clear distinction in the intro. However, more organized denominations like Catholics and Anglicans need to make distinctions between the church as a body of faith and the church as the human organizational/institutional body.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
I agree. I have seen plenty of fundamentalist responses to Zeitgeist which have basically said "yeah, the stuff about religion is true... but only about the Catholics, they are the bad guys who tried to mix the Bible with paganism!" and absolve themselves of having to deal with the actual history. A good example is KeithTruth's response to Zeitgeist (or the guy from "Nowhere to Run").
XSC3 2 years ago
Who really cares about religion?
Most people just join up to meet people or to be on the side of the majority. Then a small obsessive group of others were indoctrinated.
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
Actually, most people start off with religion from the cradle. I think people who are planning to continue their existence beyond just this human flesh or to find inner peace could also be put in that category too. There are all types. Now if I may ask, what do you think of the series in general and its approach to breaking down the subjects discussed in the movie?
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
"what do you think of the series in general and its approach to breaking down the subjects discussed in the movie?"
Personally, I think deconstructionism can help isolate inconsistencies. But also can blur meaning or intent.
gizmo2084 2 years ago
religion is out of date. its a tool for enslavement. free your mind.
anyways, he didnt rip anything from anyone. he used copyright free material and put it all together in an easy to follow video. anyways, get a telescope.
NoahHoe 2 years ago
Faith is like the North Star of the Heart. An anchor for the soul. Anyways, thats just my opinion. If I didn't believe it then I wouldn't. ;-)
A lot of this stuff Mr. Joseph seems to have made up from nowhere. As far as owning a telescope, I used to have a very nice one. I think its in storage at the moment. Do you think this would help expand my understanding of the cosmos in some meaningful way if I broke it out?
Anyways, what specifically do you think is wrong with my videos?
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
Wow, 37 seconds in and already a MIS-QUOTE!!! Peter Joseph never uses the term "IMITATION".... it's "Personification" genius, since you're so interested in details!! I'm so tired of all these weak ass videos about part one of Zeitgeist and everyones 'opinion' about it.... the movie had 3 parts.... presented as a WHOLE... with a completely different message than what all you religious fanatics obsess over. Outdated Constructed Behavior!!
f33dth3f1r3 2 years ago
Wow! I didn't catch that at all. Thank you. I'll be sure to fix that in the final version. Don't worry, I am not going to stop at the religious stuff. I'm going to go through the entire movie. The first part just happens to come first of course. ;-)
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
I meant you no harm personally. I'm just aggravated with everyones ridiculous ability to be closed minded about this film. I mean... it's only like 34 minutes of one dudes movie... there's so much more important information and depth to it than some religious interpretation. Think about it... how reliable is any source really..?? In the end, we all make up our own minds anyway :)
f33dth3f1r3 2 years ago
I understand there are a lot of people who don't think about it or investigate it, but I AM investigating it and whats more showing my work. I believe anyone who is open source and professional is much more reliable than people who claim they have all the answers with little to show for it. You're right, its only 34 minutes long. It tries to re-educate you without any real teaching, just telling. Thats why something like this is needed: In depth analysis. Dont be TOO quick to close your mind
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
Close my mind?? LOL :) **note my channel = 500+ videos!! I'll watch anything at least 3 times... and I fight Youtube to show it to you too!! They shut my old account down a few months back.... too much info for them I guess LOL *ps: I think you narrate just fine btw ;)
f33dth3f1r3 2 years ago
There you go. Fight the powah! Do not make up your mind too much or too often. :-) Thanks. I think people are just used to hearing people talk with the bass up to 11 all the time is all. Once I finish the first part of the series I'll go back, make a summary film in more studio like conditions, maybe hire Leonard Nemoy, lol.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
If someone rattled off misinformation for 34 minutes, you can bet I'd begin to question everything they said, not just the next hour or two that followed! This is a great series... pity that the folks who need to hear it the most will dismiss it so quickly.
XSC3 2 years ago
Hello XSC3 again,
You still vehemently defending Catholicism as the ultimate truth? :D
gizmo2084 2 years ago
I'm still defending the truth wherever I find it, gizmo. ;)
XSC3 2 years ago
Is Catholicism the truth? lol
gizmo2084 2 years ago
I'm sure you'll tell us if it isn't, right? ;)
XSC3 2 years ago
Preach on! Preach on! Lets here it, Brother.
gizmo2084 2 years ago
The Evangelicals think the Catholics are going to hell. Are they right?
gizmo2084 2 years ago
That's a pretty blanket statement (and thus an untrue one). Most Evangelicals believe that to be "saved" one has to have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" otherwise one goes to sell for their sins. They set this apart from "good works" or membership in any church or organization. As such, they admit that Catholics can be saved, but they look at this individually. They would agree that just as there are Catholics who are not "saved" there are professed "Evangelicals" who are not saved.
XSC3 2 years ago
incorrect. In order to be saved one must have faith in Jesus Christ, just as the thief on the cross next to Jesus. A personal relationship is something you develop over time not something one has instantly like salvation.
ReceivingJesus 2 years ago
Thanks for the correction. I have left an annotation. He also uses the word, "plagiarization" which I have also added. =)
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
The barers of truth and falsity lie not in the words we use nor those in combination with their prepositions; the barers of truth and falsity lie in statements. Your focus is all off: sorry. As of yet, You haven't discussed any of the flaws in the movie. To find these, I would recommend abandoning any preconception and look to other areas. I'll give you a hint - astronomy.
chazmercer 2 years ago 2
Don't worry Chaz. The next episode will hit on those points. These two episodes were mostly practice and getting down our format. In addition, I felt it only fair to be totally comprehensive and to show that not everything from the movie is total junk.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
Good luck.
...you're going to need it. You may also want to look into some etymological issues as well if you're actually out to accomplish something; cause all this focus on again, the words Mr. Joseph used instead of his statements is infantile at best. If you are going to debunk a scholarly work, you need to be scholarly - not
chazmercer 2 years ago
religious. so like I said, good luck. I think that if you give up on the fox-esque spin stuff (i.e. words instead of statements), you may have a chance at eliciting a response from Pete. If I see some progress in the next one, I will give you some direction.
chazmercer 2 years ago
Wow are we being Fox-esque? Thats definately NOT what we were going for. I've traced most of the movie's origins back to what appears to be a single source which is just one in a long line of gradual permutations of "maybes" that suddenly turned in to a fact in the next telling. (Look up Anacalypsis) The rest seems to be filler from bad wikipedia articles that did something similar, taking ideas suggested in the talk section and quoting them as fact in the next breath.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
The etymology won't be difficult. Noam Chompsky's work in the field is sure to assist me in that department as well as actually showing why these word association games only work in English.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
On the great collapse: Youre statement is VERY falsel... absolutely false, this was true until Hubble. Now we are certain that the universe is not slowing its pace but expanding exponentially. Go take Astrobiology. And get someone else to narrate this beast.
chazmercer 2 years ago
If you would like to help me fix the astronomy part I will gladly correct the mistake. Where should I go to read up on this?
Also, I'm sorry you don't find my narration suitable for the film. If you want to help with the project by narrating I could send you a copy of the script for episode 3 as soon as I'm done re-writing it and give it a shot! DVD or studio quality in wav format is prefered.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
A man on Coast to Coast am said it perfectly about Zeitgeist that if a film is put out and the person went to great lengths to put together a boat load of information base them off of facts and put them in a movie, and share it with the world Free. Then that really means there is no profit into spreading the film.
There is so much crap and disinformation all over the place in this world. So the only way to discern is by listen and feel from your heart, not your head about the information.
bigsteelguy 2 years ago
Well, I am doing the same thing, but in a more transparent manner. Unless people volunteer to help me I am going to shell out my own money because I believe that education and learning how to sort good knowledge from uncertain sources is really important in today's culture.
If you just shut your eyes and start going around following all the warm fuzzies you get you will one day walk blindly in to a bed of coals.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
You can disregard any of my posts and that is fine, I'm just still shocked till this day people are still trying to debunk the films because it hammers into an old paradigm belief system.
Kinda like telling people the planet is round when they believed it was flat for the longest time. I can tell you that if A Movie doesn't cost a dime to watch and it cost thousands to make it. Where is the motive for a film that is free? Getting truth out
bigsteelguy 2 years ago 2
I do not mind answering. I think this kind of discussion is healthy for our society. People need to learn to listen, really listen and not just react. It was almost a year ago now that I saw this film and I've given the subject a lot of thought. I think people who do not study the old belief systems are caught not knowing what to believe when something like this comes out. Thats why I'm doing this series.
Zeitgeist does take in money from Amazon selling DVD's by the way.
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
I totally don't trust Amazon and i never shop there anymore, they charge way more for alot of things, it is only $5 for the Dvd at the Website, but you can download the movies Free and burn them to disk like i have. So other than buying the blank Dvd's and sleeves the movie is FREE.
By the way are you doing a series on the other 2
Zeitgeist Addendum and Zeitgeist Orientation guide video?
OR are you just doing the first one?
bigsteelguy 2 years ago
I will remain flexible on this issue and do whatever I think I am obliged to do. Maybe someone else will do it before I do while I'm working on this project. I highly encourage everyone to dig deep in to the wealth of knowledge in collegiate spirit.
Also, going to the FAQ section of the Zeitgeist website you will find that the director invested money from freelance work he did and then re-touched the movie once it got popular. You just have to trust he's telling the truth or keep searching
VinnfordSansbury 2 years ago
Of course that in the past christians did worship the sun Ra but over time it got distorted, mixed, and misinterpreted.
As for the now moment, that is really when you are watching your self conscious when you are aware that you are spirit and not the body, the now will take you deeper than time itself.
The sources are all over the place, alot of them are in Egypt and on alot of walls covered in symbolism.
bigsteelguy 2 years ago
Wow, I did not even get to that part yet. I hope you will stay tuned for the discussion on Ra as the series continues. If you have some good