Skeptic Project

Meh, typical lame conspiracy theorist defense, wrapped in the multiple layers of erudite-sounding babble from Merola.

"If you don't believe in our conspiracy theories, you're closed-minded sheeple."
"If you insist on harping on all the stuff that's wrong in my movie, you're mentally ill."
"If you don't agree with the Venus Project, you just don't understand."
"They've never really debunked anything."
"They're stalkers and trolls over there."

Very Ben-esque, to be sure. Still, great that the Leader himself came down from his ivory tower to take us on. This should drive some more traffic to Edward's site at least.

Amusing read for a Sunday afternoon! Now excuse me, I have to go take my Thorazine and bang my head against the wall repeatedly. Doc says if I show improvement I can be out of here in 6 months...

Hes going stir crazy in his London hotel room

I just think Merola is an ageing hipster who is running out of time before he has to get a real job. I don't think he's mentally ill or anything, just spoiled and immature. Pretty ballsy to sit back and provide analysis like that with his background.

Funny reading his armchair psycho-analysis of Edward. Ironic how such things are useful when you need them, and tools of the monetary system and the status quo when you don't.

Being the admin of a message board and an art school dropout is enough to diagnose people with mental illnesses isn't it?

Also he plays a huge xylophone.

I'm sticking this topic for everyone to see, because unlike Peter, I'm not afraid for people to see opinions counter to mine and won't hide what he has to say, no matter how incredibly delusional it is.

I've got more, anticultist, regarding TZM's belief in pseudo-science:

http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy300/di_gifs/15mlhjdjpg.gif

That's my point Matt, lol. Even Esperanto has more success! If I could say that in Esperanto, I would.

"Egale Esperanto havas pli sukceson!" ?

@Sil,

I know, that is hilarious, I don't know why he thinks I'm so popular. I wouldn't even say 10, I can think of 7 off the top of my head, and at least two are conspiracy theorists, and one seems to be dangerously on the fence. I'm not gonna name names, I would never do that (also hilarious).

Maybe he and Plautus are the same person, oh no, conspiracy theory... I mean coincidence theory, or... wait, what?

This could not be more accurate:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/black-electron/didntread.gif</p>

Here is why:

“I have been getting many complaints from people who claim that I did not read the Companion Guide, so therefore I cannot debate the movie. My first argument against that is I was debating the facts in the movie, which does not include whatever is written in an e-book by another author.”

What is really being stated here is: “I refuse to research anything in regard to the sources of this information.”

His final statement shows what an absolute liar (or idiot) Peter is; Edward does address the information in the book:

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/companion-guide/</p>

The reason Peter says at the beginning:

The issue I want to address here has nothing to do with the supposed “Debunking” of my films on the website, but rather the tactics, mentality and what I can only classify as a biased based mental illness of its author, Edward L Winston

...is because he knows addressing the issues would point out whether he is right or wrong. Peter is an individual who cannot be caught in the position of ever being wrong, which is why he has never admitted to it and why he addresses claims against him: either by avoiding the central issue with red herrings or by attempting to "undebunk" minor issues in order to avoid much larger issues on hand, but still look like he has "undebunked" them.

I agree with Edward that Acharya S does lie and it does not take a lot of effort to see how true this is. Peter will always have to support her, because if he were to abandon her he would indirectly admit he was incorrect in Zeitgeist Part I, thereby admitting himself to be wrong. Stated previously, he is incapable of being incorrect.

A reply I read earlier is accurate in that the depiction of Edward in the forum post is reflective of how Peter believes others view him. He is simply projecting his own fears onto others. The assessment of his narcissism and using Edward to distract his members is likely accurate (at least the narcissism part).

I have read through that entire thread, which was a complete waste of time and effort on my part, and the described "bunker mentality" and "cult mentality" of (at least) the central membership and leadership of the Zeitgeist Movement is fairly accurate. This will eventually destroy his movement and a third film will likely renew interest, but it will not last if Peter remains in-charge.

Just like the Zeitgeist Movement nobody knows who Edward is and nobody cares. Peter's post only serves to stroke his own ego and for him to be reassured that his positions are infallible and the Edward is just some psycho on the Internet.

Go where you belong from now on - into the dustbin of history!
- Trotsky

>>>> And OMG! What is the guy's problem with a freakin' $5 DVD?!!!! That's a bargain on any street corner. I guess he's saying Mr. Joseph has claimed not to be making any money at all off the movies, which he has not claimed to my knowledge.
>> Such things are invented to make a psychological profile that I am "dishonest" or "lying" to people.

I guess this page doesn't exist: http://zeitgeistmovie.com/dvdorder.htm ?

>> . For instance, since the release of the article, it's like a beehive that has been wacked over on their forum, where the people there have gone full force with as much hate speech as they can come up with, including Edward who has, like a racist pushed in a corner with logic and reason, now has no recourse but to call me every name he can find.

Yes, thanks for the hits, in fact I made an extra $2 -- hey I could order a DVD, oh no wait, just the shipping. You know what, I'll donate not only that $2 but all of my ad money from today to charity. That's because I know they won't be getting any money from you any time soon.

>> Suddenly there is a banner up in the Zeitgist section that tries to draw attention to this article and twists the argument, as would be expected, that I am simply calling Edward "Crazy", with the strawman that is has something to do with the infomration itself on his website, or people not "agreeing with me".

Suddenly, I saw he called me mentally ill, and now he's claiming my pointing that out is a straw-man? Is he serious or just joking around? This definitely is in the arena of Poe's Law. Comparing me to a racist isn't a straw man either.

>> I couldn't care less if people agree with me or not.

He probably should, considering if people disagree with him, it will work counter to his potential "success" for his movement.

>> This has nothing to do with that- it is just another escapism...likely a pathological one.

Just like convincing yourself that you'll be so big that you'll be in Madison Square Garden next year and then when next year is a bust, pretend like none of that ever happened. Or maybe escapism as in pretending 350,000 people on a mailing list is equivalent to active members in your movement. Or never saying "I was wrong" ever. Or pretending as if having the mass media against you -- which they will be if he's ever covered to a great degree -- is irrelevant. I guess nobody else remembers Howard Dean. Maybe all that isn't necessarily escapism, but it's definitely delusional.

I'm just a guy running a crappy blog with 3K page views a day, and I'm not pretending to change the world. He goes out of his way, even when Skeptic Magazine covered his film, and points me out as some enemy. I'm a nobody, he's supposed to be the glorious leader, yet I warrant a forum post?

>> In the end, it is really disheartening how nothing it given critical intellectual review. I'm going to leave it at this. I'm not here in the interest to "change" anyone and my focus is not on CS as an institution - it is about the sickness in the society where people would rather immediately seek reasons hate you, without even really knowing you, than find common ground.

Actually, he's right, I didn't like him when he was a Ron Paul supporter, said "God's Sun = God's Son", sourced Alex Jones, and Helena Blavatsky, oh and he was arrogant as shit. That isn't to say I'm not arrogant, but I'm not pretending to be a saint.

I'm sure you're going to read this Peter. Good luck with your movement, you'll change the world in no time by getting everyone huddled together and turning the outside world into a monster.

When I turn off my computer The Zeitgeist Movement and Peter Joseph cease to exist, they have absolutely no impact on the real world. The same is true for me, of course, but then again I haven't been claiming to be changing the world for over a year, I'm just some asshole on the Internet. That's at least two things Peter and I have in common.

The original 9/11 section was copied from other sites, but not copy/pasted like his Part 2 of his film. All the topics at the time were already discussed everywhere, it was easier to take the ideas, check them out, check the sources, and so forth. At the time literally no one came to my site, it was only used to expand upon stuff in Zeitgeist -- all of which had been done, because as Sky pointed out, all of it was taken from other movies.

I mean, it's not like a conspiracy theorist would ever just take stuff from anyone else! The 9/11 section has been edited, corrected, I have a lot of my own stuff in there now, Dave's stuff, and so forth. Instead of saying how my 9/11 section is wrong, he can only point out that the topics have also been covered elsewhere.

/delurk/

I am quite busy right now but I have been lurking, I just had to reply to this subject.

I remember one time that Peter said he writes better than he speaks? Or maybe it was the other way round... either way he is clearly a terrible writer. When I hear him talk he sounds decent and logical (assuming you ignore what he is saying) but when he posts stuff like this he just sounds like every other conspiracy theorist woo defender I've heard. It seems to me that people seem to show their true colours more often than not in written debates so the more Peter writes like this the worse he makes himself look.

I would love to debate a truther that calls me a "coincidence theorist" since its so damn stupid. All these "coincidences" are based on lies and half truths, ie. if you know the background or what REALLY happened... its not so coincidental. Building 7 for example, the BBC reported that collapse early... what a coincidence! Well not really since EVERYONE was saying Building 7 was going to collapse and the FDNY knew it was probably going to hours earlier. The passport found at the WTC site, such a coincidence that it survived the fireball! Well, not so much a coincidence when you realise that LOTS of stuff from the plane fell on the streets below and LOTS of perishable stuff survived the fireball which turns the claim on its head and requires conspirators to have planted not just a passport but all that wreckage and debris under the noses of horrified New Yorkers without them noticing.

But I digress...

I hope he does bring out this new Zeitgeist 1 "directors cut", You can bet your ass he is going to include more 911 crap, I just wonder if it will be anything new or if he will take anything out. I also REALLY hope he does bring out this 300 page source guide thing I keep hearing out. I'd love to show that his sources are based on absolute crap, I think many truther's I talked to on there assume its based on something real because he has a big list on his website and Peter wouldn't lie to them... would he? And even though I debunked so much on their forums I still get the feeling they give him the benefit of doubt. I would be so happy to go through it and point out exactly where Peter is lying or too ignorant to be trusted. I'm sure Edward would with Part 1 section too.

/lurk/

I never argue against Modern Money Mechanics, I used it, he obviously didn't. I already stated my points in both articles. PJ isn't the first person to claim that I either said MMM didn't exist or that I was somehow saying it was wrong, I've said neither.

I don't know what he's hoping to gain with his "directors cut" -- wasn't he already the director? -- or with his 300 page Acharya S monstrosity, he's already peaked in the amount of people who are willing to be both truthers and anti-religious "astrotheologians" or whatever they want to call themselves.

Most conspiracy theorists are on the right, most are also religious (for example Danny, Casey, and many others that have come through here), there's no way further promotion of this is going to help his case. I also thought the movies *weren't* the movement, so why the hell is he remaking it? Isn't this all mixed signals? Why is he making a third with the same name? I know, he's "responded" to this questions, but in his typical dance-a-thon way.

He's just trying to save face and save a sinking ship. I'm just happy his organization doesn't exist too much in the real world, so when it implodes, it won't hurt too many peoples lives. I also know this will likely be the final blow to the Venus Project, and I've come to accept that as well, that the project is pretty much over with.

>> Unless he intends to debunk the feds own documents, i think not.

That's not even remotely true:

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist-addendum/part-one/page/2/</p>

I talk about Modern Money Mechanics and how his explanation of how bonds are purchased is wrong, and Modern Money Mechanics doesn't explain it that way, he does.

I don't understand why, someone who opposes capitalism anyway, gives a shit about the Federal Reserve and how "bad" it is. The only reason he argued any of that stuff to begin with is because he was a Paultard and that's a part of the ideology. If he were just a regular TVP+Conspiracy Theorist, he'd talk about capitalism as a whole. This is just one of those topics he can't abandon because, like Eric said, it would mean he was possibly wrong, and he just can't have that -- or in some cases, having something he said be irrelevant and not profound [FRS vs Capitalism], he has to be interesting at all times.

I've known many, many anti-capitalist conspiracy theorists, especially when they blew up during the George W Bush era, but pretty much none cared about FRS, because that was a part of capitalism, and despite what Peter claims, people don't have jobs to pay off "debt" they have jobs to make money to feed their families, this has been true since the rise of pre-capitalism, long before central banking.

The Federal Reserve is just a single issue within the entire system of capitalism, and not even the biggest one, as I said, he only cares about it because he was a Paultard, no other anti-capitalist CTs give a shit.

It'd be like going out of your way to oppose Democratic Centralism, when your real battle is against Marxism-Leninism. It doesn't make a bit of sense.