Skeptic Project

Edward wrote:

I don't know what he's hoping to gain with his "directors cut" -- wasn't he already the director?

Haha, I didn't actually think of that. Maybe he never said those words? Well he means a new version anyway. What he will change is anyone's guess, but its bound to be a fun filled lie fest like the first one.

, 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.

As they are very fond of saying to others, its just an ego thing.

Either that or he is following through with his expressed belief that conspiracy theories are the number 1 reason why people join the Movement. When he says that he wants to remove Zeitgeist Addendum from the Movements materials I would have said a year ago that was a great thing, however now I see its probably just a way to allow him to say whatever crap he likes in his Zeitgeist films and not have people telling him Zeitgeist Movement is promoting it. ie. He is already doing damage control for this new Zeitgeist version. That's my theory anyway.

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.

I think it died a long time ago and here's why.

Ignoring all claims about "scams" which I personally don't believe in and ignoring their recent poor choice in attaching themselves to Zeitgeist, I think Fresco had the wrong idea to begin with in putting ALL his hopes on this Venus Project society.

You see I like some of his ideas as I think you do too, and to quote the TED talks tag line "ideas worth spreading", however instead of using his hypothetical society only as some kind of ideal metaphor and instead worked on real world problems and work towards providing real world solutions he decided merely to push the concept of his society.

This "plan", if you will, was really unclear until the Zeitgeist Movement since they didn't really have much information about their current activities but now we know what they really want to do which is to "get the word out". That's all they care about, as soon as you realise that's all they plan on doing I think its clear its already failed - even if you assume they have the best intentions. Oh sure they want to make some kind of "research city" at some point but that in itself is a pipe dream. How will they get funds? How will they get engineers? They can't even raise a few million for this "film" they want to make, but if they did manage to make one what do they think will happen afterwards? Wealthy investors will just poor in and give them billions to build this stuff? Of course not. So after they make such a film (assuming they got that far) and it flops (which it invariably will) it will be back to normal "spreading the word".

So since all the Venus Project is about is "spreading the word" and that's been the whole plan for a long, long time, its safe to say it died some time ago.

If Merola had simply said "You know what, fuck Conspiracy Science, just ignore them." I would have such a different take on this.

If Merola had simply said "You know what, fuck those douchebag cocksucking fuckface assholes at Conspiracy Science." I would have such a different take on this.

Because Merola is qualified to call people douchebag cocksucking fuckface assholes.

But he is not qualified to call anyone mentally ill or present himself as an intellectual authority on anything but huge xylophones.

Maybe he is using the term "metal illness" in a kind of metaphorical sense rather than the actual definition, but that's probably giving him too much credit.

Funny though that so many of the Zeitgeisters admit to having a mental illness (ie. Asbergers) I wonder if Peter has that as well :D I took the test and registered about 65 aspi level, which surprised me since due to some of the stupid questions figured it would incorrectly classify me higher. Asbergers sufferers really must have issues.

@Ed,

That's the delicious irony of all this.

Zeitgeisters show nothing but disdain for academia and traditional science and medicine when needing a reason to explain why they are uneducated and work at Burger King.

The day this Merola cretin steps into the real world should be one of the funniest things you will ever see.

He will literally get his fake ass handed back to him in public.

Let me tell you...He will be laughing on the other side of his face then.

Not saying he will, just saying if he does my 'prediction' should be fairly acurate.

More is discussed here:

http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/the-lazy-webskeptic-conspiracy-science-zeitgeist-challenge-defenders

^ Jumping to a lot of conclusions, because you feel threatened.

He didn't imply that everyone here has been banned. He also didn't state that there have been irrelevant points.

It's about your conduct.

When you consistently ignore the responses given to your criticisms within a thread and break the established rules of the forum there isn't much of an option given to the moderators.

It's not like your content has been removed from the forums. Look what I dug up:

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=3&id=232057

How about that phone call? Ever get around to that? What about all the relevant responses made within the thread, are you ignoring those still?

The problem isn't that you're are voicing criticisms, it's that you are ignoring both responses given to your criticisms, and reasonable solutions for your grievances.

"3. Those participating in external places like CS need to remind people that anyone banned is welcome back if they will agree to follow the rules here, and to discuss things on topic here. And they need to remind people that criticisms of specifics in the activist guide, Fresco's work, etc are always welcome here, and they need for people to explain to them the difference between questioning, criticism, and attack."

Kris I dont feel threatened, thats just the most retarded thing you could have said.

Everything I have posted is a response to them, If anything they are threatened by me. All I do is report on them and theirs.

They are the ones with all the defensive posts and their people are constantly coming over to me to attempt some kind of irrelevant discourse about their pet project.

Nope you couldnt be any more wrong Kris

Just so you know I dont post there and when I did I was never banned, I left because the place is a cesspit of protectionist BS.

PS What phone call Kris ? Ignoring what ?

"PS What phone call Kris ? Ignoring what ?"

Never mind. I was under the impression that you were the user Roy Jones on the Zeitgeist Movement forums. If that is incorrect please clarify that to me. If you wouldn't mind, can inform me what your user name was on the forums?

>> Edward - you are so certain that you are right about your content, as well.

No I'm not, I've corrected a lot of things since I started the site 2 1/2 years ago, I always wonder about being wrong.

>> You exude confidence in "knowing" that you have done absolutely unbiased and credible research, which has debunked everything from 9/11 conspiracies to the total content of Zeitgeist I and II.

I never say I'm unbiased either.

>> What if were you wrong about something, or a lot of things? How would you react?

Well, it's not hard to find out. I was 100% wrong on what I had originally said about the quote from Edward Grey never happening:

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-three/#world_war_i</p>

I was corrected by the noted person. You can find notes like this all over my site, where people have corrected me where I was wrong. I definitely don't break down when I'm wrong, nor do I just hold strong and tell myself that I'm correct.

I've been wrong a lot. You seem to imply that I've never admitted to being wrong myself and that I'd have a hard time doing so if I was wrong. Why not hold Peter to the same scrutiny?

>> It is under my current understanding that you have made some errors in your content on this website. More specifically, logical fallacies and unsupported conclusions. Don't take my word for that, I'll direct you to an in depth criticism of your website in time.

I've heard that a lot too, and I await your in depth criticism, but be sure to source your work. I'm not sure what logical fallacies you think I have, the point of the site is to find out whether or not a claim made is true or false, it's not a large research project meant for encyclopedias. I've gotten this promise a lot in the past, and so far no one has delivered.

>> Anyway, the Movement has always, from day one, made it clear that it is the activist arm of the Venus Project. Please point me to the evidence where anyone representing the Movement or the Venus Project has stated that the Movement adheres strictly to the content of Zeitgest I and Zeitgeist Addendum therefore promoting conspiracy theories. I would like to see this evidence of direct admittance that the Movement adheres to the Zeitgeist films, and the Zeitgeist films alone.

It's made that clear, yes, but when the films are shown at TZM meetings, when they have the same name as the movement, when the leadership doesn't tell people to stop using the films in such a way, what does that mean? What it really comes down to is: are regular people ever going to be comfortable with the movie associations, and is the mass-media, assuming TZM gets large enough to be recognized by them, going to let that go or use it against TZM? It's a real detriment to the movement, and Ed has addressed many times the associations between the films and the movement, and hopefully he can add to this topic about that.

>> Obviously the films were the best recruitment tool because the film directed people to the Movement's website. However that doesn't mean that the Movement has ever been anything other than the activist arm of the Venus Project. You simply do not have any evidence for this.

Evidence for what? That the movies and movement have the same name? That despite the claim that the first two films were "just art projects" they're shown at meetings and used for recruiting?

Saying and doing are two different things. Yes, there is nothing directly on TZM's site that says "hey, watch these movies" but it's fairly apparent from the membership that it's both promoted by them as a part of the movement and used to recruit others into it. To claim that has no baring on the moving is just naive.

>> However, there is contrary evidence: Fresco himself has disapproved of conspiracy theories and they have nothing to do with the Venus Project whatsoever.

That's true, but Peter claims none the less that "95% of what's in the films is correct" So he still believes in conspiracy theories, and having a conspiracy theorist -- and promoter -- at the head of your movement is not going to end well.

>> You guys are guilty of addressing Peter's character as if every facet of his personality and all of his actions are representative of the Movement.

He founded it, he's the leader, he represents it, therefore people are going to see it that way. If you think we're hard on Peter, just wait until the mass-media gets a hold of him, and average people will have a hard enough time accepting the concept of RBE -- they tend to think it sounds like communism -- and adding a layer of conspiracy films, dancing around connections between the movement and the films, and Peter being seen as the leader and representative... well, again this isn't going to end well.

You don't need to stick to the party line about Peter not being the movement or the films not being the movement, everyone knows that they're not the same thing, and that's not the argument here, nor is it a way to avoid the listed issues above, because you're going to have to deal with them eventually. People will believe the mass-media before they'll ever believe you, and if the mass-media says "this is a conspiracy movement like communism, that's anti-religion, run by a conspiracy theorist" that's the end of it. You can't change the world if most people think you're bad, stupid, or evil.

"If you want to make it clear that your positions are not debatable that should be posted somewhere on your blog, so people don't waste your time challenging your viewpoints."

http://anticultist.wordpress.com/about/</p>

Thats always been there and every zeitgeister ignores it

"But let me tell you this I WAS a well respected member of their forum who was pro and unbiased up until I started to see a recurring pattern of banning, locking, deleting and ignoring of anything that they deemed unworthy/irrelevant or questioning."

In order for me to have a neutral viewpoint on the matter, you have to disclose your user name, otherwise I will simply take it as another one of your statements which likely has a large degree of inaccuracy.

"So where is their data, where is their evidence, where are their written papers? where are their city designs [technical including every detail to build] ? where are their donations going, where are the sales of all their expensive videos and books going to ?
where is all the money they are making from the world tour going to ?"

Their data is available in many of their published books, their website, the Movement's website, their lectures, etc. The Venus Project has made it clear as to what they advocate in all this documentation. A resource based economy, with no money, that advocates sustainable global production practices, and provides people free access to the necessities of life. All provided within a microcosmic system of self-sustaining city systems.

As far as their details concerning their technical blueprints, that is something you will have to ask them specifically for. As you have deduced, Jacque has made many line drawings, renderings and models of his ideas. However, it is also been stated that none of these designs are final. The Venus Project is obviously a framework for the possibilities of applied science and technology toward the common good, free of monetary restraint. So even if they don't have these blueprints, it doesn't matter in the end, the framework is good enough for professionals to extrapolate. But, I suspect they have pretty explicit details. Ask them for yourself.

Their non-profit donations are transparent to the Government, records of which are available for anyone to view. As for their for-profit transparency, that is nobody's business. People voluntarily pay for their products and services. Just because you have an issue with them personally does not mean it is any of your business to know what they spend their private income on. I have a large problem with you and how you conduct yourself, can I see your tax returns and all of your receipts please?

Perhaps I should write a blog that details all of the public actions that you perform, with criticism. Then perhaps I should try my hardest to find out all the personal information I can about you and disclose it in a negative light. I don't like the way you conduct yourself, so using your logic, I should probably write a blog about it, shouldn't I?

"In order for me to have a neutral viewpoint on the matter, you have to disclose your user name, otherwise I will simply take it as another one of your statements which likely has a large degree of inaccuracy."

Prove the innacuracies.

"Their data is available in many of their published books, their website, the Movement's website, their lectures, etc. ."

Untrue, there is no first hand data, no studies they have conducted, no scientific analysis that is peer reviewed, they self published all their own books because noone else would. their website is an advertisement platform for their media, and has no scientific research they themselves have carried out. All their research data is from external 3rd parties research and publications or anecdotal observations on jacques part, none of which are specific to jacque frescos claims, none of which is scientific in the least.

"Their non-profit donations are transparent to the Government, records of which are available for anyone to view. As for their for-profit transparency, that is nobody's business. People voluntarily pay for their products and services. Just because you have an issue with them personally does not mean it is any of your business to know what they spend their private income on. I have a large problem with you and how you conduct yourself, can I see your tax returns and all of your receipts please?"

Am I running a humanitarian group ?
It is everybodies business in this case as they claim to be doing this for all mankind and for the noble truths of the human conditions health.
Issues with them personally is not the case, Issues with their inability to take on board sensible advice, deal with transparency and ignore requests of any improvement thereof is more the case.

"Perhaps I should write a blog that details all of the public actions that you perform, with criticism. Then perhaps I should try my hardest to find out all the personal information I can about you and disclose it in a negative light. I don't like the way you conduct yourself, so using your logic, I should probably write a blog about it, shouldn't I? "

Feel free you wont get much interest as I am of little concern to the general public as I am making no grand claims that interfere with every single detail of their lives.. be my guest

"Zeitgeist I is absolutely crucial to the entire Zeitgeist Movement. This is why Merola will never jettison conspiracy theories, and why it's totally disingenuous for Zeitgeisters to claim that "the movies aren't the movement," because they clearly are."

That is a logical fallacy. They are the core generators of interest in the Movement, they are not the tenets and goals of the Movement. Generators of interest is the key term here. A person can garner interest from the KKK, and start being active in eliminating racism. A person can garner interest from violent behaviour and become non-violent.

"That's true, but Peter claims none the less that "95% of what's in the films is correct" So he still believes in conspiracy theories, and having a conspiracy theorist -- and promoter -- at the head of your movement is not going to end well."

You guys know that using the term conspiracy theory is baseless, as that one Knowledge Base question points out. It is a red herring in the way that you use it, implying very negative connotations. Instead be direct about what you disagree with (the demolition theories behind 9/11, etc.)

Look, I am trying to learn the truth about things as well. There is research on this site that is not in-depth. Look at the response to Part I of Zeitgeist I for example. Acharya S has an incredible amount of sources used, and the more I research her work the more I agree with her viewpoint. which is backed by a lot of different scholarly documents and endorsed by a lot of scholars. Christianity, like any other idea, emerged from prior knowledge, which happened to be myths and symbols from other cultures and religions.

With regards to the debunking of Part I of Zeitgeist: Addendum, the fact is Peter's entire source for that section is Modern Money Mechanics. Every statement he makes is either taken directly from that document, or is summarized from it.

There are a few claims that you make that are fallacies, that pertain to your argument against Peter's in this section, Edward. One example is how you shrug off the "money out of thin air" argument with no reasonable or provable basis for that conclusion. Even if you look up fractional reserve banking on wikipedia, it shows you how bank deposits made from loans increase the money supply from the act of depositing alone. Doesn't matter if it is M0 or M1, the fact is that the value of money is based on the entirety of the money supply, not just the hard currency, M0.

An example of an unsubstantiated claim is when you claim that it is not permitted for the Federal Reserve to buy bonds from the Treasury. Your source is a blog with no primary sources that doesn't once say that it is forbidden for the Fed to buy bonds from the Treasury. It simply gives an example of how the Fed buys bonds from the market, which is an unsourced claim (although the claim itself isn't untrue - you used an inadequate source). In fact, I have found documentation that the Fed has actually done this prior to 1960, and recently in 2009. (http://www.instantnews.net/us-federal-reserve-to-buy-treasury-bonds.aspx)

I have noticed a lot of poor sourcing and logical fallacies that pertain directly to your arguments throughout these two sections.

Anyway, it's a two way street. No one is infallible, and some people are reluctant to admit mistakes. Big deal. Doesn't change my viewpoint of a resource-based economy, and it has always been made clear to me that the Movement is the activist arm of the Venus Project.