Skeptic Project

@Kris: I'm guessing you missed my question from the last page, or you're just ignoring it. I'll post it again so I know for sure.

>>"Kris, if I may: I'm very curious as to why TZM puts so much emphasis on the folks here at CS. Do they not realize that there's only a handful of people who post here, and some of those people are just posters like yourself?"

Sil:

There may only be a handful who actively post here, but this website has gotten a lot of attention.

Unfortunately, notions of the Movement being a cult, and anything other than the activist arm of the Venus Project are tossed around, along with many other insinuations.

I can only vouch for myself and say that I am posting here to air grievances I have with the information presented formally on the website, and informally tossed around on the forums.

I believe that is why Peter addressed the website with his article, as well.

"So much emphasis" may be an overstatement. Addressing people who spread misinformation is certainly an initiative tossed around, and I have taken that initiative upon myself, as I'm sure other members who have addressed things on this forum have as well.

Merola is obviously a self-promoter of the highest order, but he's exhibiting pretty much the same pathology of most conspiracy theorists, that being the "special knowledge" conceit. It's one of the major things that attracts people to conspiracy theories, the notion that they are "in the know" above and beyond most people and that their knowledge is special enough to save the world when all of us poor saps who don't believe are fated to go down in flames. Merola has just taken that to a higher level because, unlike most conspiracy theorists who think that exposing the conspirators is sufficient to change the world, he's latched on to Jacque Fresco's putterings in his garage as the answer to humanity's problems, so he's going to try to sell us on that knowledge as well.

The Zeitgeist Movement's beating heart and soul is conspiracy thinking, and that's exactly why it's going to fail. It's kind of a shame because the Venus Project (although I disagree with it) is not without merit, but Merola latching on to it was the worst thing that possibly could have happened to it.

Agreed for the most part, @ Edward.

What's incredibly odd to me is how the Venus Project stuff got married up with conspiracy theories to begin with. I mean, it's not like they go together naturally. It seems a complete accident that PJ Merola happened upon the Venus project only after he got himself out there as a conspiracy theorist, because believing in conspiracy theories does not lead in lockstep progression to the Venus Project. It's like saying, "Hmm, you know what, animal cruelty is really bad. The answer to stopping animal cruelty is...SCIENTOLOGY!" There's just no logical progression from A to B. But now the Venus Project is totally tainted by conspiracy theories.

Kris I have asked you this twice now and you appear to ignore it, you are a member of zeitgeist please answer this:

Peter Joseph Merola thinks Edward is mentally ill [evidence is all above], do you think Peter is in any intellectual/professional or academic position to make these diagnostic claims?

Typical obfuscation and subject-dodging by Zeitgeist defenders.

Are there not social problems that exist in the world? Or are you guys deluded in thinking that everything in the world is absolutely fine?

Totally off topic. Zeitgeisters often have a knee-jerk reaction that if you criticize their movement, you must be a 100% defender of the status quo and believe that there are no problems in the world. This stems from a conceit that following Zeitgeist is the ONLY viable solution to ANY world problems. This is why Zeitgeisters' canned comeback to any criticism is usually, "Well, how would YOU solve the world's problems?" My answer: I certainly wouldn't try to solve them by convincing people that Christianity is bogus, 9/11 is an inside job and that evil bankers rule the world.

Case in point: a lot of people here will never take Peter seriously because of the associations with conspiracy theorists being totally unreasonable.

This is another standard-issue Zeitgeister comeback, and one extremely common to conspiracy theorists: inability to distinguish between questioning the credibility of a source and an "ad hominem" attack. ("Ad hominem" are conspiracy theorists' favorite Latin words). This usually manifests itself in an argument to the effect of, "Well, Merola may be wrong about some things in his movies, but he's right about the Venus Project" or "even if the Zeitgeist films are totally wrong the Venus Project is still valid."

The problem, though, is credibility. As Edward has stated many times, why is it necessary to lie to people about imaginary conspiracies in order to "open their minds" to the Venus Project? Peter Merola has been consistently and egregiously wrong about the past quite often--he gets the history of Christianity wrong, he fundamentally misunderstands the economic system, and he certainly gets 9/11 offensively and outrageously wrong. With as wrong as he is so much of the time about the past, you want us to think he's right when he tells us what our future should be? Why should we give this guy an ounce of credit? He hasn't earned it, and to point this out is not "totally unreasonable," it's a legitimate questioning of Merola's credibility on the issues he claims to care about.

The simple fact is that Merola usually has very little idea of what he's talking about whenever he shoots his mouth off. Isn't it a natural and logical reaction to be skeptical when a person with his poor record of being correct talks up the movement that he himself is the leader of? Why can you not see how we can be legitimately skeptical of this?

That's a lot of banhammers...6 pages worth.

Most of them were banned for "ad hominem" or "type 3" troll status. From I can tell, a type 3 troll is just someone who disagrees.

"Reason: Obviously not in support of the movement. Someone who was just here to cause problems." O RLY?!?!? I'm surprised he did not capitalize, "the movement".

As soon as I am allowed to post there (it takes forever!) I will conduct an investigation. I would like to see if I can be banned for simply disagreeing in a diplomatic way.

"I think he is in the same position as any one else, he has the right to express what he believes."-- Kris

He has the right to express what he believes, but that expression is not consistent with the practice of medical diagnosis. Pete's opinions on this are, as you indirectly said, worthless, regarding Edward's mental health.

Also, I know what Peter means when he says that Edward is mentally ill. I know he is not diagnosing him with schizophrenia, and I don't think Edward believes that either. Edward is mentally ill because he hasn't "woken up" to the terrifying reality of NWO conspiracies (you can replace that with the monetary system, reptilians, etc); he hasn't opened his third eye, BRO, to see the world for what it REALLY is. To Peter, anyone who doesn't buy in to his ideology is mentally ill. It's very typical for fringe thinkers to see the rest of the world as unenlightened, mentally ill, or just plain ignorant.

If Peter Merola classifies certain people as ill, does that make them so? no it doesn't...in fact, it more likely demonstrates that they are mentally healthy.

>> Edward hasn't done a good enough job with his research regarding the subject, and nothing in that section has been debunked.

I always get this claim from die-hard supporters of Peter Joseph, Alex Jones, and other people. So, if nothing has been debunked, God's Sun really is the same as God's Son, as suggested in the movie (it was removed later on). Horus is a sun god, despite that not even being remotely true.

Is it not intellectual inhibition to say:

Joseph was of 12 brothers, Jesus had 12 disciples.

That's purposely making significance out of something that isn't. Claiming "of 12" vs "had 12" is actually 12 vs 13. That's pretty inhibited if you ask me.

The entire 9/11 section is also total bullshit, but Peter Joseph claims 95% of his film is correct, but the 9/11 part is hardly 5% of the film.

Or is me pointing these things out a <insert debating buzz word>?

Sorry, Edward, like I suspected you haven't done adequate research. I'm not going to debate this until you read the source material.

Christ in Egypt: The Horus/Jesus Connection is a good start.

Even the wikipedia article on Horus says that Horus is the God of the sky, with the Moon and the Sun being his eyes.

Before you debate her claims you should also look into her sources as well, otherwise you're not researching enough to make a valid argument against the topic.

Horus being the god of the sky doesn't make him the sun god, that would be Ra.

That's purposely making significance out of something that isn't. Claiming "of 12" vs "had 12" is actually 12 vs 13. That's pretty inhibited if you ask me.

So, what book should I read to change this?

Should I watch Loose Change again for the 9/11 source material?

@Kris: Maybe not, all I've heard you say is "check her sources" or "you're wrong about things".

- Subject dodging. What subject have I avoided here?
- Off topic. How is discussing Zeitgeist off topic in this thread, which is about intellectual inhibition?

I take issue with the "are there not social problems in the world that need solving?" comeback because it's an attempt to deflect the conversation away from the flaws in the Zeitgeist films and movement goals into a false choice of either being A) totally behind the ZM and agreeing with everything Merola says, or B) being totally unwilling to lift a finger to solve society's problems or perhaps even denying that they exist. No one on this forum would deny that there are social problems that exist in the world. That's very far from being the issue. The issue is whether the motives of the ZM are trustworthy. I posit that one of the major unacknowledged motives of the ZM is to spread conspiracy theories and promote acceptance of conspiracy ideology. Almost every Zeitgeister I've ever confronted about this responds in exactly the same way you did: deflect the conversation from a discussion of the conspiracy aspects of the Zeitgeist Movement to a debate about whether your ideas or mine for fixing the world's problems are better. It's subject dodging and off topic because it's not responsive to the criticism, which (at least MY criticism) is, why if the ZM is so interested in promoting the Venus Project, does Merola continually and consistently cause the movement to be identified with conspiracy theories and use them as a recruiting tool?

You guys have gone well beyond simply questioning his credibility and totally into personal defamation.

Defamation is spreading derogatory information about someone while knowing that it is untrue. I, at least, have never said anything that I believe to be untrue of him.

- Peter Joseph lies. I highly doubt his intentions are that dubious. It's pretty simple that he believes in what he discusses in his films, and he has self-corrected over a few issues, but is more resilient on others because it seems he hasn't been convinced.

Peter Merola is a 9/11 Truther. Because it is settled fact that 9/11 did not and could not have happened the way that Merola and other Truthers claim it did, anyone who believes otherwise is either (1) ignorant or mistaken on the facts; (2) delulsional or otherwise incapable of understanding the facts; or (3) deliberately manipulating and misrepresenting information or lying. If Merola truly is as intelligent and logical as he clearly believes himself to be and as he shows himself to be in lectures and such, I'd say that in his case (1) and (2) are less likely than (3), but that's by no means a slam dunk.

Let's take one specific example of a claim he makes about 9/11, that being that the hijackers are still alive. Most Truthers believe that to be true, but it's a claim that's very easily disproved with a minimum amount of checking. (This link, for instance, spells it out: http://911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive)

Now, it's not like this is arguable, as if whether the hijackers are or are not still alive is legitimately unknown or open to more than one reasonable interpretation. They are dead. Anyone can ascertain that with an extremely minimal amount of fact-checking.

If the sources cited in Zeitgeist truly are as well-checked as Merola claims they are, it seems very puzzling to me that he wouldn't have discovered the truth very easily--particularly after Edward pointed it out in his specific debunking of Zeitgeist I. However, to my knowledge, Merola has not backed off this claim or issued any sort of correction.

So what's the explanation? Surely he can't really believe the hijackers are still alive, can he? After all the facts that indicate they're dead? Really? So scratch mistaken or delusional. Process of elimination, what are we left with? Merola knows that the hijackers are dead but chooses not to correct his statements in Zeitgeist I that they are alive.

Why, then, does he not correct it? It can't be because he doesn't know the truth. I suspect it may be because he takes an "ends justify the means" approach to conspiracy theories--that throwing even demonstrably false theories in front of people is justifiable in the name of gaining more followers to the Zeitgeist movement. I don't know that's his thought process, it's just a supposition, but if that is what's going on, that alone disqualifies Merola as any sort of credible spokesman for a movement that supposedly benefits everyone.

- The history of Christianity wrong. Have you actually read any of Acharya S.'s work?

Archaya S. is pseudohistory and totally unreliable. Considering that I have a degree in history (about to go for another) and have taught a course on the history of Christianity, I'd like to think I know a little bit about the subject and also about how to tell good sources from bad. Citing Archaya as a reliable source is basically academic malpractice.

To Peter Joseph on that thread:

Absolutely, I can begin to feel how much it's changed your life. I for one am eternally grateful and I couldn't summon up worthy enough words for what you do, it's truly heroic.

Seriously, heroic? I've forgotten what he's done, other than creating an Internet forum that has IRL meetings every once in a while. If this really makes you a hero, than all those nerdos down at my library for the linux users group are heroes too.

However, this is not the case, and will continue not to be the case as long as the CS users engage in hate, bigotry, homophobia and the gradual frittering away of their lives cajoling and insulting any and everyone they come across.

Apparently we're homophobic too, not sure how that happened. It really doesn't take evidence to convince TZM members of something, does it?

The only explanation is that her "discoveries" (read: stuff she took from Gerald Massey and others) is so shocking, so dangerous to society, that every mainstream historian has to disagree with her -- and apparently the only way to disagree with someone is to read all of their works -- creating a huge conspiracy against her. I imagine that's how she sees herself, but it's far from reality.

The only explanation is that her work is so dangerous to society? Sometimes I have a hard time believing what I read from you, and some of the people on here. Such ignorant assumptions.

Really? The only explanation?

Seems like the same train of logic that Muertos uses up there in his post, coming to conclusions, ignoring other potential outcomes without factual information.

It's actually pretty simple. Christians feel threatened by her work, and just like any other era where this information has been brought to light, it has been opposed.

As for "every" mainstream historian...

There are fellow historians and archaeologists who support her work. So, that is by no means "every" historian. As for critical responses (including the one from Skeptic magazine), she has responded to almost every single one on her website, in detail. It turns out that there are very few credible criticisms, because none of them actually refer to her sources at all, just their own biases; which are often Christian, or based on incomplete information, such as the prior criticisms by Robert Price and Richard Carrier, which have now been retracted.

So tell me Edward, how am I supposed to trust the research of someone who makes such blatantly ignorant assumptions? Lets not ignore the mistakes you have made in your criticisms either.

First off:

The above statement implies that constellations and the zodiac have always been connected -- and that there have been just twelve.

That is an incorrect assumption, as the original statement clearly denotes the twelve major constellations, which should really imply that there are minor constellations, as well. So your premise is totally incorrect, because the original statement never implies that at all, you simply misunderstood it as an implication.

And, obviously the original statement is referring to the mainstream Zodiac. The major constellations are the basis for both the Julian calendar, and the mainstream Zodiac. The focus of the argument has nothing to do with the Babylonian or the Mayan zodiac's, both cultures have never been associated with influencing Christianity.

Then you confuse Horus the Elder, with Horus, son of Isis and Osiris (the Sun God Horus) multiple times.

Even Wikipedia states:

Different forms of Horuses are recorded in history and these are treated as distinct gods by Egyptologists.[1]

Now, here is your first blatant mistake:

"Horus was not born on December 25th, he was born on the 5th day of the "Epagomenal Days"[3],"

Actually according to your source he the festival of his birth falls on the 2nd Epagomenal Day.

Now, not only have I found much conflicting information regarding the specific date of the 2nd Epagomenal Day:

July 15th - http://www.philae.nu/philae/perankhH.html#Horus<br /> July 28th - http://www.whiterosesgarden.com/book_of_shadows/other_books/egyptian_magick/maps_misc/egyptian_holidays.htm<br /> August 1st - http://neosalexandria.org/cal_mod.htm</p>

But the date simply refers to the Egyptian festival celebrating Horus' birth (none of them are also specific as to which Horus is being referred to) and not the original details of the myth itself which describes Horus's birth from Isis occurring on the solstice.

Now, if you would've actually done your research instead of just dismissing sections of the Companion Guide because your shoddy research "debunked" them already, then you would know how the birth of Horus from Isis is attributed to the winter solstice with confirmation from many historical accounts and the original hieroglyphs depicting the myth.

In the hieroglyphs Osiris has been known to have been killed in the fall months. Just prior to the winter solstice months later, Isis fashions a phallic object out of his remains to conceive Horus and give birth to him on the day of the solstice.

This is confirmed with many sources in the document, none of which are Gerald Massey.

I would say the original hieroglyphs have more authority than a festival date on a calendar.

So, I'm supposed to trust the research of someone who can't even refer to their own sources properly, and makes conclusions about information based on pre-determined biases?

Your entire argument stems from the premise: this is wrong. Without proving that the source material is incorrect first, you subsequently cherry pick information, some of which even supports Acharya's work (the original source) - such as a reference to the work of Plutarch, which Acharya uses extensively as a source.

If the Zeitgeist films aren't the movement, why rush to defend them?

I'm pointing out inaccuracies in your critical review. I'm not defending sections of the film that I haven't done research on, just the ones I have. I am doing it in the name of truth, just like you are.

Hahaha so funny you are! It's even funnier that you assume I won't detect your sarcasm! Wow, good one! Do you have a degree in humour too? Does it sit nicely on the wall beside the engineering degree that you don't use?

It's very suspicious to me that you work in some area of media publishing, when you apparently have a degree in engineering.

But hey, I'm not just going to assume otherwise and rule out the possibility that you are telling the truth. I'm mostly just annoyed by you which makes me doubt you, so my emotions get the best of my reasoning skills, sometimes.