Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - What the Bleep do We Know?

Tags: New Age Bull, WTF DO U KNOW?! [ Add Tags ]

[ Return to Review Requests | Reply to Topic ]
lofihigainPosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 21:23
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

are you guys familiar with this? It's sort of a self-help/"mind-opener" that masks itself as a study of string theory, unifying theory, subatomic stuff. It's full of new age tripe, fake, Madonna-esque English accents, and crazy shit about how water has memory and emotions.

It's like it's trying to sneak in homeopathy, Ouija boards, recce healing, and clairvoyance under the radar and make it look scientific.

Is this crap even worth debunking?

#1 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Edward L WinstonPosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 21:26
(0)
 

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho: porn star and five-time ultimate smackdown wrestling champion!

Level: 150
CS Original

Oh god, yes, it's just... just terrible.

My physics background is limited to nuclear physics, and I've wanted to get someone who knew a bit more about quantum physics to help me create an article for it, because I think if I did it alone, it would be lacking.

It is worth debunking, it's more known than Zeitgeist, at least at the time, and it helps fuel all types of dangerous beliefs like homeopathy.

#2 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 21:32
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

yes awful patronsing self centred shit. Almost as bad as the secret. Almost.

#3 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 23:31
(0)
 

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

I haven't seen this film but its title suggests a common tactic among conspiracy theorists, which is to deny facts based on some attenuated philosophical argument like, "How can we really be sure of anything?" The purpose of this argument is to lower the bar for evaluation of evidence so that conspiracy theorist speculation is accorded equal weight with established facts that tend to contradict conspiracy theorizing.

Based on the title alone this movie sounds like something that should be debunked.

#4 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
michiPosted: Apr 26, 2010 - 23:50
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

Well for one thing, in the water scene in the movie, the old lady says that we should keep in mind that we are made of 90% water when the true figure is about 60%. If they screw up such basic figures it detracts greatly from their credibility. And it annoyed me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpnlCo5APrE

#5 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 09:32
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

Yes Imagine what thoughts could do to us ? They should try having a few.

And imagine what a terrible pseudoscientific movie could do to us.

#6 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
michiPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 11:37
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

What really troubles me is how they have actual physicists on that movie. Were they angry with the finished product? I mean what self respecting scientist would want to be in a movie with Ramtha?

#7 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 13:06
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

Yeah I actually mailed Dr wolf when that came out and told him off for being in such a shit movie, he didnt like it. He actually got pissy with me haha

This guy: http://www.fredalanwolf.com/

#8 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 14:03
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

Yes, some scientists were not happy the way they were represented. If you watch closely, you'll see how their sentences were chopped up and combined with sentences from quantum mystics in order to make them seem like they were saying something they really weren't.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html</p>

"I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed."

#9 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DannyPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 14:28
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

I need to show my brother this. People like this are pathetic.

#10 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 14:44
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Hey Danny, now you know how we feel about Alex Jones

#11 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Sil the ShillPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 14:45
(0)
 

Level: 9
CS Original

Ed beat me to it, but yeah pretty much.

#12 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Edward L WinstonPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 16:06
(0)
 

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho: porn star and five-time ultimate smackdown wrestling champion!

Level: 150
CS Original

Magic all up in this bitch.

#13 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DannyPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 19:13
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

"Hey Danny, now you know how we feel about Alex Jones"

And?

#14 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 19:23
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

"And" maybe that should teach you that maybe you should honestly check to see if Alex Jones isn't as disgustingly dishonest as these people are?

Or do you not care if you are duped into believing something equally stupid for different reasons?

This film quoting people out of context is no different from when Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists doing it.

#15 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DannyPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 19:26
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

"maybe that should teach you that maybe you should honestly check to see if Alex Jones isn't as disgustingly dishonest as these people are?

Or do you not care if you are duped into believing something equally stupid for different reasons?"

He's not. Granted he makes a few minor mistakes and misquotes, but it's NOTHING commpared to the types in this doc. I fail to realize why people think the idea of the government invading their privace as "equally stupid".

Also, I disagree with his drive-by journalism that he does.

#16 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
lofihigainPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 19:31
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

Danny, AJ makes much more than just minor mistakes.

No, the idea that the gov't would invade your privacy is not a stupid idea. It's the "logic" that he uses to get to his conclusions. To AJ, gov't invasion of privacy is....THEY'RE GONNA COME INTO YOUR HOUSE, AND KILL ALL YOUR BABIES!!!!! (He actually said something like that once). Also, if you feel like it, search "Alex Jones y2k" on youtube. If you EVER bring that broadcast up in an AJ forum, they say things like, "Oh, is that all you have, a recording of Jones from 10 years ago?!?!?!"

#17 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
DannyPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 19:36
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

"....THEY'RE GONNA COME INTO YOUR HOUSE, AND KILL ALL YOUR BABIES!!!!! "

Like the AFT did at WACO.

" If you EVER bring that broadcast up in an AJ forum, they say things like, "Oh, is that all you have, a recording of Jones from 10 years ago?!?!?!"

I'll give you that, Even myself, I was threatend once by someone on an Infowars forum, because I questioned the drive-by journalism tactic. But people make mistakes,I'm pretty sure your favorite journlaist makes mistakes, so why the big deal if Alex Jones makes a few?

#18 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Edward L WinstonPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 19:40
(0)
 

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho: porn star and five-time ultimate smackdown wrestling champion!

Level: 150
CS Original

His Y2K broadcast shows the great lengths he'll go to, to make a sensation, and how much he'll lie. That or you could just check things he says in his older movies.

#19 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
lofihigainPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 19:44
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

so, the y2k broadcast was a mistake, and not a deliberate lie? Did you listen to it?

edit: also....CHECK THIS SHIT OUT.

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/videos/watch/1/alex-jones-executioner/</p>

Yes, I know it's on the site, but some people probably haven't explored the whole thing yet.

#20 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
EdPosted: Apr 27, 2010 - 19:46
(0)
 

Level: 10
CS Original

Hey Danny do you believe Silverstein admitted to blowing up his own building on TV?

Alex Jones claims he did and to prove that he said that "pull it" meant to put explosives in buildings to demolish them.

He quoted a documentary called "American Rebuilds" to prove this but stops the tape after someone says "We're getting ready to pull building 6", that's because right afterwards you see they are literally using CABLES to PULL it down. But Alex claimed that this proved "pull it" was a demolition term to mean using explosives. Ealrier in the film which again he didn't show you they even say that explosive demolition for the other WTC buildings was not viable as it was too dangerous for workers to plant explosives.

That's the kind of person you defend, who then goes to Silverstein's offices and bullhorns "murderer!" with a bunch of other idiots.

There's hundreds of other kinds of stupid stuff like that.

#21 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]