| From Samuel|
Tuesday, July 01, 2008, 11:49
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Not the Zeitgeist video again!
Perhaps you would have done better to post as "Help! I've been brainwashed!"
I will admit that conspiracy theories usually do not do it for me, but I do think everyone deserves a chance to have their voice heard. However, this means that the person speaking should take care that they are not misleading the reader, or outright lying, or using alarmist tactics that would diminish their credibility. Why? Because if I find through research that someone has done that, I no longer feel obligated to give them a chance anymore. This is what has happened after watching the clip.
Let's start with the beginning of the clip, the "Jesus myth" as I like to call it.
Claim number 1: Jesus was born of a virgin:
So what? This really doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. We're talking about gods and religions being founded, and what better way to gather a quick following than to claim that your deity was born of a virgin? That's not something you hear every day, you know. So that other religions have used similar claims is a coincidence, but should not come as a big surprise to anyone. The same with performing miracles. Everyone likes to believe that their god is capable of doing the impossible, as it makes them feel like their god is powerful and better than the next god. “So, your god Thor controls the thunder? That’s nothing, my god Dionysus turns water into wine!” See how that works?
Claim 2: Jesus was born on December 25th:
Really? At the peek of the Winter Solstice? Do you know how cold it gets in Israel during that time of year, even today with global warming factored in? Here's one picture:
Here's another one, around the Wailing Wall: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/620000/images/_623754_snow150.jpg
Here's one more: http://www.jerusalemshots.com/i/snow/Jerusalem-snow-30.jpg
Put this together with the story from The Bible, which says: "she brought forth her first born son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them at the inn."
"And there were in the same country (Israel) shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid."
Suffice it to say that if this was happening during the Winter Solstice, the shepherds would have had their sheep inside, especially during the night. The sheep simply would not have been able to handle that kind of weather, and the shepherds wouldn't have been that comfortable either, what do you think? So the shepherds are outside watching their sheep shiver in the cold, some getting sick, some may be dead by this point, but all of a sudden the angel shows up from the sky and now, they're afraid. But not of the weather, of the angel. What gives?
Most Christians admit that we don't know the day of Christ's birth, so let's throw all the weather evidence out for a second and just do some simple math. Since December 25th is a random day, what are the chances that Christ was actually born on it? The chances are .273%! What about the Winter Solstice? Well, the chances of that are still very slim, being about .8%! And that is where the video starts to fall apart, because most scholars believe that Jesus was probably born either in the Fall or sometime in the Spring.
Why is this new time a problem? Not only does it invalidate the claim in the movie about Christ's birth on the 25th, but it also invalidates the next claims about the Star in the East being Sirius, the Southern Crux, and the Three Kings (also, please not that there were not necessarily three wise men that visited Jesus. There were three gifts, which could have been spread out among two kings or wise men, or there could have been 5,000 of them!) The Bible gives us no clues as to how many there were. Astrology tells us that the events talked about here happen at the Winter Solstice! No Winter Solstice means NO Sirius, NO Southern Crux, and NO Three Kings!
It also upsets the idea that the belief in the death and resurrection of the Christ had anything to do with astrology or Sun Worship, since the Sun does these things only during the Winter Solstice.
Now, let's move onto the next issue: The World Trade Center!
Claim 1: An anchor on CNN said the World Trade Center was “collapsing”, and said this was the result of something that was planted because the two towers were both collapsing in the same way.
First off, the guy is a television anchor. He wasn’t there, he doesn’t know what happened, and with little information to go on, he can only judge by what he sees.
Because this claim is not very specific, pretty much claiming that some person planted a bomb at the WTC, I will lead you to this site, which should answer the most common arguments made for a bomb being planted at the World Trade Center.
If you or the author of the video do not want to read that, I can pretty much break it down for you. Of all of the claims made for demolition (that the government planted a bomb), none of them seem to be able to stand up to scrutiny so far.
Claim 2: NORAD conducted exercises using hijacked airliners as weapons
Yes, NORAD did that before September 11th. NORAD acknowledges that these regional drills took place. They were not scheduled continent- wide exercises. In a statement, NORAD had this to say in the USA Today article:
"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."
And most importantly, a White House spokesperson said that the Bush administration was never made aware of these exercises.
Now, here’s where things get a little tricky. You see, NORAD was responsible for defending the US and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere, and not domestic attacks like what occurred on September 11th. Because of this, the scenarios involved foreign aircraft. Since then, their responsibility has broadened to include domestic attacks, so you can sleep in peace at night.
USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
Claim 3: Passport Found:
Does a passport found at the World Trade Center mean that the government was trying to plant evidence? Let's hope not, because if this were so, this means that on top of being extremely evil, the government employees that carried out this plant were also incredibly stupid. For one thing, planting a passport would not be necessary, and would only make things look more suspicious. One might make the claim that the passport should have burned in the World Trade Center, but if the passport should have burned, so should have these pieces of debris from the street where the passport was found.
Unless of course you believe the government planted that seat cushion also.
Some other similar materials that survived the fire:
But here’s what can happen when someone makes a big issue out of a small thing. You hear a guy on the radio rambling some kind of conspiracy theory about how the passport “goes through the fireball! Through the side of the plane and comes down to the ground unscathed! But something happened…for six months they reported they had this passport! We got it, we got the proof! And then the guy stood up and was alive!”
Well, it didn’t happen quite like that.
The passport found at the World Trade Center belonged to Satam al-Suqami, a dirtbag, follower of Osama Bin Laden, and hijacker on Flight 11. He did not stand up after the attacks, and was not found to be alive.
But don’t take my word for it, you can see his passport right here. http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Satam_Suqami_Passport_Cover.jpg
Shall I open it up for you? http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Satam_Suqami_Passport_Open.jpg
Claim 4: Abdulaziz al-Omari
So wait, how does the Abdulaziz al-Omari character from the video factor in? And who was that guy that stood up and was alive? Well I can tell you one thing for sure, it wasn’t a resurrection act!
While al-Omari’s passport was found, it was under much different circumstances. Al-Omari’s luggage never made it onto the plane, and was discovered after the attacks. He was also a hijacker on Flight 11, but not before he stopped at an ATM with Mohammad Atta.
Al- Omari also showed up in this video made public by Al Qaeda, showing that he was going to be taking part in the attacks. As a tribute to him, and perhaps to prove that the video had been produced after 9-11, he is shown against a backdrop of the smashed Pentagon.
But here’s where the radio tale becomes even more tangled. You see, the article they point to in the video has nothing to do with either of Al-Omari OR Al-Suqami! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1341391/Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html
The article deals with a completely different person altogether- Waleed Al-Shehri! And yes, there is a person by that name that is alive. No miracles, no ressurection. Just some guy who had the same name as one of the hijackers and got confused for him.
But what does all this mean? What does it prove? All it proves is that the government was having a hard time figuring out who these hijackers were. For the most recent information on the theory that certain hijackers are still alive, please see here.
Claim 5: The timing of the bombings in London is eerily similar to the timing of an antiterrorist exercise.
The two events are not as similar as they are hyped up to be. See the calculations here:
Now that that’s finished with, we can move onto the next part of the film: The North American Union!
First off, the idea that the North American Union was unannounced to the public is ridiculous. The public might not have paid much attention to it, but that is their own fault. An article pertaining to the meeting mentioned in the video can be found on none other than the White House’ own website. So much for trying to pull a fast one on the American public.
There it is! Read it and weep, Zeitgeist!
Only one mainstream reporter has taken this story? Ha! I give you…Human Events!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965 John Birch Society!
http://www.jbs.org/node/6122 World Net Daily!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58788 Global Research!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COR20060521&articleId=2491 Judicial Watch!
http://www.judicialwatch.org/SPP.shtml Source Watch!
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile/english/2005/March/20050307145251AEneerG0.6980249.html and last, but not least, The Washington Times!
The government did, in 2006, begin installing RFID chips into all new American passports. But just like the North American Union, the media picked up on the story, as did privacy rights advocates.
Read the last article. It explains how an RFID chipped passport would simply reveal an identification code. An identification code does you no good unless you have access to the database. Otherwise, your stalker or identity thief is out of luck. Therefore the RFID will enhance security, because your information cannot be changed or seen, even if some stranger were able to scan your passport and read your identification code. That means you don’t have to worry about Osama Bin Laden stealing your passport, changing the picture on it, and flying as you.
If you’re really that worried about the RFID chip, you can follow the advice here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/start.html?pg=9
Questions about the RFID passports can be answered here: http://travel.state.gov/passport/eppt/eppt_2788.html
The author of this video wants to alarm you, and make you think that everyone from the clergy, to the government, to the people behind the scenes are evil people that are out to get you. If you want to believe that, that’s fine. More power to you! But why does the author see fit to twist the facts so much? If what they believe is true, then the truth should speak for itself, should it not? Why are there so many inaccuracies? And what will the author do when they find out the truth? Will they issue an apology? Will they admit that they were wrong? Or will they just ignore it, act like nothing happened, and go about their merry, deluded way?
(reply to this comment)