Welcome to the Penn and Teller bulletin board, a great place to keep in touch with
fellow Penn & Teller fans or ask questions about the guys. We welcome your thoughts!
I would like to to suggest the idea that Penn and Teller and their team of researchers to research Parts 1,2 and 3 of the documentary of Zeitgeist. There is much argument about the documentary and I am hoping that Penn and Teller could prove what is fictional and what is factual. Thanks
Not that it helps a lot, but I'm a historical fiction writer and did a ton of research on some of the ancient religions mentioned in Part 1. From everything I could recall, Part 1 is accurate although the connections between the Zodiac and Christianity seem tenuous. And Mary (Meryet) was never an alternate name for Isis, mother of Horus. However, Meryet-Isis is a common human name from Egyptian history (it means "beloved of Isis") and I can see how some people might have mistaken a woman's name for an alternate name for the goddess.
Other than that, I found it to be accurate enough.
The rest feels like a gigantic puddle of steaming poo to me. My husband was an intelligence analyst before and during 9/11 and when he saw the part about 9/11 he just laughed scornfully and turned the video off. He said it lost all credibility. I trust his opinion more than anybody else's when it comes to all things 9/11.
It's an interesting video, though. The religious stuff was well done.
Liked the first part of your response, but i don't see why you mention you husbands opinion in the second, sure trust is good but i don´t see why u discard the possibility of the theory's being right based on someone you know, i´m not saying they are right, i´m just saying that it bothers me when people are making a post, based on blind trust and not on research.
Well, the research out there is pretty clear: 9/11 conspiracy theories are bunk. Libbie might not be telling you everything her husband said to counter the claims in the dvd.
I found a lot of problems in Zeitgeist.
The narrator tries to argue that the Jesus character was totally fabricated; that someone by that name never existed. Unfortunately for him, there's some evidence that such a person did exist. (That certainly doesn't mean that the "gospels" have any basis in fact. They were written much later than the time period in which the Jesus character allegedly lived.) I believe that the Jesus stories in the Bible are very loosely based on the life of a real person who certainly wasn't a supernatural being or any of the nonsense claimed in the NT.
The narrator bases virtually his entire argument against Christianity on the alleged non-existence of a historical Jesus. He could have attacked the Bible on so many fronts (numerous verse contradictions, historical errors, similarities with older religions, etc.) but instead he focused very narrowly on the Biblical Jesus stories. It seemed like he was deliberately trying to lose.
To make it worse, he throws in a 9/11 conspiracy angle, which is unrelated to anything in the film up to that point.
I got the sense that the narrator wasn't an expert on religious history, and isn't a great researcher. He seemed to disregard facts which disagree with his views; in this way the film reminded me of Alex Jones, though fortunately without Jones's hysteria and fear-mongering.
