Right, Im likely to get shot down in flames for this but nevermind, nothing ventured nothing gained.

It seems to me that everytime some information or evidence contrairy to the claims made by Fresco or the zeitgeist cabal comes out its poo-poo'd as if it doesn't exist and those who suppose other evidence are made some kind of heretic.

Is this really a scientific method? For instance, I can't deny that Fresco has some good ideas. I cant deny that the Zeitgeist films make many valid points, however Fresco or Peter Joseph aren't scientists that Im aware of in any given field. Many of the ideas here are therefore educated assumptions. Sorry to burst peoples bubbles, but its true.

So, if we wish to start as we mean to go on then should we not at this point in the planning stage invite/pay some top scientists and people at the top of their industries to give their data and information on specific subjects. You can argue with me and each other, but you can't argue with the reality provided by leading persons of their given fields.

Just a thought - it might kill off the current follow the leader trends.


SEE PETER'S RESPONSE - PAGE 2

So what happens if actually nobody wants to attack you?

Do you mistake authority for competence?

Do you assume narrow focus makes someone's opinion more valid than broad focus over many fields of science?

Here are some sources for you, if you are interested, of course:
thevenusproject.com/blog/recommended-reading/
most of it downloadable from here: www.gazup.com/LMc6P-booklist.rar

Compilation of Scientific, Peer reviewed articles
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/inde...atid=6&id=171211

Data and studies relevant to TZM
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/inde...amp;id=212187#212314

We are trying to make sense, and actually show how science can be applied to help the life of people, not ruin it. Many of the famous scientists happen to be too narrow-focused to do that, which doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. They also gradually realize the trends, which people like Kurzweil are talking about.

katastron wrote:
So what happens if actually nobody wants to attack you?

Do you mistake authority for competence?

Do you assume narrow focus makes someone's opinion more valid than broad focus over many fields of science?

Here are some sources for you, if you are interested, of course:
thevenusproject.com/blog/recommended-reading/
most of it downloadable from here: www.gazup.com/LMc6P-booklist.rar

Compilation of Scientific, Peer reviewed articles
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/inde...atid=6&id=171211

Data and studies relevant to TZM
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/inde...amp;id=212187#212314

We are trying to make sense, and actually show how science can be applied to help the life of people, not ruin it. Many of the famous scientists happen to be too narrow-focused to do that, which doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. They also gradually realize the trends, which people like Kurzweil are talking about.

Are you suggesting that an expert in a given field is incompetent, or that people who read the odd NewScientist article and a few pdf files are somehow better? Im confused. It sounds like your advocating a civilization based on science, without scientists.

I dont want to read your suggested reading. I like unbias information whereever possible thanks.

My friend, you seem to have something on your chest you want to speak about. Please, go for it.

Why don't you offer some scientific proof? Bring some arguments, you have an idea that you think we should use and we don't? Let's have a debate.
You feel safer when the doctor says you should take the swine flew vaccine, but he doesn't? We question everything, put something on the table.

What is the criteria for deciding information is completely unbiased?

Certainly. I think many of you are full of shit quite frankly. Many here are self proclaimed science professionals and quite frankily Ive seen more science knowledge come out of a pre-school. I personally don't have any scientific background, but then again, I don't pretend to be either. Paddling big words and throwing a list of vetted statistics and agreeable sources at anyone who wants a professional scientific approach is not going to get anyone of you anywhere and you know it too. Why else are we in the exact same position now than when we started.

The people who in the past were actually worth their salt and contributed have been either thrown off or forced off because they wanted discussions about apparently unwaivering policies and Im begginning to wonder whats really going on here. At the beggining they coined long fluffy articles about how this would be about personal freedom and how we'd all contribute together. As far as Im aware as soon as anyone mentions anything they mods feel iffy they are warned.

Of course if this was down to personal choice there wouldn't be SS admins and the likes of Joseph telling us we can't do our own thing and create communities and raise funds for individual projects under the world-wide community of Zeitgeist.

Now. Stop throwing your programmed responses and approved statistics at me and tell me straight. I've asked a perfectly straight forward question. If this whole movement is to be based on the scientific method, why are'nt REAL scientists asked, and why Isn't true scientific debate encouraged instead of avoided.

Christ this is worse than being a climate sceptic in the IPCC.

Wow, I didn't see your post and I just posted a similar one a few minutes after you did. Maybe we'll both be shot down.

- I'm having a hard time lately with the way the VP is handling the challenge of other organizations claiming to do a 'better job and have better ideas' at resolving the same issues that the VP is focused on. I'm hearing phrases such as, "dismiss them", "copywriting and safeguarding our ideas", "I think they will go away when they see...", "I have no doubt...", "I expect..." etc. I am seeing this as a serious challenge and an opportunity for the VP to demonstrate just how the scientific method can work but I am only hearing subjective opinions, hopes and legal action. I don't see how the VP can be built on a foundation of legal action and hopes and then, at some point suddenly decide it's the right time to let go of all that. At what point will everyone's 'rights' be taken away while assuring a better future? Thanks.

I agree about the fact that we should try bringing together scientists.

For the other things you claim, you have any proofs or are just stories?

EssexUK wrote:
Certainly. I think many of you are full of shit quite frankly. Many here are self proclaimed science professionals and quite frankily Ive seen more science knowledge come out of a pre-school. I personally don't have any scientific background, but then again, I don't pretend to be either. Paddling big words and throwing a list of vetted statistics and agreeable sources at anyone who wants a professional scientific approach is not going to get anyone of you anywhere and you know it too. Why else are we in the exact same position now than when we started.

The people who in the past were actually worth their salt and contributed have been either thrown off or forced off because they wanted discussions about apparently unwaivering policies and Im begginning to wonder whats really going on here. At the beggining they coined long fluffy articles about how this would be about personal freedom and how we'd all contribute together. As far as Im aware as soon as anyone mentions anything they mods feel iffy they are warned.

Of course if this was down to personal choice there wouldn't be SS admins and the likes of Joseph telling us we can't do our own thing and create communities and raise funds for individual projects under the world-wide community of Zeitgeist.

Now. Stop throwing your programmed responses and approved statistics at me and tell me straight. I've asked a perfectly straight forward question. If this whole movement is to be based on the scientific method, why are'nt REAL scientists asked, and why Isn't true scientific debate encouraged instead of avoided.


Christ this is worse than being a climate sceptic in the IPCC.


Are you trying to say that nobody can use the scientific method unless it meets your standards.


The scientific method is a collection of data observed and proofed by experiment. and any hypothesis is subject to this process.


Anybody and I mean anybody can use this stated method and is not in anyway subjected to your terms.

Please check the link below if you would like further reading.

teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html