It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What The Bleep Do We Know DEBUNKED....

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:06 AM
I have been reading, "What the Bleep Do We Know?" and I have watched the movie. I generally like the concepts in it and enjoy it, but there is one statement in there that kind of throws the whole validity of anything in the book for me, and its the part where it talks about how the Native American's couldn't see Columbus's ships because they didn't know what ships were and had no concepts of them.

I have a hard time grasping that concept as anything other than just plain ignorant. Can someone please explain to me how anyone can find that idea logical?

My problem with it is that people see things they have never had any concept of all the time. Take for instance the first person that ever saw a UFO, or take a baby for example. You can watch a baby play with a toy that it is seeing for the first time and has never ever seen or had any concept of previously. That doesn't mean the baby can't see it, as the film and book would suggest.

This one statement, or story if you will, is really bringing down the validity of this book for me. I was having a great time reading it up until I got to that part, and I, that is really....dumb....

Maybe I am missing something here?

[edit on 9/3/2008 by Mr Gone]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:12 AM
lol seriously it says that? that's they saw them, they had boats too, it's just N.O.W. propaganda.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:22 AM
You aren't missing anything, they saw the boats.
"And since there were neither towns nor villages on the seashore, but only small hamlets, with the people of which I could not have speech because they all fled immediately..." -Christopher Columbus from a letter to Luis de Santangel February 15, 1493.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:49 AM
reply to post by Mr Gone

Mr Gone, please don't flame me, I'm pulling this info out of my early memory of the history of Columbus, and his initial voyage....(I am not a scholar....but, I believe it's intriguing, and I think Wikipedia is my friend!)

His first fleet did NOT land on the shores of the continental North American continent. Their landfall occured on some Western Carribean islands, that are now called the 'West Indies'....the legend has it, he thought he had gone all 'way 'round to the fabled 'East' .... home of the silk and spice trade.

Now, I have read, somewhere, that the actual diameter of the Earth was estimated more closely than the legend would indicate, and there was a surmise by intelligent people that another continent existed. I believe, to placate the crews of the first three ships, they were just told they were going to 'India'....hence, the name.

Having written that piece, it begs the question of why the early settlers to the mainland East coast of what is now the United States continued with the term....perhaps a Master's Thesis (if not already done)??

Further research is indicated, to include the other explorations, mostly Spanish, that headed further South to Central and Southern America. to go research!

EDIT....oh, I forgot to add....without telescopes (the natives had none), of course.....a ship will only appear above the horizon, to the un-aided eye, when it's within a few score miles of the shore. AND you'd have to be actively looking for them.....

[edit on 9/3/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Shawn B.
lol seriously it says that? that's they saw them, they had boats too, it's just N.O.W. propaganda.

Yeah, it seriously says that. In fact, in the movie, there's a whole 10 minute segment about it. The lady who proposes this information is Candace Pert, PhD. And she seems like a nut if you ask me. How can anyone possibly believe that the native americans did not see the ships because they had no concept of ships??

And BeaverG, thanks for that quote. The native americans had boats themselves.

Also, another thing that makes this book/movie lose credit is the fact that they use "Ramtha" as a valid source. How can you use a self proclaimed prophet as a valid source of information? Hmmm... this book/movie contraption is starting to stink to me.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:04 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Why would I flame you, lol? You actually help prove my point. Another reason this "PhD" in the book doesn't know what she's talking about is because Columbus didn't actually land his ships in North America.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by Mr Gone

Actually this seems to be an idea that is gaining traction in some acedemic circles. IE that one must beleive to see. Its ridiculous psudeoscience of course, as concepts are usually based on bservation rather than vice versa, but it is fashionable.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:14 AM
Wow, I found this on the net through some weird form of google summoning.
Figured I'd share with you....

Without really knowing it, I've watched a film specifically designed to promote Ramtha's (ramthian?) beliefs. Now I'm not opposed to following someone's beliefs, but how can I not be suspicious with the way this was presented?
I've watched a movie claiming to debunk the concept of all other religions, which maintains a $2 million dollar compound in Yelm, Wash. for the purpose of conducting classes for the followers of Ramtha, and are we not supposed to think at all about this being their version of a religious belief? All the experts are presented without any discussion of their connections with Ramtha, or the entire creating force of the movie being Ramthian followers.

in addition The following persons in the film have all spoken at RSE and sold books there.

Fred Allen Wolf
Dr Candice Pert
Amit Gotswami
John Haglin
Joe Dispenza
Miceal Ledwith
and of course, Ramtha has a wonderful expose on this aspect of the movie, saying the movie could easily be interpreted as a full-blown infomercial for Ramtha. When criticized that the money for Bleep came from Ramtha, the creators ignored the implication that the followers of ramtha helped with the money, and instead issued this quote, which I actually love:
"Ramtha did not fund this film, as Ramtha does not have. a bank account or a Social Security number"

ok, so next time I'll be specific and say "the followers of Ramtha funded this movie to promote their interests, and Ramtha can claim a lack of responsibility since Ramtha does not actually do the accounting for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment"
how does that sound?

here's a link to's article on the subject

before I forget... I also read some interesting information on the 3 scientific proofs.
1. There appears to be no source for the story about the Indians literally not being able to see Columbus's ships.

2. The "Maharishi Effect" was an experiment in 1993 about the drop in violent crime in DC during a two month period of meditation. There were a number of problems with this experiment including that the murder rate actually rose. It was discovered later that ALL the members of the "independent scientific review board" were followers of the Maharishi, and the experiment has never been independently replicated.

3. For the formation of crystals in certain shapes in response to a word on the bottle, or music being played, what the filmmakers don't tell you is that for each type of crystal, Emoto takes 50 samples, and then spends (hours, days?) browsing through each of them for the one that looks right based on the word he selected. From Emoto's website: " we look at a sample of water 50 different times and take photographs when the right image appears"


And it all becomes clear.... looks like just one big covert advertisement for Ramtha.

Note: Ramtha's name was not used with permission here, and all proceeds should be forwarded to the Ramtha School of Enlightenment where applicable.

[edit on 9/3/2008 by Mr Gone]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:22 AM
reply to post by Mr Gone

Yeah, the Ramtha part is what lost the movie for me. I am ok with the concepts that they put forth and I don't even have that big of a problem with the boat story that you make reference to, but the use of Ramtha was a bit of a turnoff. It made it feel like more of a recruitment tool than anything else.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:23 AM
The Wikipedia entry on the film explains where the story might have come from:

In the film, during a discussion of the influence of experience on perception, Candace Pert notes a story, which she says she believes is true, of Native Americans being unable to see Columbus's ships because they were outside their experience. According to an article in Fortean Times by David Hambling, the origins of this story likely involved the voyages of Captain James Cook, not Columbus, and an account related by historian Robert Hughes which said Cook's ships were "...complex and unfamiliar as to defy the natives' understanding". Hambling says it is likely that both the Hughes account and the story told by Pert were exaggerations of the records left by Captain Cook and the botanist Joseph Banks. Historians believe the Native Americans likely saw the ships but ignored them as posing no immediate danger.

The brain is capable of ignoring objects in such a fashion that they become invisible (anyone who has ever gone fishing may have noticed the float disappearing after staring at it for a while, only to have it reappear after shifting your gaze), but only after the brain classified it as being repetitive and unimportant (similar to how you stop feeling the socks on your feet shortly after putting them on and only start feeling them again once you shift your attention to it).

This is of course entirely different from not being able to see an object due to unfamiliarity. Any humans carrying genes rendering them unable to discern new stimuli would have quickly died out.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:28 AM
reply to post by Mr Gone

Mr Gone....oh, I see now! Was not familiar with this 'Ms. Pert' and having seen some other posts in this thread, about seems to verify that she may indeed be nutters....or at the very least, be completely wrong in her facts and perception...with a ph.D, no less!!

Someone else mentioned Captain Cook....wasn't his claim to fame in the Pacific Ocean???

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:29 AM
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed

Wouldn't that make Christophers boats UFOs? Right?

reply to post by weedwhacker

From what I have read and remember Columbus made exaggerations to gain the financial support of Isabella and that other guy. His 'estimates' wouldn't even get him to Bermuda.

( Mr. Gone, no problem. I thought first hand accounts would be effective and I was actually reading it just a few hours before you made this post. )

[edit on 3-9-2008 by beaverg]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:34 AM
What the Bleep Do We Know is a load of rubbish. Pseudoscietific mystico-garbage. Want details? Read the Wikipedia article on it, or this. You paid good money for it, you say? Poor you.

As for the specific claim being discussed here: encounters between European sailors and land-bound natives have taken place hundreds of times throughout history and are extremely well documented (ships have logs). In none of these encounters was it ever claimed at the time that the natives couldn't see the white men's ships. They sometimes ignored them, though, usually when they didn't regard them as a threat.

Recently, pictures appeared in the media of members of a hitherto-undiscovered tribe living deep in the Amazon. The pictures were taken from an aircraft, clearly something the members of the tribe cannot have had any conception of. You can view the pictures here. Does it look like the tribesmen can't see the aircraft?

Tommyrot, fiddlesticks, poppycock and twaddle.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:33 AM
thats why the book is labeld/titles "what the Bleep do we know" right there they are basically saying that are selling you a bunch of garbage and the authors dos'nt know anything use full.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:43 PM
I totally agree. I didn't pay good money for it, I borrowed them from a friend. However, had I paid good money for them, I would have been happy to have paid to come to the conclusion that it is all insignificant garbage. Now I can tell others not to bother reading it and tell them why.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:50 PM
Why don't babies float away into space? They are obviously too young to believe in or know about the effects of gravity.

Why did the Native Americans die when they were shot by firearms? The bullets should not have any effect on them. They did not know about bullets or guns.

Ramtha? That pretty much says it all.
JZ Knight is a wacked out fake.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:59 PM

watch this...

Then read this

[edit on 3/9/08 by Lebowski achiever]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:18 PM
seriously, they offer "Ramtha" as an expert in that movie. RAMTHA. The lady that says she invokes an alien entity to talk for her. Apparently, she is here to convince us how science works.

Luckily, the only people that fall for this crap probably didn't have much to contribute to science in the first place anyways.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by Mr Gone

Its called development. Children see and have imanginary friends because they havent been programmed to believe what the PTB want them to believe. Through years of conditioning and a childs development into adolecence society and the induvidual have been conditioned not to see what is really out there but only what they want us to see. To go backwards and try and break this conditioning is very possible and easy, however, you are then viewed as being delusional or mentally unstable.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:09 PM
I loved this movie until reading this thread.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in