Surreal World Department

[Moochie]

Loose Change 2 is being shown on the History Channel here on September 11. My question: Is it worth seeing?

M.

[Hagrok]

You've got to be kidding me; where'd you hear that?

[ImaginalDisc]

Ted Koppel is also doing as special about Security/Freedom (A false dichotomy if ever there was one) on the Discovery channel too.

[Moochie]

The Foxtel cable network we subscribe to has been advertising it for a month. Keep in mind I'm in Australia. :)

We just had "What the bleep do we know" shown as a regular movie on one of the premium movie channels, too.

What can I say, we're just different...

M.

[jimtron]

Ted Koppel is also doing as special about Security/Freedom (A false dichotomy if ever there was one) on the Discovery channel too.

Do they call it a dicotomy?

[Hagrok]

Definately not playing on the US History channel, at least according to http://www.history.com

There's a special Australian History Channel?

[ImaginalDisc]

Do they call it a dicotomy?

Not, that was my own personal parenthetical editorial.

[Hagrok]

And yes, there is a special AUS/NZ version of the History Channel: http://www.historychannel.com.au/default.aspx

Unfortunately their schedule only goes through the 6th.

[Moochie]

No, not special -- they have different programming and programmers for this part of the world.

M.

[Loss Leader]

Loose Change 2 is being shown on the History Channel here on September 11. My question: Is it worth seeing?

M.


If I were Australian, I'd take the time to complain. Find some Australians who perished in 9/11 and invoke their memories. I bet a focussed camplaign could get them to pull the show.

[Hagrok]

No, not special -- they have different programming and programmers for this part of the world.

M.
Well, in my context special = different; admittedly this wasn't exactly clear.

According to the website it actually appears to have some really interesting stuff; at least there doesn't appear to be any "let's prove the bible is True by shoehorning vague historical events into warped contexts!" shows.

[jhunter1163]

Loose Change 2 is being shown on the History Channel here on September 11. My question: Is it worth seeing?

M.



No. It's full of factual errors, distortions, and outright lies. It's offensive to the memory of those who died on 9/11 and I find it utterly incredible that any cable network with an ounce of integrity would deign to show it.

Wait'll we get some of the board heavyweights to weigh in with their opinions. Mine is going to look like an endorsement.

[Moochie]

If I were Australian, I'd take the time to complain. Find some Australians who perished in 9/11 and invoke their memories. I bet a focussed camplaign could get them to pull the show.

I had thought about that, and decided against it, for the simple reason that I haven't seen it. I only know about its provenance from this forum.

M.

[Moochie]

OT: Has anyone read Leonard Maltin's take on "What the bleep do we know"? I found it intriguing, if not disquieting. But then, I don't know the man's religious affiliation.

M.

[Hagrok]

I had thought about that, and decided against it, for the simple reason that I haven't seen it. I only know about its provenance from this forum.

M.
I believe you could probably find it on YouTube if you'd like; or you could read Gravy's critique. It has a full transcript of the original LC.

[Moochie]

No. It's full of factual errors, distortions, and outright lies. It's offensive to the memory of those who died on 9/11 and I find it utterly incredible that any cable network with an ounce of integrity would deign to show it.

Wait'll we get some of the board heavyweights to weigh in with their opinions. Mine is going to look like an endorsement.

From what I've read here, I can only agree. But I'll have a look just the same, in order to write a complaint to the channel afterwards.

M.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here's the details:
http://www.historychannel.com.au/schedule.aspx?d=11%2F09%2F2006

[jhunter1163]

Good show Moochie. I could only stand to watch about half of it. I would have watched more but my homeowners' insurance doesn't cover injuries caused by throwing a TV out the window in disgust.

[Moochie]

No. It's full of factual errors, distortions, and outright lies. It's offensive to the memory of those who died on 9/11 and I find it utterly incredible that any cable network with an ounce of integrity would deign to show it.

Wait'll we get some of the board heavyweights to weigh in with their opinions. Mine is going to look like an endorsement.


I've just posted your words (above) and some of my own to History Channel feedback here in OZ. I'm interested in what they have to say. It's possible that they have no idea about the program's content.

M.

P.S. Hope you don't mind my bit of plagiarizism.

[Moochie]

Well, in my context special = different; admittedly this wasn't exactly clear.

According to the website it actually appears to have some really interesting stuff; at least there doesn't appear to be any "let's prove the bible is True by shoehorning vague historical events into warped contexts!" shows.


The Hitler, er, History Channel is one of my favorites.

M.

[jhunter1163]

I don't mind, Moochie. I seriously doubt that anyone at HC-ANZ actually watched it all the way through.

[Moochie]

The way I put it to them, I warned there could be some fairly dire fallout issuing from their showing of this contentious claptrap.


M.

[Hagrok]

I'd bet someone watched it all the way through, and believes every word; there's no other way that it got on the schedule.

[jhunter1163]

That's true, Moochie. As I understand it, even leaving aside the factual errors and so on, there are copyright issues with the film (i. e., Naudet brothers' footage was used without permission)

Hope they wake up there.

[Moochie]

I'd bet someone watched it all the way through, and believes every word; there's no other way that it got on the schedule.

Anything's possible. That's what makes life interesting.

M.

[Moochie]

That's true, Moochie. As I understand it, even leaving aside the factual errors and so on, there are copyright issues with the film (i. e., Naudet brothers' footage was used without permission)

Hope they wake up there.


I'll post any response I get right here. Probably won't be until this time tomorrow, though.

M.

[Loss Leader]

I'd bet someone watched it all the way through, and believes every word; there's no other way that it got on the schedule.

I doubt it. TV stations - especially cable channels - are gluttons for content. They'll take anything that they can get if they think that they'll sell enough commercials to cover the costs. I doubt anyone at the network knows anything other than that it's a 9/11 documentary that lots of people are watching on YouTube.

[Pardalis]

Definately not playing on the US History channel, at least according to http://www.history.com

There's a special Australian History Channel?

And what about the Naudet brothers law suit? Are they going to air it with the Naudet brother's footage?

Dylan and his cronies are actually going to get paid for this? :mad:

[Pardalis]

That's true, Moochie. As I understand it, even leaving aside the factual errors and so on, there are copyright issues with the film (i. e., Naudet brothers' footage was used without permission)

Hope they wake up there.

Oops, I see you beat me to it.

[Hagrok]

I doubt it. TV stations - especially cable channels - are gluttons for content. They'll take anything that they can get if they think that they'll sell enough commercials to cover the costs. I doubt anyone at the network knows anything other than that it's a 9/11 documentary that lots of people are watching on YouTube.
Well, anything here in the US will be run through the network's censors before showing; no clue how Aussie TV works.

[pchams]

That 'documentary' will be perfect to sell Q-Ray bracelets.
That's what The History Channel has been shilling in Canada anyway.
They didn't even have the courtesy to resond to the email I sent them with
links debunking the Q-Ray bracelet nonsense.

History is out for a buck.

[Moochie]

That 'documentary' will be perfect to sell Q-Ray bracelets.
That's what The History Channel has been shilling in Canada anyway.
They didn't even have the courtesy to resond to the email I sent them with
links debunking the Q-Ray bracelet nonsense.

History is out for a buck.

Goes without saying, Pchams.

M.

[chipmunk stew]

Here's the ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4tB1813uds


Edit--
More discussion:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1877299#post1877299
The letters start rolling out:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1878107#post1878107

[Pardalis]

They got the audacity to broadcast this junk on 9/11? !!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[nathanmcginty]

And what about the Naudet brothers law suit? Are they going to air it with the Naudet brother's footage?

Dylan and his cronies are actually going to get paid for this? :mad:

Yeah, I don't know how Oz works, but I've heard that Europe & Germany in particular play it fairly fast & loose with the copyrights. There was a German indie film out a few years back that used the Beatles in Germany as a backstory and used Beatles music in the soundtrack. Apparently it was cleared for TV over there.

[Brainache]

I sent a feedback message to THC last week, but they haven't replied yet.

[pchams]

I sent a feedback message to THC last week, but they haven't replied yet.

From my experience, don't hold your breath.

[T.A.M.]

Moochie:

Yah they are showing it. A bunch of us here sent letters to them via their query feedback section at their site, protesting it, as it is full of lies and deceptions, and the makers of the film openly admitted this in public.

Have fun if you watch it...

[Yoink]

FWIW, I think that there's a good argument to be made that the doco is so full of outright errors that it should not be shown, any more than someone should show a documentary on the "facts" revealed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

But I disagree with making a pitch based on "relatives of 9/11 victims will be upset"--even though I agree that would probably be the most effective way of getting it stopped.

Not only does that argument play into the hands of the troothers ("They're hiding behind the so-called 'victims' to stop us getting the truth out") but it is also just a bad argument. Nobody here thinks that a good documentary should not be shown just because some people will be made upset by what it has to say, I imagine.

[Brainache]

I hope they at least put some kind of disclaimer at the start.
Something along the lines of: "This program is not a documentary it is a work of fiction." signed Dylan Avery.

[Loss Leader]

But I disagree with making a pitch based on "relatives of 9/11 victims will be upset"--even though I agree that would probably be the most effective way of getting it stopped.


As I person, I agree with you. But, as a lawyer, I am generally concerned with making the argument that will work.

[Pardalis]

But I disagree with making a pitch based on "relatives of 9/11 victims will be upset"--even though I agree that would probably be the most effective way of getting it stopped.

Not only does that argument play into the hands of the troothers ("They're hiding behind the so-called 'victims' to stop us getting the truth out") but it is also just a bad argument. Nobody here thinks that a good documentary should not be shown just because some people will be made upset by what it has to say, I imagine.

I'm sorry to disagree. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but this has everything to do with the memory of the victims of 9/11, and their families. There has been many good documentaries about 9/11, and nobody as far as I know has complained.

[gumboot]

I'm sorry to disagree. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but this has everything to do with the memory of the victims of 9/11, and their families. There has been many good documentaries about 9/11, and nobody as far as I know has complained.


I think the point is truth should not be avoided because it may offend.

The issue with LC is that it is not true, not that it is offensive.

(Although its lack of truth is offensive in itself)

Also, I'm over in New Zealand. Anyone know if it is also scheduled for broadcast over here? I don't have Sky (pay TV) so I have no idea... I suspect we get the same schedule as Australia, but don't know for sure.

-Andrew

[Pardalis]

The issue with LC is that it is not true, not that it is offensive.

Oh, OK, I get your point.

But to me, LC is offensive because it is sooo not true. ;)

[Yoink]

Oh, OK, I get your point.

But to me, LC is offensive because it is sooo not true. ;)

Oh, I agree entirely--which is why I compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I just think that one should make the argument on the basis of its untruthfulness, not on its offensiveness.

One of these days someone will try to block a documentary that you support on the basis that it is offensive (say, for hypothetical example, a documentary that shows how little historical evidence there is that Jesus ever existed, and which shows how much of the Jesus story seems to derive from pre-Christian myth). You don't want the broadcaster to be put in the position of saying "well, if we canned this documentary because it would offend certain sectors of the public, to be consistent we have to can this one too."

[Moochie]

I'll post any response I get right here. Probably won't be until this time tomorrow, though.

M.


Haven't received a response from THC yet, unsurprisingly.

I hope they're having a look at LC2.

Might be better to publicize its showing more widely.

M.

[Moochie]

I am 100% against censorship of any kind, so will not protest THC showing this film. However, I think it should be made abundantly clear that the program represents a view that is held by few, if any, people of sound mind and intellect, and that THC does not endorse the ideas promulgated in any way.

M.

[Moochie]

Alas, the History Channel showed Loose Change 2 in prime time here today. I watched about quarter of an our before tearing myself away from the TV to drink a cup of strong coffee. Evidently the owners of the channel don't mind Avery's idiocy rubbing off on them.

M.


P.S. THC never did respond to my email.

[chipmunk stew]

Alas, the History Channel showed Loose Change 2 in prime time here today. I watched about quarter of an our before tearing myself away from the TV to drink a cup of strong coffee. Evidently the owners of the channel don't mind Avery's idiocy rubbing off on them.

M.


P.S. THC never did respond to my email.
That really sucks. What was the context like? Was there any kind of examination of the film? Any kind of rebuttal?

[Moochie]

I didn't see the start or end, so I don't know, but I would doubt it.

The synopsis alluded to a "conspiracy theory" or somesuch.

The program was bookended by more appropriate fare relating to 9/11, which makes me wonder if anyone at the channel had any inkling as to its content.

M.

I should add that it was a real pleasure and necessary antidote to read Phil Molé's article in Michael Shermer's newsletter after this.