Somewhere

What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a controversial 2004 film that combines documentary interviews and a fictional narrative to posit a connection between science and spirituality.

Topics discussed in the film include neurology, quantum physics, psychology, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, magical thinking and spirituality. The film intersperses interviews with experts in science[citation needed] and spirituality with the fictional story of a deaf photographer as she struggles with her situation. Computer-animated graphics are featured heavily in the film. Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, and the film features extensive interviews with the school's director Judy Zebra Knight. A number of scientists believe aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience, and David Albert, one of the scientists featured in the movie, says that his views were intentionally misrepresented.



Click On To Read More On The Controversial Thinking In The Movie, And View Part 2.





Filmed on location in Portland, Oregon, What the Bleep Do We Know blends a fictional story line, documentary-style discussion, and computer animation to present a viewpoint of the physical universe and human life within it, with connections to neuroscience and quantum physics. Some ideas discussed in the film are:

The universe is best seen as constructed from thought (or ideas) rather than from substance.
What has long been considered "empty space" is anything but empty. see Dark energy
Our beliefs about who we are and what is real are not simply observations, but rather form ourselves and our realities.
Peptides manufactured in the brain can cause a bodily reaction to an emotion, resulting in a new perspective to old adages such as "think positively" and "be careful what you wish for."
In the narrative segments of the movie, Marlee Matlin portrays Amanda, a deaf photographer who acts as the viewer's avatar as she experiences her life from startlingly new and different perspectives.

In the documentary segments of the film, experts in quantum physics, biology, medicine, psychiatry, and theology, along with spiritual commentators, discuss the roots and meaning of Amanda's experiences. The comments focus primarily on a single theme: We create our own reality.

According to Publishers Weekly, the movie was one of the sleeper hits of 2004, as "word-of-mouth and strategic marketing kept it in theaters for an entire year." The gross exceeded $10 million, a good showing for a low-budget documentary in which, they say, "scientists discuss the ramifications of recent discoveries in quantum physics and neuroscience."

The critics offered fairly mixed reviews as seen on the movie review website Rotten Tomatoes.Dave Kehr of the New York Times described in his review of the movie, the "transition from quantum mechanics to cognitive therapy" as "plausible", but went on to state that "the subsequent leap—from cognitive therapy into large, hazy spiritual beliefs—isn't as effectively executed. Suddenly people who were talking about subatomic particles are alluding to alternate universes and cosmic forces, all of which can be harnessed in the interest of making Ms. Matlin's character feel better about her thighs."

According to Physics Today, the film invokes quantum physics to promote pseudoscience.The article also states "the movie illustrates the uncertainty principle with a bouncing basketball being in several places at once. There's nothing wrong with that. It's recognized as pedagogical exaggeration. But the movie gradually moves to quantum "insights" that lead a woman to toss away her antidepressant medication, to the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god, and on to even greater nonsense."

John Gorenfeld reports that three directors are devotees of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment and JZ Knight/Ramtha.

The Guardian Unlimited published an article summarizing the reactions to the film by some British scientists. Richard Dawkins states that "the authors seem undecided whether their theme is quantum theory or consciousness. Both are indeed mysterious, and their genuine mystery needs none of the hype with which this film relentlessly and noisily belabours us", concluding that the film is "tosh". Professor Clive Greated writes that "thinking on neurology and addiction are covered in some detail but, unfortunately, early references in the film to quantum physics are not followed through, leading to a confused message". He also questions whether modern physics cannot be married with institutional religion as the film implies. Simon Singh called it pseudoscience, and said the suggestion "that if observing water changes its molecular structure, and if we are 90% water, then by observing ourselves we can change at a fundamental level via the laws of quantum physics" was "ridiculous balderdash." According to Dr Joao Migueijo, reader in theoretical physics at Imperial College, the film deliberately misquotes science.

An article published by Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports that Associate Professor Zdenka Kuncik, Professor Peter Schofield and Professor Max Colthear have criticised the film's ideas that quantum mechanics means an observer can consciously affect reality, saying: "The observer effect of quantum physics isn't about people or reality. It comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it's about the limitations of trying to measure the position and momentum of subatomic particles... this only applies to sub-atomic particles - a rock doesn't need you to bump into it to exist. It's there. The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too." The article also discusses Hagelin's experiment with Transcendental Meditation and the Washington D.C rate of violent crime, noting that "the number of murders actually went up," comments on the film's use of the ten percent myth.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Fortean times have both discussed the story of the Native American's "perceptual blindness" to European ships. Both agree that there is a real psychological phenomenon of perceptual blindness, but find the historical details of the account given in the film to be unconvincing. The Fortean Times concludes that the story originated with Captain Cook. *Wikipedia

This stunning censored interview conducted by medical historian Edward Shorter for WGBH public television (Boston) and Blackwell Science was cut from The Health Century due to its huge liability–the admission that Merck drug company vaccines have traditionally been injecting cancer viruses (SV40 and others) in people worldwide.



This segment of In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood & Bioterrorism, produced and freely contributed by consumer protector and public health expert, Dr. Leonard Horowitz, features the world’s leading vaccine expert, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, who explains why Merck’s vaccines have spread AIDS, leukemia, and other horrific plagues worldwide.