What The Bleep!? Down The Rabbit Hole

  • More Options

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 6.8/10 (35 votes cast)
Is This Documentary Broken?
(Click Here To Let Us Know)

Following the release of What the BLEEP Do We Know!?, The filmmakers were besieged by requests for more: More information, more science, more applications to their personal lives.

August 1, 2006 marks the response to these requests with the release of What the BLEEP – Down the Rabbit Hole, Quantum Edition multi-disc DVD set.

Featuring two (!) extended versions of What the BLEEP Do We Know!?, never before seen DVD programming features, 20 minutes of new animation, new interviews, along with 5 hours of uncut interviews and a filmmakers Q&A, the Quantum Edition contains over 15 hours of material on 6 DVD sides.

Not only does this compendium of topics BLEEP give the viewer enough material for weeks/months of exploration, but with the programming features, it allows them to specify “How far down the Rabbit Hole” they wish to go. Or, if they wish to “Go Quantum” by using a randomization function on their DVD player, the film restructures itself every time it’s viewed so it’s never the same film twice.

The original WTBDWK was made for a theatrical experience of under two hours. With these new expanded versions, the filmmakers were finally able to include all the topics as originally intended. The completed picture presents all the elements that are intrinsic to the worldview put forth in BLEEP. Topics such as Quantum Entanglement, the Double Slit Experiment, Healing and the Cell, the split and re-unification of spirit and science – all are addressed in the detail required to tell the story. Hopefully they stimulate the viewer to seek further explorations. It may be the definitive BLEEP, but it is not the last word – it’s the final beginning.

What The Bleep!? Down The Rabbit Hole, 6.8 out of 10 based on 35 ratings

Related Documentaries

From The Web

  • http://soundcloud.com/thizone ThizOne

    If you look past the Cheasy Intro and the acted sequences this film is pretty good.
    The interviews and the people in them were very interresting (although they should have displaid the peoples names from the beginning of the film not THE END!)

  • Mark

    Well-made, but it is important to remember that this film has been criticized pretty heavily by the academic and scientific community for misrepresenting a connection between quantum physics and consciousness, among other things. Again, very visually appealing and the early explanations of various quantum effects are good but especially the latter portions should be examined critically.

    It is also worth noting that the funding producer and both directors are all part of Ramtha’s School of Enlightment, which claims to channel the spirit of a 350,000-old ghost and teaches about the metaphysical. The group is widely considered to be a cult.

    For more, the wikipedia articles have a lot of good information:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha%27s_School_of_Enlightenment

    • Kristen

      well done Mark! I like when I get to hear another side of the story and probably wouldn’t have known any of that information if I hadn’t read your comment. I appreciate it and believe that people should really be open minded when watching documentaries or hearing any sort of information for that matter.

  • Bryan

    This is Pseudo-Science.

    • Graham

      Merely naming something does not put it down, or act as an informed comment. Most science was pseudo-science at one stage.

      I am not supporting not criticising the films. Merely this comment.

  • Denny

    Science encourages skepticism of everything…except science, itself.

    See: Phlogiston; hydrogenated oil spread (trans-fats margarine) is MUCH better for you than butter!; trepanning; blood-letting to aid the sick–shall I go on?

    The list is enormously long as to science’s incorrect conclusions. There is NO doubt, in the future, that there will be many more current ‘facts’ that will be seen as little more than ignorance.

    Fine, current ‘facts’ are based on current, accumulated ACCEPTED evidence; but considering how often yesterday’s ‘fact’ is tomorrow’s fiction, science really is less than rigourous when it says, “THIS IS A FACT” when, in fact, it should be saying, this is our best understanding.

    And that is markedly different from asserting that something is factual.

    • Rob

      Why do people keep comparing science to religion?

  • Dear Denny

    You are either unbelievably naive or simply very stupid.

    “The list is enormously long as to science’s incorrect conclusions.” Science does not make conclusions. Scientists make conclusions, or put another way: people make conclusions.

    ‘Science’ never claimed that hydrogenated oil spread was much better than butter. Such claims were suggested by companies making & selling hydrogenated oil spread, and were then reported (and highly distorted) in the media by writers who did not have the ability to discern marketing hype from research data. The distorted claims were then accepted by many as “facts.”

    “science really is less than rigorous when it says, ‘THIS IS A FACT’ when, in fact, it should be saying, this is our best understanding.” ‘Science’ does not say anything. However scientists do talk & write, and they most certainly are of the view that, for example, ‘the current evidence leads to the following hypothesis.’

    BTW .. without science, scientists and engineers (who can be considered as applying science in practical way) you would not have the lifestyle you currently have, including the medical facilities that keep you healthy, the car you drive, the house you live in & its contents, and the computer which you have used to write your ignorant & bigoted rant.

  • http://DocumentaryHeaven Betty A. Harbison

    totally awesome, totally worth the time in viewing, thank you to all who helped create such a mind bending, timely and needed film, your contribution towards opening up new doorways in all the sciences, religions, and minds in 3d earth is invaluable. Even in the criticism it sparks, it tells the tale, ha, that it opens up loopholes in the present logic of materialism. Love those open ended questions, glitches in the machinery, fiesty ever curious thinking outside of the box, professional, sincere people like you.

  • Pj

    I find that the idea that everything is connected to be a “common sense” statement and that we are taught that from birth. Mom, dad, bro, sis-all connected. The universe is as big or small as you care to see it. I see it as small in a vast array of happenings which have been millions, billions of years past. I have yet to see or hear of any astrophysisist who has seen the “future” in the universe. Like was addressed. Observance changes the observed. If this is the premise, then by reason of that premise, all is false. You don’t know something until you observe it, mentally, physically, spiritually, emotionally. So, does it then exist? Or is the existance to be trusted and if the observance of one is different from the observance of another, whether or not the truth of the matter is indeed true or just the “observed opinion” of one of the observers in deference to the other. I found the film thought provoking, interesting and entertaining but in my universe, I won’t hang my hat on it.

  • http://www.google.com Elvia Papandrea

    Some very fascinating factors but i believe your research and bias leaves quite a bit to be desired. Then in fact, that’s just my opinion. Have a fantastic day definitely a thought-upsetting post.

  • dad

    Great movie. A little bit out there, but thought provoking none the less. The BLONDE lady in the RED JACKET kind of scares me though!

    • pwndecaf

      You mean Ramtha. Or Judy Zebra Knight. Or Judith Darlene Hampton. I wonder how many got paid?

  • manus

    I like his vidio, wether its sintificly corect or just theretical. It makes you think a bit about things.

  • Anonymous

    load of shit

  • Anonymous

    load of shit

  • Pingback: Inspiraven Babble Box » internet brain snacks

  • Pingback: Inspiraven Babble Box » reading and viewing

  • Dan

    obviously gonna get slated by the scientific community, as it isn’t a scientific documentary its more of a speculative documentary based on scientific discoveries which we dont yet fully (or even competently) understand. Therefore I think docu’s like this are useful for speculative purposes as it will take extra-ordinary theories to describe the extra-ordinary evidence that has already been found. Also I think the ‘excuse’ that the measurement problem makes potential impossible to measure is not the same as other fields claiming they are exempt from contemporary scientific scrutiny. But im yet to hear of any satisfactory way of moderating it, so speculation is pretty much all we have for now right?