The Nostradamus Effect (history channel show)

[Johny2x4]

So I caught this show on TV and I was wondering, how much ******** the show is?

[Starthinker]

It's pretty ********.

[AdMan]

All of it is ********.

[Maddparrot]

From what I understand, the show is one of those 'we take a look at both sides' while only showing the conspiracy side.

[George152]

And they have so little 'evidence' that they repeat the same nonsense 4 or 5 times in the one show

[Tricky]

From what I understand, the show is one of those 'we take a look at both sides' while only showing the conspiracy side.

That's because the non-conspiracy side is so boring.

[Maddparrot]

That's because the non-conspiracy side is so boring.

I think it's that they know none of it is true and showing the non-conspiracy side would prove it.

[Fronzel]

I've just started to assume the History Channel has forgotten to add the laugh track.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Related to this sort of programme, I had a very frustrating conversation with a friend the other evening where he trotted out all the usual stuff from 'We haven't landed on the moon', through 'We have no idea how they managed to build the pyramids and couldn't build them nowadays - you can't get a knife between the stones you know!' to the usual stuff about 911 being an inside job - 'There's no footage of damage to the Pentagon from that supposed crash you know and no-one's telling me they didn't have cameras there!'.

He's quite an 'innocent' guy and his given reason for believing all this was 'I saw it on a documentary on tv. Why would they put it on tv if it wasn't true?' backed up then by his wife chipping in 'Yeah, why would they allow them to say it on tv if it wasn't true - that would be wrong'.

He honestly believed that tv companies had a duty of care to ensure that garbage wasn't trotted out as fact. I wonder how many others think this and how big an effect this sort of un-policed, nonsense programming has on the perpetuation of this ignorance / mis-information.

It didn't matter what I said to counter it - even trying the line about why would you believe some nut with a book to sell over the accumulated wisdom of extremely clever people who've spent their lives studying this just came back to 'But they wouldn't let him say it on tv if it wasn't true and he's written a book and everything so there must be something in it.'

These are not dull people - it just seems that tv adds an air of legitimacy to this stuff, especially when presented as a scientific documentary.

I'm normally against censorship but it's worrying how big an impact such uncontrolled nonsense can have...

[PGH]

I think the History channel should be shamed to no end for producing such programming.

I'm not the smartest guy on the planet. There's a whole lot I don't know. So I try to better myself by watching enlightening television. I assume that the History channel is the kind of place I can go for intelligent programming dealing with historical fact.

Their Ancient Aliens show had me believing nonsense to be the truth for far too long. Without the JREF forum I'd still believe that the pyramids couldn't possibly have been built by humans alone.

Some History channel. They're quickly becoming WOO TV and it'll be that much harder to debunk the theories of innocent people who thought they were learning something by watching the History channel.

[kleinjahr]

Pick up a copy of a tabloid, the more ridiculous the better. Ask them if they believe the silliest article in it. If no, why not? After all "they" wouldn't be allowed to print it if false. Apply their arguments against the tabloid to other media. If they answered yes to the question, see if they'll sign over power of attorney to you. ;)

[Nursedan]

Related to this sort of programme, I had a very frustrating conversation with a friend the other evening where...

Snip...

You have got to stop hanging out with 5 year olds...

[Aepervius]

Pick up a copy of a tabloid, the more ridiculous the better. Ask them if they believe the silliest article in it. If no, why not? After all "they" wouldn't be allowed to print it if false. Apply their arguments against the tabloid to other media. If they answered yes to the question, see if they'll sign over power of attorney to you. ;)

Let me stop you right there. I have tried that with an "alien kidnapped Elvis's dog" type of article. The reaction I got out of it was edifying. It was not "oh this is so ridiculous I have to start doubting media" it was more like him being thankful for the article and harping on it.

Come to think of it it was probably the start of my long descent into pessimism versus human rationality.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Snip...

You have got to stop hanging out with 5 year olds...

They're a nice, perfectly respectable married couple with kids. That's what makes it so frustrating that one of them at least believes something because the tv told him so, wrapped up in a sciencey seeming programme.

I guess what would be better is if such programmes were restricted to the supernatural channel and anything on a supposed educational channel (Discovery, History etc) had to have some sort of mainstream science approval or at least had some sort of disclaimer eg 'The claims made in this programme are not supported by...'. I had trouble with the '...' as I want to say 'scientific community' but is there really such a thing?

[gabeygoat]

That's because the non-conspiracy side is so boring.

Pshaw, Randi's "The Mask of Nostradamus" is a fascinating read. I learned alot about history and sociology of Nostradamus' times.

[Steel Rat]

Even a lot of their history stuff is suspect, either through ignorance, willfulness, or both.

Watch just about any show about military vehicles and they'll get all sorts of pretty easy stuff wrong.

In one case, an "expert" was talking about the Los Angeles class attack sub, and said that its displacement was "6900 pounds". He surely meant to say "tons", but misspoke. No one caught this mistake during the recording of the interview, editing, post production or preview.

Other times they'll be talking about a specific WWII tank and will show completely unrelated stock footage, sometimes of tanks from other countries or from portions of the war during which the tank in question didn't even exist (talking about a Panther, but showing footage of a Panzer II crossing the Meuse during the invasion of France, for example.)

I think most of it is just sloppiness or laziness, but in the case of Nostradumbass and the like, it's no doubt willful.