Ok...wtf?

[CP489]

So I'm flipping through the channels tonight, and my curiosity gets the better of me when I get to the "History" Channel, which has a show called Psychic History.

I only watched for a few minutes, so I can't quantify the whole show, but it will soon be seen why that is.

When I cut it on there is a man and a woman standing at the site of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. This "psychic" is "seeing" the events of more than a decade ago. "The word February is being written in front of me", that's the point that my BS meter got pegged, but then he went on to say he saw smoke (Rearry?) and "a lot" of dead people (he couldn't count them, but it was "more than one individual")

What is this showing? What does it prove? Who cares? Every single one of these facts is EASILY found on the internet (actually, you can find several differentiating accounts of the incident) or at any library.

I guess I don't have a question, other than why is this on the History Channel, and who buys this as evidence of ANY psychic ability whatsoever? Even woos should look at this and go "Frule8k off".

[jimtron]

Even woos should look at this and go "Frule8k off".
For those that want to believe and aren't interested or aware of critical thinking, it's stunning what they'll fall for.

It's too bad the History Channel is running this, but they're in the business of making money and they know that this psychic ghost crap will bring eyes to the screen. I've noticed that crap sells.

[RandFan]

For those that want to believe and aren't interested or aware of critical thinking, it's stunning what they'll fall for.

It's too bad the History Channel is running this, but they're in the business of making money and they know that this psychic ghost crap will bring eyes to the screen. I've noticed that crap sells. Big time. I keep thinking, hey, I could make a fortune lying to people. And not even good lies as is evidenced by the OP. Damn ethics.

[OMGturt1es]

Big time. I keep thinking, hey, I could make a fortune lying to people. And not even good lies as is evidenced by the OP. Damn ethics.


exactly!

a friend and i had the idea of starting a "door to door psychic" business, but we couldn't bring ourselves to do it. we figured it'd be quite profitable, just based on the fact that local "psychics" seem to be quite successful; the same nice, fancy cars are parked outside the shops everyday...

anyways, it's a shame the history channel was running that crap. perhaps the rational viewers should threaten a boycott?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

What is this showing? What does it prove? Who cares? Every single one of these facts is EASILY found on the internet (actually, you can find several differentiating accounts of the incident) or at any library.

Perhaps it is showing that this woman owned a television set in 1993? I don't even need to look that stuff up on the Internet. It was all over the damn news at the time, and I remember the basic facts (ATF raids in February, agents get killed, the seige, a final assault) off the top of my head.

What next, is she going to go to the WTC site and tell us that something happened in September that resulted in the death of more than 1 person?

Man. Even for a "psychic", she sounds awfully lazy. Is it too much to ask that if someone is going to pretend to receive visions, they at least make a (dis)honest effort? The only thing worse than a psychic is a psychic who does it half-assed.

[Beady]

I guess I don't have a question, other than why is this on the History Channel, and who buys this as evidence of ANY psychic ability whatsoever? Even woos should look at this and go "Frule8k off".

So, why is the Biography channel showing Poirot mysteries? Why isn't there a Woo channel?

AFAIK, only the Military channel is consistently programming shows in its subject area. For the rest, there's simply not enough being produced, and they have to look for fillers. Woo is produced by the barrel, apparently because it sells better than any other genre. Why should there be a seperate Woo channel, when there's enough being churned out to fill all the channels that are already out there?

[Big Les]

Perhaps it is showing that this woman owned a television set in 1993? I don't even need to look that stuff up on the Internet. It was all over the damn news at the time, and I remember the basic facts (ATF raids in February, agents get killed, the seige, a final assault) off the top of my head.


Not to mention that it gets dragged back up on documentaries and "World's Wildest Police Videos" every other day. That scene of the ATF agent on the roof getting hit with gunfire is burned into my memory.

[Ducky]

So, why is the Biography channel showing Poirot mysteries? Why isn't there a Woo channel?

AFAIK, only the Military channel is consistently programming shows in its subject area. For the rest, there's simply not enough being produced, and they have to look for fillers. Woo is produced by the barrel, apparently because it sells better than any other genre. Why should there be a seperate Woo channel, when there's enough being churned out to fill all the channels that are already out there?



The National Geographic channel and the Science channel do a good job.

[Luke T.]

We take you now to I. P. Daly at Gettysburg.

Yes, yes. I'm hearing cannons. And horses. And a lot of yelling and gunfire.

And now over to Heywood Jablome at Waterloo.

Yes, yes. I'm hearing cannons. And horses. And a lot of yelling and gunfire.

And now we go to Tug McGroin in the Crimea...

[Hellbound]

The National Geographic channel and the Science channel do a good job.

National Geographic more so than Science Channel, IMHO. They've had some really good skeptical shows out. Last night they did a three-peat of their "Is It Real?" series, covering Ape-man, UFOs, and Ghosts (ghosts had an appearance by Randi). Pretty good shows...I especially liked the one on crop circles (but it wasn't showing yesterday).

[Beady]

The National Geographic channel and the Science channel do a good job.

(shrug) There are exceptions to every rule.

In a medium where the lowest common denominator is the predominant target, does it make sense to expect universal excellence?

[Jimbo07]

(shrug) There are exceptions to every rule.



I've found that I like specific shows, rather than channels (for example, Nova, Daily Planet, the Nature of Things (when it's neither boring nor preachy))

[gumboot]

Okay this is slightly off topic... but has anyone else noticed that the "History" Channel has a tendency to show "talking head" shots of serious historians saying one thing, immediately followed by expensive re-enactments and that movie-trailer-voice-over-guy saying the exact opposite?

-Andrew

[RSLancastr]

(shrug) There are exceptions to every rule.Except for the rule "There are exceptions to every rule."

[Beady]

Except for the rule "There are exceptions to every rule."

Yes, but that's an exception.

[hgc]

Okay this is slightly off topic... but has anyone else noticed that the "History" Channel has a tendency to show "talking head" shots of serious historians saying one thing, immediately followed by expensive re-enactments and that movie-trailer-voice-over-guy saying the exact opposite?

-AndrewNot just any re-enactments, but tilted, shaky camera re-enactments. And expensive, they ain't.

[Starthinker]

They should rename the Discovery Channel the Bike/Car Building Channel, TLC should become the Home Makeover Channel, and the History Channel, well, they're all over the place, probably the How Things Work Channel. I don't have extended cable but I miss some of the other channels that I used to have. Oh, and the Travel Network does a lot of woo shows, like the most haunted destinations type stuff.

This may be an indication, if you are a producer, that they are looking for shows that actually fit their network so you may get top dollar if you actually produce say, a history show or a learning show.

ETA: If they ever come out with a psychic channel I think I will start producing shows. You could probably sell them anything.

[lylfyl]

Not just any re-enactments, but tilted, shaky camera re-enactments. And expensive, they ain't.

I'm starting to watch the special "Guests of the Ayatollah". It's a serious sombre discussion about the American hostages in Iran in 1980. There are interviews with the hostages, the hostage takers, and the delta force members who tried to rescue them. This is a very historic moment, and I'm trying to stifle a high-pitched giggle.

Why? because their re-enactment of the night operations are all green as if seen through Night-vision goggles. Including the glowing green 'shadows' on the ground. They must have just taken a negative of a daylight shot and slapped a green grainy filter on it.

And yes, tilted, shaky camera angles. Very 'real'.

[Beady]

I'm starting to watch the special "Guests of the Ayatollah".

Try to catch "Escape from Iran" (aka "The Canadian Caper"), a Canadian-produced story about how the Canadian embassay staff sheltered six American refugees from the takeover, then smuggled them out of the country. It's a comparatively little-known story that still isn't out on DVD and is OOP in VHS. There's also a book.

[StarSeed]

If 'woo' was good enough for the Reagans, then it's good enough for the Histroy channel, don't you think? :D

[Gravy]

If 'woo' was good enough for the Reagans, then it's good enough for the Histroy channel, don't you think? :D
I suppose that every U.S. president has professed a belief in a god, so superstition goes hand-in-hand with that institution. Imagine an atheist being elected to the U.S. Presidency!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

We should organize a boycott of the "Discover channel", "Learning channel", "Court TV", "National geographic", and History channel". Did I miss any?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I suppose that every U.S. president has professed a belief in a god, so superstition goes hand-in-hand with that institution. Imagine an atheist being elected to the U.S. Presidency!


Abraham Lincoln was either a Deist or an Atheist. Many who knew him described his beliefs as atheistic.

[SezMe]

[pissy derail]CP489, couldn't you find a better thread title?

Ok, I'm in a really crappy mood tonight but the point remains.

[/pissy derail]

[Gravy]

Abraham Lincoln was either a Deist or an Atheist. Many who knew him described his beliefs as atheistic.
That's surprising (the atheism part especially).
To quell doubts about his religiosness, he issued this statement during his 1846 Congressional campaign:

That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular. … I do not think I could, myself, be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, of the community in which he may live.
Sort of a non-denial denial there, the type of thing I might expect a Deist to say who's running for office. But his second inaugural address is full of the high-and-mighty. He doesn't sound like someone who believes in a God that's uninvolved in human affairs. Could just be rhetoric, though.

Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully.

The Almighty has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!' If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'

sorry for continuing the derail.

[articulett]

I want to see "prayer" and "wishing on a star" go head to head. My money is on the stars.

[60hzxtl]

I want to see "prayer" and "wishing on a star" go head to head. My money is on the stars.


Back in the days when screen savers were necessary to keep you from burning up your B&W monitor screen, I was given a tour of Disney.

One of the animators had this as his saver:

"When you wish upon a star, you put your faith in something that has no basis in your reality."

[StarSeed]

I suppose that every U.S. president has professed a belief in a god, so superstition goes hand-in-hand with that institution. Imagine an atheist being elected to the U.S. Presidency!
Not just 'god', but the Reagans were very heavy into astrology, specifically Nancy, and rumour has it that presidential decisions were guided by her astrological information.

[Foster Zygote]

Okay this is slightly off topic... but has anyone else noticed that the "History" Channel has a tendency to show "talking head" shots of serious historians saying one thing, immediately followed by expensive re-enactments and that movie-trailer-voice-over-guy saying the exact opposite?

-Andrew

I've seen a lot of shows use that technique. One (again, sadly, on the History Channel) was about UFOs over Russia and made much use of expensive special effects to illustrate some of the verbal accounts. The anecdotes themselves were pretty lame. Lots of talk about "streaks" and "lights". One even sounded to me like a fairly good description of a good-size meteor breaking up. But the visuals that accompanied these accounts were right out of sci fi. Very detailed animations of spectacular craft hovering large and low over cities suspended by mysterious technologies (to plagiarize a bit) in exactly the way bricks don't. By supplying their viewers with these amazing images the producers are able to make rather dull verbal accounts sound like they describe spectacular events.

Isn't the History Channel owned by arch-conservative "Slightly to the right of Mussolini" Rupert Murdoch?

Steven