The History Channel

[Coin-Saver]

This thread was spurred by "The curse of Oak Island" and the history channel. To start with I wanted to be fair and see if maybe I was wrong about what BS I believed the history channel was pedaling with that show. So I took on the task (don't feel sorry for me it only took 4 minutes) of watching a video from the History channel about aliens and a blue light that was said to "POSSIBLY be a portal to another dimension.

The point of this thread has nothing to do with whether one believes in portals, other dimensions, aliens or any of that. I had one clear motive in this experiment and that was to listen to WHAT was being said. I made it 4 minutes into the video When an "EXPERT"................(<<<<Did you get the "EXPERT part?) said these words...................It seems a thunderstorm had passed through at 1:00am.........The flash of blue light didn't happen until 11:am...so in her professional opinion the blue light couldn't have been caused by the storm since had moved from the area nearly 10 hours before the flash of the blue light.

Now these were my next 3 thoughts in this particular order.

1) No $hit
2) I'm a freaking expert at everything obviously
3) I'm in the wrong business

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yup. Confirmation bias. Subconscious Selective memory. And when spun in certain ways, can be made very convincing that bigfoot and loch ness monster and treasures exist.

 

[vmc1161]

Yup. Confirmation bias. Subconscious Selective memory. And when spun in certain ways, can be made very convincing that bigfoot and loch ness monster and treasures exist.

Wait, are you telling me that relying on my good looks is never going to happen
Maybe it could, is it possible?, in another portal? Is it possible I could be?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... is it possible?, in another portal? Is it possible I could be?

This ^ ^ plays on our subconscious desire to NOT want to be accused of "intolerance". And our subconscious desire to be "open-minded". No one wants to be labeled as close-minded, narrow, etc.... Eh ? No one wants to be laughed at "all the way to the bank", right ?

But this mental subconscious tear-jerking method fails to take into account that there can be certain things that : ARE IN FACT NOT POSSIBLE. Ie.: maybe it's true that Big Foot DOESN'T exist. And maybe it's true that the UFO you think you saw last night was ACTUALLY something benign. And could be true THAT THERE ISN'T life on Mars. And can be true THAT THERE ISN'T and WASN'T a treasure on Oak Island. And maybe it's true that 2+2 does NOT equal 5.

In other words : Truth is, by definition : "Intolerant". And we need to stop thinking of the word "intolerant" as a nasty pejorative.

 

[SeabeeRon]

I am old enough to recall when The History Channel came into being and it was just that...about HISTORY!

Don't know what happened to make them change their format with all these BS stories?!?

 

[Rudy]

I am old enough to recall when The History Channel came into being and it was just that...about HISTORY!

Don't know what happened to make them change their format with all these BS stories?!?

What happened is called .... survival. Channels need a large audience to draw advertising income. Very few people like history so ...

 

[Diga]

I am old enough to recall when The History Channel came into being and it was just that...about HISTORY!

Don't know what happened to make them change their format with all these BS stories?!?

$$$$$$

Moronic programming sells much better than history. Think of the movie "Idiocracy". It's already happening. The dumbest people in the world, tend to have a sh-t ton of kids. The most intelligent people, now have very few kids, or none at all. That means society is becoming dumber by the day.

Anyway, there are far better history channels than "The History Channel". You Tube's "The History Guy" is one good example of that.

 

[hoser]

Anyway, there are far better history channels than "The History Channel".

Yep! It's called a library. Yeah, I know, you have to sit, and God forbid, READ a book. Let's face it, there is nothing on tv, or the internet that is 100% accurate. The tellers of the story will augment, adjust, and twist to fit their needs for notoriety. JMHO.

 

[Casull]

Yep! It's called a library. Yeah, I know, you have to sit, and God forbid, READ a book. Let's face it, there is nothing on tv, or the internet that is 100% accurate. The tellers of the story will augment, adjust, and twist to fit their needs for notoriety. JMHO.

And authors don't?

 

[hoser]

And authors don't?

Not if they are TRUE historians. Telling a story as it actually happened is a historian, telling a story as they wanted it to happen is an author.

 

[Casull]

Not if they are TRUE historians. Telling a story as it actually happened is a historian, telling a story as they wanted it to happen is an author.

Everybody puts their own slant on things, EVEN so-called "historians". Unless of course you think Lincoln invaded the South to stop slavery.

 

[hoser]

Well then, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Being as I wasn't around during the time of Lincoln, I can't, and won't say one way or the other. I can just rely on, and hope that the history books I read when I was in school were truthful in their content and not written by a novelist. Believe what you will my friend.

 

[Rudy]

Someone once said that "History is written by the victors."

On another note, I agree with Diga, the History Guy on Youtube is excellent!

 

[FreeBirdTim]

Everybody puts their own slant on things, EVEN so-called "historians". Unless of course you think Lincoln invaded the South to stop slavery.

Let's leave politics out of this...

 

[Casull]

Let's leave politics out of this...

That's not politics. I can, and have, read various historians that do not agree. So, obviously "historians" are not 100% accurate all the time. And yes, history is written by the victors. If you don't believe me, read some history books that were written 60 or 70 years ago and compare them to ones written today.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Everybody puts their own slant on things, EVEN so-called "historians".....

By "slant" there ^ ^ , I assume you mean various inaccuracies. Right ?

If so, then order to take that ^ ^ for a test drive, I need to ask you : Does "everybody" include you as well ? Or are you exempt this accusation of necessary inaccuracy ? For example, is this statment true that:

"... Everybody puts their own slant on things...",

Or can I dismiss this, since .... you said it, and it's therefore slanted ?

Do you see how the statement becomes self-refuting ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... And yes, history is written by the victors.......

This ^ ^ platitude was tested once by a researcher. I'll have to fish for the link. Where stacks of history books, reaching back to the middle ages and Roman times, etc... Records of wars, atrocities, explorations, etc... often time where our only modern record of the event(s) is singular sources. And lo & behold, the platitude was found to not necessarily be true. It turns out that PLENTY of history is written by the losers of wars, the lower castes, or the ones who'd have reason to be "embarrassed" giving their account, etc...

So while it's a cute platitude, it didn't stand up to scrutiny in actual history books.

 

[Casull]

This ^ ^ platitude was tested once by a researcher. I'll have to fish for the link. Where stacks of history books, reaching back to the middle ages and Roman times, etc... Records of wars, atrocities, explorations, etc... often time where our only modern record of the event(s) is singular sources. And lo & behold, the platitude was found to not necessarily be true. It turns out that PLENTY of history is written by the losers of wars, the lower castes, or the ones who'd have reason to be "embarrassed" giving their account, etc...

So while it's a cute platitude, it didn't stand up to scrutiny in actual history books.

Well then, how about the history that is taught is that which is written by the victors. Is that a bit more palatable?

 

[Casull]

By "slant" there ^ ^ , I assume you mean various inaccuracies. Right ?

If so, then order to take that ^ ^ for a test drive, I need to ask you : Does "everybody" include you as well ? Or are you exempt this accusation of necessary inaccuracy ? For example, is this statment true that:

"... Everybody puts their own slant on things...",

Or can I dismiss this, since .... you said it, and it's therefore slanted ?

Do you see how the statement becomes self-refuting ?

I suppose you can watch the same story being reported by MSNBC and FOX and NOT notice the differences? I can.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Well then, how about the history that is taught is that which is written by the victors. Is that a bit more palatable?

Huh ? The "history that is taught" inc's the "history" I spoke of in post #17