Historia prohibida

I've watched some of the episodes and fact checked them. Interesting story line, facts need to be checked. I like the enforcer/critic rolls, however, the research is incomplete, thus making what they state as fact, actually wrong in many ways. I encourage fact checking. Not even in the least, entertaining. While new information is coming to surface every day, if they are going to claim a fact of which falls under "common knowledge", at least get that right. It seems that they want to look like fools. To make a suggestion to them, fact check. I've always had to use multiple sources, do they? I'd love to pick on each episode individually, however, I'd be writing books, creating a redundancy of what is already readably available. Fact check. I'd give it a 0 out of 10 except that it is a conversation starter, and a bad one at that.

Rubbish. Claptrap. Pseudoscience or pseudo-history presented by an amazing parade of pseudointellectuals, mediocrities, self-promoting theorists and downright cranks. The only positive is that it's all dished up with a certain amount of gloss, like filet of roadkill with bechamel sauce. Never mind that--it's still faintly nauseating.

I would give 0/10 if there was that option! If you are going to show a programme about the most analysed religious artefact ever studied then you need to give both sides of the argument and not just the opinions of atheists who obviously know nothing at all about this relic. There was one brief interview with a scientist who believed it genuine, but the rest of the people who spoke on the programme were laughable in their ignorance, especially the woman author (whose name escapes me) who maintains the relic was produced by Leonardo de Vinci. Even the flawed carbon dating done in 1988, dated it before he was even born! No mention of the pollen analysed which showed it came from the Holy Land and the fact that the piece of the relic sent for carbon dating had been repaired in the middle ages after a fire. After watching that one episode I would never watch anything so ridiculous again.

These are not scholars, but actors whose presentations are dedicated to sensationalism, shock and self-promotion.

These self-styled "experts" are all over the map on any topic they choose for the week. Their technical background is nil. Their work experience in the topic is nil.

Even at the high school level, the most basic rules of scholarship require research, supporting authorities, reasoning and analysis. These hour long shows posture a lot but prove nothing. They pretend to be skilled experts on every topic under the sun - but they aren't even close.

So, before you waste even an hour on one of these shows, look up the backgrounds and histories of the presenters. Decide for yourself.

A series largely based on the speculations of so-called 'experts' who have no qualifications in their fields.

Given a choice of three possible explanations of anything, the programme will always choose the one with the least hard evidence to back it up.

Don't waste your time watching this rubbish.