Forbidden History

Pseudo-historic, non-scientific sensationalist garbage where non-experts, non-intellectual spew their garbage. Most of the times I avoid them but just today I decided to give them a chance because there was a topic about a famous German executioner Johann Reichhart, a person with an interesting story I was familiar with. I expected the episode to be over the top, wild, sensationalist and so I prepare myself to endure some stupid statements. But...I couldn't force myself to watch this for more than five minutes. Right from the start, they wanted to present this man as one of the worst monsters that ever lived, they instantly switched to Hitler's era and let mostly average but disturbingly uneducated people to drag on with their wild claims and stupid ideas about how life in Germany was during that time (who cares?. I stopped watching after a woman with bellow-average intelligence started making one irrelevant and silly statement after another with no end in sight. If Hitler's isn't involved, then it isn't interesting, right? 1 star for demonizing a man who had the most unpleasant job ever during a time where such a job was normal (in most of the world) and the method of execution the most humane option available. He didn't deserve it.

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.

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.

I love historical documentaries especially when it's regarding religious beliefs/practices, anything secretive, lost or hidden history but this show is very dull most of the time. All the episodes are an hour long and most of the time I felt like what they discussed could be explained in a half hour episode. They reuse the same experts every episode, I would love to know what qualifications does a woman who wrote two books in Mary Magdalene have regarding Nazi Germany political and military tactics including weapons, propaganda and stolen artworks or on ancient Roman and Greek oracles. I am not saying she can't I just find it strange that the only mention of her expertise is related to earlier Christianity which is if a completely different time period and geographical location than the Nazi party or Ancient Greek and Roman oracles. They discuss the Fraternity if Freemasons but never mention the Raja Shrine or Daughters if the Eastern Star both of which are groups associated and connected with the Freemasons. The one "expert" said the temple of Luxor was recreated in Paris with the Louvre museum only a minute or two after saying the pyramids in front of the Louvre are replicas if the pyramids of Giza. The logical question anyone paying attention would have is what are representations of pyramids from Giza doing in a representation of a temple from Luxor. The only logical explanation is it wasn't a recreation of them temple of Luxor which didn't have pyramids and the pyramids are representative of Giza, two separate locations in Egypt.

Bottom line is most of the episodes don't have much (or at least an hours worth) of information some of which is incomplete, wrong or just assumptions with no real evidence for it (if the temple of the oracle collapsed how do you know there was a fissure in the ground where they sat allowing volcanic gasses to leak up through, you don't). Funny how the science channel has a show that seems largely based in speculation and not proven fact, so much for scientific method.

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.