The Nostradamus Effect

I don't usually like TV shows, but I do like this one. The reason I don't like TV shows that are fiction (ex. Fringe, V) is because since their presented through the medium of commercial television; they basically have to have some sort of mass appeal (or it at least should seem to). And regretfully television producers think that the world is made up of not so smart people; and since there are people who are blissfully unaware of what's out there they actually play this part. But this TV show is just one of the programs on the History Channel that actually tries to inform you, while at the same time tries to entertain with surreal background imagery. Some of my favorite episodes show Nostradamus so seemingly drugged, that he looks like he's gonna vomit in that bowl that he's trying to see visions in. And that's how innovative it is; you wouldn't dare see something as surreal as that on Fringe, or V. Those shows make you think you're getting something different, but it's truly all the same. And I realize that there are some people who get turned off by this, but I appreciate being taught a few things by scholars who know what they're talking about (most of the time). And as a side note: if you think you're getting something different on Fringe or V, watch the movies Twelve Monkeys, or L.A. Confidential, and then you'll really see something different (film, much more than television, doesn't hinge on mass appeal). And if you know its different, but still watch shows like that because that's all there is; at some point we have to get mad and refuse to watch it. And that's as simple as that. I realize that I might get blacklisted for going off topic, but at least I took a chance.

I can't give this a bad review. The history channel covers everything - including now, the Nostradamus effect. I believe the history channel does a solid job of presenting things in a non-biased way. As with most of HC pieces, there are several points of view - those that sway for and against the concept.

I don't really understand why anyone would vote negatively against this. Just we history channel covers the Big Bang, economics, social order, evolution, religion - this is approached in the same vain.

Yes, the narrator is adamant about the story line, but it's honoring the beliefs of those who believe in and have built up Nostradamus. Which I'm certain is the intention - giving a voice to those who believe be in this.

We all have a right to disagree with this, but that doesn't make it "bad". It's the history channel and they're going to cover things you do or don't believe in.

Again - can't understand the negative reviews. It's an expose of Nostradamus but that doesn't make it bad. The point is that this is controversial- what else would you expect?

I believe that as the series plays out each episode. Each episode is well rounded and solid. Connecting me, the viewer, back to present day and to the fact that it may have been told previously to us. "The Nostradamus Effect" is a show that makes you think- so use your brain. Have we been warned before? Clearly other academics are telling us that we have been. So the question remains- When will the End begin? And what are YOU going to do when the Earth decides to take back what is hers?

I think you show view the remaining episodes to air and make your decision then- and not in haste.

A decision made in haste can be a wrong one.

Sometimes offensive, such as praising Hitler as a prophet. There is not a single episode in this that does not deliberately lie, lie repeatedly, and lie loud. The show even admits it repeatedly with their phony disclaimers.

In the introduction of each episode, the narrator states, "We will neither refute, nor endorse, these theories; merely, present the evidence." Despite this claim, prophecies are often exaggerated or presented incorrectly. The series was full of misleading nonsense supported by vague, unattributed weasel phrases such as "some think that", "many believe that", and "scholars suggest that."

The worst is the 2012 hoax, pulled off by white con artists and cult leaders, and denounced repeatedly by actual Mayas. The actual Mayan calendar actually goes to almost the year 4000, and only discusses what happens to Mayas.

Almost as bad was showing Da Vinci's paintings of a flood from the Bible, and pretending it was predicting a flood in the future.

And the Rapture nonsense is not in the Bible. It's from some American fundamentalists in the 1850s.

As others have already mentioned, this is media sensationalism at its worst and its most shameless. The show purports to merely present the "evidence" for various doomsday theories and apocalyptic prophecies, without arguing for or against the views expressed. For the less critical-minded, this might seem like an honest attempt to provide an unbiased view of all the available information, and letting the viewer make up his own mind about the facts. But in practice, this seems to be the show producers' way of avoiding any responsibility for the accuracy or validity of the claims/theories they present.

A 45-minute TV program can't possibly present _all_ the information that there is to examine on any controversial issue. There's always a practical limit on the amount of information that one is able to convey in any given medium. This is a limitation faced by all journalists and documentary makers. And, in truth, most audiences don't want to be presented with every scrap of info pertaining to a topic, or they'd be inundated with useless trivia, unfounded rumors, or outright fabrications. Like it or not, the media is a filter for the information that the public consumes. It is their responsibility to perform this duty with honesty and integrity. That means doing thorough research and, most importantly, verifying the authenticity/verity of the information they present.

On any given controversial topic—such as apocalyptic themes in human culture—there's likely to be only a handful of genuine authorities and knowledgeable experts for every thousand quack jobs or charlatans. Correspondingly, there will be truths, half-truths, and blatant falsehoods told about each issue. It's the documentarian's job to filter out the cruft and present only the most plausible theories based on substantiated facts. It is NOT the media's job to present, both, scientific theories and conspiracy theories in even parts. Unfortunately, this program does not do even that. It seems that the producers at History Channel have firmly decided that the truth is not as entertaining (read: sensational) as unfounded speculation put forth by the lunatic fringe. So, like "MonsterQuest", "The Nostradamus Effect" dedicates its entire program length to presenting spurious/unscientific speculation and interviewing hack authors of books advancing such ludicrous theories.

Regardless of the show's disclaimer, by giving a completely one-sided account of the issues presented (shows like National Geographic's "Is It Real?" at least give equal time to scientists/skeptics) and always skewing the evidence to favor the most outrageous interpretation possible, they are in effect promoting specious and scientifically unsound theories and irrational thinking. Making this all the more reprehensible is the fact that History Channel tries to present itself as an educational network while it shamelessly panders to the lowest common denominator, making programs that discourage critical thinking and promote self-delusion.