History Channel: Embarrassment

[hgc]

In 1933, President Roosevelt signed the 21st amendment into the constitution.

... accompanied by an apparently random photograph of Roosevelt signing something.

Don't you wish the writers for The History Channel had some notion about how the U.S. Constitution is amended?

(btw, the same episode informs us that "the average annual salary in 1927 is $2000 per year."

 

[ceo_esq]

That's dumb, alright.

Sometimes the president does add his signature as a ceremonial witness to the certification of the Archivist of the United States of the adoption of the amendment. It's possible that that's what Roosevelt was doing; I have no idea. But even if that is true, the History Channel described it in a completely misleading way.

 

[McFunley]

Some things I would write angry letters about before the FDR signature thing:

1. The one night each week that is all Nostradamus/Bible Code specials.

2. The tie-in specials to go with whatever the big "historic" hollywood blockbuster is at the moment.

3. Pandering to UFO nutjobs, JFK nutjobs, other conspiracy theorists.

4. General failure to treat complex, multi-faceted subjects as such.

5. Mail call.

But I'm with you, it's an embarrassment.

 

[crimresearch]

Mail Call? The militaria show?

I only watched the first couple of episodess, including one where debunked the William Tell stereotype by showing how inaccurate the crossbow really was (no watermelons were harmed in the making of that episode)...

How have they gone woo?

 

[McFunley]

Mail call isn't woo at all actually, and I admit I find it entertaining. But I find some aspects of the attitude distasteful - the unapologetic attitude towards the Vietnam war, for example. Hoo-rah!

 

[hgc]

Mail call isn't woo at all actually, and I admit I find it entertaining. But I find some aspects of the attitude distasteful - the unapologetic attitude towards the Vietnam war, for example. Hoo-rah!

I agree. Mail Call is far from their worst programming -- though it's of little interest to me.

As for the actual woo stuff, like Nostrodamus, it's beneath contempt and not worth even discussing.

I was complaining about the more straight history stuff, often riddled with factual error, irrelevant stock footage, cheesy/cheap re-enactment and the like.

Sometimes they get it right, as with the Library of Alexandria series.

 

[Spidey13]

Tonight I watched the first few minutes of a History Channel show on the Loch Ness Monster. They showed a "witch" (though it was a guy. Should it be "warlock?" I guess it depends on his witch denomination.) Anyway, this witch was all dressed up in his red robes and was reciting an enchantment or whatever to protect the monster from people who would hunt him down. He held a fairly large rock above his head, on which he had drawn a pentagram. After casting the spell, he then threw this rock into the water.

I could not help thinking how hilarious it would be if the first definitive evidence of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster was then his dead body floated to the surface after his skull was crushed by the rock thrown by the witch was trying to proctect him.

 

[clarsct]

Tonight I watched the first few minutes of a History Channel show on the Loch Ness Monster. They showed a "witch" (though it was a guy. Should it be "warlock?" I guess it depends on his witch denomination.) Anyway, this witch was all dressed up in his red robes and was reciting an enchantment or whatever to protect the monster from people who would hunt him down. He held a fairly large rock above his head, on which he had drawn a pentagram. After casting the spell, he then threw this rock into the water.

I could not help thinking how hilarious it would be if the first definitive evidence of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster was then his dead body floated to the surface after his skull was crushed by the rock thrown by the witch was trying to proctect him.

F**kin' Aye!