Post

Alpha wolf wrote:

Nothing wrong with that, I like watching documentaries on various subjects.

Me too.
History, science, religion, military, geology, archaeology... and more.

But I get annoyed when something they say seem a bit odd so I factcheck it and it is wrong. I can buy that our knowledge of things improve so old documentaries rely information that might be dated but it is often laziness.

If you want to make an historical documentary for instance you might want to read up on the last few years of archaeology. Saying things like the Clovis culture were the first humans in America when even the conservative Smithsonian agree with most archaeologists and genetics that there were people there far earlier (exactly how much earlier is still up to debate but even the most conservative historians agree that there is clear evidence for at least 5000 years).

It is even worse when they state "facts" I know is wrong (I still fact check them, so I ain't wrong). If you are bothering to make a documentary at least get your facts straight. I am way less hard on youtube channels then Discovery, History channel and BC there, but surprisingly are those usually worse. If someone like Skallagrim or Shad say something wrong that isn't really shocking since they make their own research and try to make it entertaining.

I guess I shouldn't be surprising the "History channel" tend to be the worst of them, but one would think a channel with that name should do it's research.

The Youtube channels often surprise me how well made and researched they are. Even watching a program of something I know a lot about have a lot of new things to learn. :)

Of course others are pretty awful but you can't win them all. Like I was watching this pretty well done show examining if the Australian aboriginals actually arrived far earlier then expected, when it was made the official date was 45 000 years ago but it have been moved to 55 000 since, much due to evidence in the show and they made some interesting arguments for 75 000 years too. But suddenly after an hour they showed this strange 40 000 year old artifact and claimed it was made by aliens. He sounded so professional and well researched until that moment only to spend the last 15 minutes in foil hat territory. He might or might not be right about that 75 000 year old shelter but he kinda burnt all my confidence in anything he said earlier there. And it was really sad since it is an interesting subject that require more fieldwork, just like we don't know when humans first arrived in America we aren't really sure and it is likely it was earlier then we expect in both cases.

Sorry, I seem to be ranting...