| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| bhist |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 01:12:12 AM
I forced myself to watch for the second time the repeat shown last night on the History Channel’s “Battlefield Detectives.”
For the second time in two years, two separate productions were produced on the archeological digs at LBH from 1984-85 – both focused on Fox’s theory.
You would have thought that the same person(s) produced both because they created the impression that the artifacts were discovered just recently and in some cases as if they were being studied today. All the artifacts found in the 80s have long ago finished being studied and the bones buried in the national cemetery.
Both productions found it almost giddy to push the idea that the last stand didn’t happen, but instead it took place in Deep Ravine. It amazes me still that Fox can think that. Fox is quick to pass judgment that something didn’t happen on the battlefield because of the lack of artifacts found yet he proudly exclaims that DR was the last stand – in an area where data recovered is very minimal. Yet he ignores a whole lot of data found surrounding Last Stand Hill (Springfield cartridges around LSH along with Springfield bullets fired from LSH) – pretty much draws a picture of all the guns of Indians and Indians who confiscated soldier weapons finally turning on Custer.
What kills me about last night’s production is how they used tricky editing to give the impression that Doug Scott follows Fox’s theory. I know for a fact that this happened. As Dark Cloud has stated in the past, can we still trust the History Channel to tell like it is?
Any thoughts from the crew?
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - January 26 2005 : 5:53:32 PM
I recall from boyhood the first time I read passages about the pyramids, learning that it took 100,000 slaves 20 years to build the great one. We've all since seen or read newer studies that indicate, for lack of better words, a "labor of love" on the pyramids and other sites in behalf of the pharoahs. I recall theories that individuals donated an amount of time on an annual basis or an amount of time annually. I find these possibilities pretty logical. The discoveries of so many individual graves/mummies of those believed to be the workers adds considerable credence.
Cecil B. DeMille not withstanding, Egypt was clearly a thriving, booming world power for thousands of years, with or without slaves. People may have paid their taxes through in-kind services or contributions of work. I don't know, but it sounds very reasonable, particularly in consideration of Egypt's very powerful, successful economy over so many centuries. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 26 2005 : 3:29:54 PM
Why would that be PC? Surely slaves did a lot of the grunt work, but what they've discovered are all these cities and honored graves of the workmen around the pyramids (too good for slaves) because the guys doing the fine toning on the stone work were both skilled, motivated, and obviously cared in the opinion of the guys studying it. Couldn't prove it by me.
I suspect that's sensitive because Israel, which since its inception has tried to find any and all verification of the Old Testament to cement their current claims, has failed in much of its intent. Their own archaeologists contend there isn't much or any evidence of the people living when claimed, or the cities existing where claimed, or of their slavery in Egypt, at least at the time the pyramids were built or much of anything still around.
Also, they've given the lie to the theory the trimenes of Greece and Rome were all slaves, or slaves at all for much the same reasons. They needed skilled oarsmen, not sluggish automatrons. They couldn't replace slaves all that quickly. Who knows, but it makes certain sense. |
| bhist |
Posted - January 26 2005 : 11:03:01 AM
It’s PC to claim that Egyptians built the pyramids instead of slaves. After all, no one should ever consider that Egyptians ever owned slaves, so let’s change history to reflect the PC way of thinking. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 11:19:32 PM
Well, finally.
|
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 6:57:35 PM
"Paid for by Egyptians..."
They should have stuck with the aliens, who won have done the work for free.
"Hitler's Secret Life: Stock Car Mechanic" should debut this year.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 5:30:10 PM
Paid for by Egyptians. What they thought were markings and grafitti of the alien pyramid builders was actually the original Kellog, Brown, and Root logo. They got the bid because of their high tech Burmese mules, who worked cheaper than camels.
Also, when oh when will they ever do a show on Hitler? A long overdue expose on the Mysteries of Hitler's Combing Technique is surely on the boards. Hopefully with costumed re-enactors storming around the Eagle's Nest looking historical. |
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 4:55:22 PM
Just last night, the History Channel acknowledged that the Pyramids (and most, if not all, the rest) was actually built by Egyptians. It made me remember their programming that suggested it was all built by Aliens.
|
| bhist |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 11:27:22 AM
Thanks Lorenzo. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 04:12:45 AM
Here in Italy we have the international one, in pay TV, or satellitar, but they use to pass on normal channels what they judge to be interesting. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 7:17:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
For myself, I have, for all practical purposes, given up watching the History Channel--unless somebody I happen to know is featured on a show. Then I will watch with great interest--but with my own critical eye. Most of my friends keep asking me to "shut up" during these programmes--be it about LBH or the French Revolution.
It's frustrating if you actually know something about the subject, isn't it?
R. Larsen |
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 5:16:29 PM
I don't believe the History Channel is awful---yet. It's getting there with the UFO, Area 51 and endless conspiracy shows, not to mention the auto mechanics that's slipping in to compete with Discovery.
The conspiracy stuff really drives me nuts--not to mention the boredom of it.
I do agree that the use of actors often creates more distraction than interest, but many people probably like the style. I would think the use of computer graphics could create a more complete picture of historical events (as opposed to actors). To me, it's a bit useless to try and depict three days at Gettysburg with a couple hundred uniformed re-enactors. |
| bhist |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 12:40:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by lorenzo G.
I saw the "STORY OF ROMANOVs" on history Channel and it was very speculative, to don't say worst. I found much factual mistakes and somewhere, inaccuracy.
Lorenzo: Which version of the History Channel do you have in Italy? Is it "History Channel International?" I ask because we have both here and it seems the international version is still playing programs that aired on the History Channel years ago. |
| bhist |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 12:37:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Bhist, I don't know if Scott or Fox have written letters of complaint. You suggested there was nothing they or anyone could do, and I suggested a proven path. And if the production clearly and deliberately misrepresented you or anyone, I believe there is an obligation for them to state that conflict OR show a disclaimer.
There are contracts that give people anything they want and, further, you have control over appearing or, you know, not appearing under offensive contracted conditions and whether to sign those contracts that would allow them to distort your words or views.
In vaguely related but not syllogistic issue, that was even (eventually)extended to the late Adolph Hitler, when propaganda film that suggested he danced a jig at France's surrender was shown to have been falsified. You don't see that in documentaries anymore, though you did not that long ago.
You posted "In some cases, I had no control over what I said." This, as opposed to 'what they edited.' What other interpretation can be placed on that other than you were told what to say? Hence: what the hell contract are you signing? And why?
Now fix a refreshing beverage. I know you're disappointed that you may not have to move again in this lifetime. That joy of youth must be set behind you. Don't take your disappointment out on me. Kick the dog.
D.C., I hope I'm not too over the hill not to move again. I still want to get a piece of country property between Longmont and Hwy 36. I'm sure you've driven those routes before -- definitely God's country.
When I said, "I have no control over what I said" I was referring to the editing process. A good editor can use V.O. of my comments to turn things around. Or they can use a narrator to introduce a comment someone makes to make it mean something totally different than the original context. They did that with Scott on the program Saturday night.
So, I have control over what I say during the interview and I’m not told what to say, however my words can be manipulated during the editing phase.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 10:51:29 AM
Bhist, I don't know if Scott or Fox have written letters of complaint. You suggested there was nothing they or anyone could do, and I suggested a proven path. And if the production clearly and deliberately misrepresented you or anyone, I believe there is an obligation for them to state that conflict OR show a disclaimer.
There are contracts that give people anything they want and, further, you have control over appearing or, you know, not appearing under offensive contracted conditions and whether to sign those contracts that would allow them to distort your words or views.
In vaguely related but not syllogistic issue, that was even (eventually)extended to the late Adolph Hitler, when propaganda film that suggested he danced a jig at France's surrender was shown to have been falsified. You don't see that in documentaries anymore, though you did not that long ago.
You posted "In some cases, I had no control over what I said." This, as opposed to 'what they edited.' What other interpretation can be placed on that other than you were told what to say? Hence: what the hell contract are you signing? And why?
Now fix a refreshing beverage. I know you're disappointed that you may not have to move again in this lifetime. That joy of youth must be set behind you. Don't take your disappointment out on me. Kick the dog. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 06:33:00 AM
The same problem reported by Bhist we have here in Italy with history programs. And, specially, if guests are out of the political correctness. For exemple, when they invited our ex-King. It happened to me to be present to one of this shows and, when I saw the program in the evening what a surprise I had to see that the ex-King did'nt tell anymore what He told, or better, he did'nt tell it in the way he spoke. Words were manipulated in a way that they get another sense. This can really happens on tv, yet it happens for the majority of programs: you can never be sure of what they should send on TV. Though I never saw people obligated to talk in the way the producer wants, I saw guests that had a sort of a script to which they tightly had to follow.
The Romanovs were not presented as they really were and in a politically correct manner, and that's normal on TV but not right. It's real that the best part was the old Tsars but the part of the modern ones (from Alexander I to Nicholas II)was pitifull. At the best, very superficial. |
| bhist |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 12:36:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
...and if you're being told what to say, you need a SAG card and personal assistant from Venice Beach, 'cause you're just an actor, pure and simple.
No one ever tells us what to say on these programs. What the hell makes you think that? I never said that.
You're scaring me, D.C. I'm beginning to think that you may be smart but have not one bit of common sense -- in that case, it would make you fairly dumb. |
| bhist |
Posted - January 24 2005 : 12:29:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
At the very least, Fox could write "Dear Producer: You recall my attorney, Guido "The Torpedo" Garotte, referenced below? I'd like an explanation, in writing, on what seems to be a deliberate falsification of my views to offset timely service upon you and your company and the History Channel for this outrage......"
What contracts are you people signing, for heaven's sake? If they somehow have the right to turn your views around, and if you're being told what to say, you need a SAG card and personal assistant from Venice Beach, 'cause you're just an actor, pure and simple. If you guys willingly and inexplicably signed away these rights,the audience has a right to know that the people introduced as authorities are not appearing in that capacity, but as actors playing people with the same name and credentials who might be edited to express opinions on fact they do not hold and for which there is no supporting evidence.
Which raises, to say no more, all sorts of questions. I'd like to hear an explanation from The History Channel if they feel free to do this and why.
That's quite scary, Bhist.
How do you know Fox and/or Scott haven't done that? Come on, D.C., I know you're smarter than that. You're judging these historians all wrong because you have none of the facts.
You've worked in radio as long as I have and I'm surprised you don't understand how easy it is to edit audio.
There is no contract out there that gives a non-producer, Scott, Fox, and myself any control over editing ESPECIALLY for a documentary. If you know of one, I'd like to see it. Again, the only people that may have some control are the producers, not co-producers, but producers.
Scott and Fox were not producers of either program.
The only recourse for Scott, if he was pissed enough and he isn't, would be to sue the producers for libel; however, no real damage has been done here, so it would be pointless.
In my case, my views were not altered, so my segment turned out ok. It was the overall show that I was disappointed in, but I had no control over that.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 11:58:50 PM
For actors and musicians on entertainment shows who willingly grant this privilege, yes. For authorities lending gravitas to history shows who are misrepresented, no, absolutely not. At the very least, Fox could write "Dear Producer: You recall my attorney, Guido "The Torpedo" Garotte, referenced below? I'd like an explanation, in writing, on what seems to be a deliberate falsification of my views to offset timely service upon you and your company and the History Channel for this outrage......"
What contracts are you people signing, for heaven's sake? If they somehow have the right to turn your views around, and if you're being told what to say, you need a SAG card and personal assistant from Venice Beach, 'cause you're just an actor, pure and simple. If you guys willingly and inexplicably signed away these rights,the audience has a right to know that the people introduced as authorities are not appearing in that capacity, but as actors playing people with the same name and credentials who might be edited to express opinions on fact they do not hold and for which there is no supporting evidence.
Which raises, to say no more, all sorts of questions. I'd like to hear an explanation from The History Channel if they feel free to do this and why.
That's quite scary, Bhist. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 11:39:06 PM
For myself, I have, for all practical purposes, given up watching the History Channel--unless somebody I happen to know is featured on a show. Then I will watch with great interest--but with my own critical eye. Most of my friends keep asking me to "shut up" during these programmes--be it about LBH or the French Revolution.
The last series I paid much attention to dealt with Imperial Russia--though their coverage of the Tsars weakened considerably after the assassination of Alexandr II.
www.fwca.org
Regards, |
| bhist |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 11:16:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I'd feel a lot better if Scott and Fox 'corrected' those false impressions...
There is nothing Scott or Fox can do to correct anything produced for the History Channel. You, of all people D.C., should know this. Only if Scott and Fox were the PRODUCERS could they have any control of the final edit.
I ran into the same problem with the program I was featured on. I had no control of the content. In some cases, I had no control over what I said -- they controlled the editing and could turn any of my words around if they wanted.
They did that with Scott. BTW -- the program you mentioned about the carbine being from the battle and the teary eyed fellow was the program repeated Saturday night. In this program editing was used to make it look like Scott agreed 100% with everything of Fox's theory, which isn't true.
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 10:28:03 AM
"All units stand by, we have a situation!" I have not encountered so much agreement on this forum since my arrival. Count me in too. This from a firm supporter of Fox. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 08:46:18 AM
Glad to hear all that. It's superfluous to point out that, after more than a year, you're all edging to close to agreeing with me, and there is legal need to issue the usual caveats: your family, reputation, possible shunning by your dog....
I'd feel a lot better if Scott and Fox 'corrected' those false impressions, but I recall Fox on such a show, a carbine he'd been assured was "at" the battle, a found cartridge ("from" the battle, of course...), a tearful re-enactor in Fire Island Cavalry felt and bling (that hat, for heaven's sake...), and some rather strained conclusions memorable for being both dubious and pointless. Fame's a narcotic, no doubt. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 08:20:57 AM
I saw the "STORY OF ROMANOVs" on history Channel and it was very speculative, to don't say worst. I found much factual mistakes and somewhere, inaccuracy. |
| Rich |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 07:57:43 AM
I think they should change their name to "The SPECULATIVE History Channel"! |
| bhist |
Posted - January 23 2005 : 04:52:33 AM
One last point – there is another form of production that really drives me nuts, and this has been around long before the History Channel came along; I noticed it even when A&E was producing historical programs.
It is the use of music. In some programs, the music is constant. It is always there, constantly in the background.
Music should only be used to enhance the story, to create a mood, or to add to the drama. If it is always there, even in the background, it becomes a deterrent to the story.
|
|
|
