Secrets And Lies Us S01e01 _TOP_

Making learning "Entertaining" is always a good idea. It helps people remember things. But, entertaining people with lies and conspiracies without foundation is doing them a disservice. It does nothing but make people stupid.There are proper ways to go about finding the truth, and "no evidence" is not it.If you want your grandson to not be respected by his peers and not taken seriously when he investigates things then, by all means,

Secrets And Lies Us S01e01

Your cynicism is depressing. In a few lines, you suggested that viewers should treat television as nothing but lies and also suggest a wide-ranging conspiracy between TV producers and the U.S. government to bilk the public because the public takes these programs to be true. Then you add a further conspiracy surrounding its park status. If any of those ideas were true, it would still be important to point out the fakery.

Jason, I'm not sure how you've concluded that I suggested anything that supports your comments. I made no mention of "lies" or "conspiracy." You've simply projected your perceptions to do exactly what the television shows do - attach controversy. Perhaps you should do a show about your ridiculous and overblown responses to comment left on your blog. Regarding what you obviously think is a suggestion of "conspiracy", there is certainly every possibility that there exist a legally binding contractual arrangement between two parties for one to provide what is effectively advertising for the others fee based visitor centers. If you think that the Government has no interest in getting paying visitors out to National Parks, or that someone would identify and exploit and opportunity to promote that effort in exchange for funding, then you're incredibly naive. Regardless, that's not a conspiracy. It's a business arrangement. It's called advertising. Also, I think using the word "cynical" is just inappropriate. I'm always curious about the people who think those who have a realistic view of things are "cynical." However, I find great irony in the fact that your blog is full - FULL, of criticisms towards this program (America Unearthed) and basically suggests to your readers that Scott's theories shouldn't be taken too seriously, yet when I post commentary on it's entertainment rather than educational value, you immediately shoot back that I'm a cynic. I wonder, do you see the irony?I'll have to agree with Scott B.

It's also a "TV SHOW" on a channel who's very name, The History Channel, implies that it's content is history centric. All these fringe 'scientific' groups spend an hour, espousing assumptions, many 'I believe...' comments, playing dramatic music, etc., then end the show with absolutely no evidence, untestable evidence, or, more often, just a plain summary of their ideas on a particular 'theory.' It's find to put shows like that on other channels, but its a shame to present these things as history or science when they are anything but.The History Channel, Science, Discovery,etc., used to be great channels to learn. Now they are filled with speculation, religion, aliens.,etc. I'm not saying to censor these shows, but damn, do they have to commandeer the very few decent stations to raise ratings? Pawn Stars is a nice show, sometimes, but is only vaguely historical. I saw Jesus related programs on the 'Science' channel. Everything is becoming 'Reality TV.' I enjoy non-educational tv from time to time; thats what 'Comedy Central' and like stations are for. But, you wouldnt want to turn on Comedy Central and find them playing Romance shows would ya?

Adventure fiction cloaked as science is a new genre. The shame is, there "is" evidence of pre-Columbian European exploration in America. But it is now in the bathwater with all the crypto-archeology. This may be the strategy of those who do NOT want true history made more clear - the best place to hide a bit of truth is often inside a pack of lies.

I am a 29 year old female, with an IQ of 142 (or so I've been told). I don't know what the demographic for the show is meant to be, but I find it highly interesting. First, it is important to note that many of these comments state they only watched the first or first couple of shows. Then, it must be noted that it is important to take ANYTHING you see/hear with a grain of salt. The show, since the first few shows, has made an effort to improve the quality of the narration. I am in a doctorate program right now, for which I am doing a concept analysis on denial. Sometimes, when analyzing a concept (or object) it is just as important to determine what a subject is NOT and not just on what it is. It is true that Wolter is not able to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that certain objects are real. However, it is still of import that the objects are not necessarily fake. It leaves open the possibility of something quite fascinating - the potential of learning something new. We are still discovering new species daily. We discover new planets, new treasures, new theories all the time. Is it pretty well accepted that within the medical field, any "cure" that is herbal or alternative in nature is immediately ignored or discounted as false. That is because, regardless of the efficacy of "cure", there is no money to be made from an easily available product. The same type of closed-mindedness may be occurring in academia, perhaps for other reasons. As to whether there was a true European or Mexican Pre-Columbian presence in America, who knows? BUT - if you want to know how history gets rewritten simply look at a recent event - the attack of the embassy in Benghazi. Even though reports of the attack coming from verified sources at the site were listing it as a strategically planned attack, we were repeatedly being told for quite some time that it was an impromptu riot based on some obscure youtube video. Yeah. Right. So, in this case, with all of the advanced media communication methods, we were able to wade through the lies a bit to determine something wasn't quite right. However, who knows how far the lies went? We will probably never know. So, if you take into consideration that if historical events in today's world can be altered for political reasons, surely that could have happened in a time when things were much less strictly documented. It's feasible. That is my point. It may not be provable, but neither is it disprovable. Why close the case on it now?

Jason, You were the one who brought up government funding, not me. My comment was in reference to yours. 'If the standard is only "could be true," then why aren't we spending tax dollars hunting for unicorns?' My point was that you can't use government spending to gauge the validity of anything. I was unaware of the unicorn references in the KJV. However, it would be important to note the context of the use of the word. The earliest known dictionary states unicorn is simply an animal with one horn. Two of the five species of rhinos have only one horn. The Bible references of unicorns mention "strength of a unicorn." I'm no great Biblical scholar, but it hardly seems they would be referencing a white, frilly horse with a horn. Also, the latin text uses unicornis and rinoceros, which are both references to the Asian One-Horned Rhino. Of course, if you have seen the new coloring book called "Unicorns are Jerks" then perhaps you could think that the Bible was mentioning a mythical creature. According to the coloring book, they can be super bitchy.As for the FMTs. I have worked at 22 hospitals in 3 states. Not one of them has done one. Most of the FMTs performed in the US have been done by a handful of doctors. As for "available to those willing to pay" - you are also incorrect. The Infectious Disease MDs are not on board yet. I suppose a patient could travel to one of the few hospitals doing the procedure (such as the Mayo Clinic and some hospital in Rhode Island), but you would otherwise have to travel out of country. More than 3 million people get C. diff each year. I hardly think that a few doctors who have done about 100 FMTs each over the last five years are going to be able to fill the demand should many patients suddenly decide they want them. Also, there shouldn't be a lot of cost involved. It involves one person pooping in a container and placing that person's poop into the GI tract of another person via a tube. Last time I stooled, it didn't cost me anything. I don't know about you. Obviously the stool has to be tested, but in the scope of things, the tests are minimal. As for placing the stool in the GI tract, it can be done via colonoscopy, which would be the most expensive feature, but it can also be done with a simple enema or nasogastric/nasoduodenal tube. A nurse can have such a tube from the supply room and placed in the patient within a five minute period. Where is the great cost you are referencing? One round of Zosyn and/or Vancomycin costs much more and isn't nearly as effective. The "frequent reporting" you mention has only come about in light of a very recent study that tested the efficacy of the FMTs. They have been being performed for more than 50 years without much reporting at all.