Fast-paced, fun and informative, Modern Marvels is The History Channel's signature series focusing on historical technology. The series has focused (among other things) on wonders of ... See full summary »
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Examines the Prophesies of 16th-century French physician Michel de Nostradamus and other ancient prophesy. It compares these prophesies with current global events and sorts significant prophesy from crackpot theory.
10 stars for idea, 2 stars for the delivery = 6 stars
I've watched 10 episodes and everything was great, until I came upon guy named Benjamin Radford, who was posing as a great expert on everything and was just skipping the parts that he didn't have arguments for. Other "sceptics" were doing similar things, but he was just awesome - he just denies everything, no matter what.
Especially: - in "Big foot" he states that "eyewitnesses are not reliable"... well, great, so every single one case held in the court should be trailed once again without any whithesses
in "Psychics" he said "there isn't a single example that any psychic
ever helped police" - isn't it nice to meet someone who knows every single case in every single police in the world and in whole history of human kind...?
in "self Combustion" he said "the wick effect is explanation to those
cases"... well, almost - why people who are on fire for about 10 minutes DON'T WAKE UP??
But rest of the "sceptics" aren't much better: - in "Psychics" they said that one of them claims to do services for Scotland Yard, but Scotland Yard denies it... right, like British ever admit that they do have MI5, they admit Bloody Sunday was policemen fault... if you claim to be skeptic, then be skeptic all the way, not just when it meets your expectations
in "Psychics" one of them have done some test with good result, but
they just mention "it wasn't done properly" - why?? who said so?? what was wrong with the test??
in "Circles" they have "proved" that complicated thing like that
could be done in 5 hours... yeah, but they've done in almost 5 hours in the middle of the day, so what kind of prove is that??
in few cases they took up a really lame examples to show that there
isn't such thing as the topic, f.e. in UFO they took up some examples from Mexico that were easy to explain, but what about commercial movie of Comet (I think) when something was flying next to the plane... in "Psychics" this woman from Scotland who teaches how to be a psychic - oh, come on! besides she pointed out some place and they say she was fraud... so, who exactly checked this place she pointed out?? she was wrong because you say so??
in "Big foot" some guy told about something that he saw on the side
of the road and the explanations is... he was in shock, he didn't know what he saw... I don't know, but he didn't say anything about the shock, he just said that he saw something, but they said he didn't, so there - it is proved
in "UFO" the explanation for everything is suggestion based on sf
movies during cold war... wow, that explains everything, even the reports from countries that weren't under any pressure during the cold war, like Mexico, Chile or Brazil
After watching those episodes I was really disgusted by the level the creators presented - I mean in many cases they are right and all of this is a lot of cr*p, but they really should take more care about details and don't treat everyone as an idiot, because if I would believe in all of what this Benjamin Radford say (who btw. said that there are no such thing as lake monsters which doesn't stop him from publishing books about them) then I would say that people have never landed on the Moon!!!
Why? Because there are no proves that they did. Afterall eyewitnesses doesn't count, the samples could be rocks form some part of Earth, video material could be just illusion or fabrication... Besides I've never been to the Moon, I don't know anyone who were on the Moon, so there you have it - people have never landed on the Moon, because I said so... What's more there isn't any prove that this, so called, Moon even exists... This it the level of discussion that "Is it real?" represents most of the time.
11 of 19 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?