[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: A first practical step on the documentary problem



Last night, I watched a documentary on the History Channel called 'Apocolypse Island', about a 150 foot tall Mayan monument on a remote island in the South Pacific 400 miles off the coast of South America. I'm not going to go into details about the 'cult archaeology', but among many other things, they didn't name the island, they talked about the great difficulty of having to take 4 days to get there by renting an old fishing boat and the difficulty and danger involved in landing their boat on the small beach. The 'unnamed' island was Robinson Crusoe Island off the coast of Chile which has a nice airport with commercial flights -- why didn't they go by air? Why did they spend 3 days treking and camping to the site when they could have used the road running from the airstrip? Why did they claim a natural volcanic formation was an eroded Mayan statue of a sun god and jaguar? It got worse from there. I used to have a decent opinion of History Channel quality. I lost that regard last night.
Arrgh,
JimC

----- Original Message ----- From: "david maas" <david@brainpets.com>
To: <wdm1949@hotmail.com>
Cc: <villandra@austin.rr.com>; "DML" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: A first practical step on the documentary problem


If a film lays no claim to scientific plausibility that's fine. 2012 was quite clearly not interested in science beyond as a marketing ploy. That's not the ssue, I feel. It is an issue when a film project lays claim to scientific credibility and fails to deliver, for whatever reason.