It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did anyone see the Discovery Channel's laughable take on the JFK assassination last night?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 10:08 AM
There's something funny going on over at the Discovery Channel. Not to say that there isn't good programming on TDC, there is, but as far as any of their conspiracy related shows go, they make me want to vomit. The tests that they ran to try and prove that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been and very likely was the only gunman were insulting. Did anyone get a load of that recreation of the inside of the TSBD where that had some Oswald clone run through some BS obstacle course in order to time his exit from the sniper's nest? What a joke!!! There was like six boxes in the whole room. Stevie Wonder could have found his way through that obstacle course and down the stairs in eleven seconds or whatever it was. Are they for real with these tests?? Oh, and there were multiple witnesses that saw Oswald walking in a certain direction that timing-wise would have not made it possible for him to shoot Office Tippett, but low and behold there was one witness that saw him walking in another direction that would have made it possible for Oswald to shoot Tippett. So of course they had the evil little Oswald clone take that route and bingo.....timing-wise he would have been able to shoot Tippett.

Besides all that they kept going out of their way to refute the movie JFK. Why? Why even bring the movie up? The fact that they kept bringing the movie up made me even more suspicious. I seem to remember the ABC JFK special constantly referring to the movie as well. I'd say it's a good bet that JFK hit the nail right on the head. It raises the question though; nobody really cares anymore about the assassination or the people who perpetraded it so why are they still trying to convince us that it really happened the way the Warren Report said it did? The only thing I can think of is that it's just an issue of trying to keep future generations trusting in and believing in their government.

Other TDC jokes:

1. The bigfoot video on their website. It's too ridiculous looking to ever be believed.

2. Alien shows that have nothing to do with aliens as we perceive them. Computer animated crap!!!

3. My head hurts....................OUCH!!!!!

If TDC channel goes one way on a conspiracy, safe bet is for you to go the other. This has been a public service announcement.

Mods, sorry if I put this in the wrong forum.


[edit on 20-6-2005 by Dr Love]

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 10:30 AM
I started watching it, but changed the channel after the reenactment with the sharpshooter. Clearly this was biased and intended to debunk the movie JFK. It was probably made by the same people as the ABC Peter Jenning’s special on JFK. If you noticed when they discussed other sniper locations, they did not go into the grassy knoll. At least ABC tried a lame attempt to convince the audience that the headshot came from the rear even though JFK's head went back and to the left. I think programs like that are a waste of time. There is nothing that has convinced me that Oswald acted alone, or was even one of the shooters.

posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 10:42 AM
Yeah Hal, the sharpshooter re-enactment was priceless. They gave the guy a clear shot with no tree blocking his view. The thing I noticed was that he hit the watermelon with his very first shot but then his gun jammed. I think the gun jamming part was added in to show that the test wasn't biased. But then continuing with subsequent shots he seemed to hit the watermelon every time.


posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 10:45 AM
Of course, I think the stone film was put out there in order to take the attention off of a lot of evidence that would be taken seriously by a reasonable person. But hey, maybe I just don't like Oliver S.

I feel compelled to add that I have, on several occasions noted severe factual mistakes on TDC's programming; particularly in the paleontology programs and the middle-eastern archaeology.

There is one special they air every Christmas about the birth of Jesus--they say that the Historian Josephus never mentions Jesus. As a matter of fact, a description of Jesus does occur in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews." (Book 18, chapter 3). Mind you, the majority of scholars think that part of the passage has been embellished, and a minority think the whole passage is spurious.

But obviously, it is untrue to say that "Josephus never mentioned Jesus." Why not tell viewers actual, uhm, facts; then let people decide for themselves?

There is also a documentary on Egypt, where they talk about how Egyptian religion influenced the Greeks. Which totally begs the question, since practically everything we know about Egyptian beliefs come to us via Greek (post-christian) writers. Indeed, the names we use for the Egyptian Gods are actually the Greek words. Egyptian doesn't seem to have ended nouns with fricatives or hard unvoiced consonants. So Isis is really Esse, Osiris was Oshiri, Seth was Seti, and Anubis was perhaps something like Anuvi.

The point is, modern scholars are beginning to wonder whether the post-christian Greeks consciously worked to make the Egyptian gods fit into "prototypes" of Christian principles, in order to show that even the "old religion" proclaimed spiritual truth.

This is a very real possibility, and a number of Egyptologists are persuing this question with gusto; especially since Mohammad seemed to specifically be concerned that no one connect pre-muslim gods with HIS holy book . . .

now, THAT would make for an interesting panel discussion. But instead, TDC presents a very bland viewpoint, filled with generalizations and little real info about how Egyptian practice evolved over time (it certainly did, especially as Egyptian culture changed.)

So, why not present the more interesting (if complex) truth, instead of sloppy half-truths? Is TDC incapable of presenting us with quality information? Maybe their budget is too focused on "dramatic re-enactment" and too little on interviewing top of the line scholars.

That said, I will confess that they did a first-rate job on the debate over Mousterian versus Clovis flint tools in North America. They interviewed the peope who have generated the most controversy (and genuine research) in that field. A couple of them were professors I worked with in college(!).

new topics

top topics

log in