How will a credible source like the History Channel
Er, the History Channel is NOT a credible source. They're a consumer-centered business. Nothing more.
Since when was the last time you got a history lesson in school or university that included prime focus on Ice Road Truckers, Monsters, Loggers, and Modern Manufacturing techniques?
National Geographic and New Scientist aren't credible sources either. New Scientist fills a niche in which academic honesty is highly encouraged - but they've been accused multiple times of peddling "Scientific Pornography" due to their sensationalism and rampant speculation. National Geographic has made such mistakes as doing exposes on the Acheoraptor "discovery" before the peer-review process. It was touted as a major find, being a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. Peer review revealed the fraud for what it was, yet many people who think "Nat Geo" speaks for science and is a credible source shows the "foolishness of scientists".
What's interesting about the latter case, is that Acheoraptor contained the fossils of a previously undiscovered dinosaur called Micro-raptor which turned out to be an even better example of evolution and missing link than Acheoraptor ever could have been.
So no... please don't mistake "The History Channel" for a credible source. Consider them more an inspiration, if you will, to pick up on a subject you may have previously been unaware of and do the appropriate research from actual reputable sources.
