The History Channel errors

[Johnny L.A.]

THC is, IMO, notorious for broadcasting factual errors. Why don't we list them?

This one isn't a factual error per se; but a grammatical one:

Originally Posted by THC

In fact the first supernova ever witnessed by man occurred in China in 185 AD, 2000 years ago.

There was a supernova in China?

And of course, there's their claim that 'doozy' originated from the Duesenburg automobile.

[Montgomery0]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

This one isn't a factual error per se; but a grammatical one:

There was a supernova in China?

Wow, nitpick much?

I doubt that anyone who understood the concepts of "man", "witness" and "Supernova" would seriously have the same interpretation of that sentence as you did.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Montgomery0

Wow, nitpick much?

Wow, miss the point much?

That's just what prompted the thread. THC makes a lot of factual erros. (I really should have put that in the OP. Oh, wait. I did.) This thread is meant for us to enumerate them.

[Bobotheoptimist]

Wait, there's not been a supernova visible to Earth in the past 150,000 (or so) years? Not one?

ETA - Prior to the one in China, obviously.

[ChrisBooth12]

Originally Posted by Montgomery0

Wow, nitpick much?

I doubt that anyone who understood the concepts of "man", "witness" and "Supernova" would seriously have the same interpretation of that sentence as you did.

Last time i checked the US does not have a committee for the English language. Not unlike France who actually does. So when you really think about it there is no such thing has correct official grammar. Just "rules" that are more accepted then others. The purpose of language is to convey information. Everyone who heard that phrase understood what it meant. Thus the goal of saying it has been met.

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by Bobotheoptimist

Wait, there's not been a supernova visible to Earth in the past 150,000 (or so) years? Not one?

ETA - Prior to the one in China, obviously.

Well, the quote did say "witnessed by man." But even then, of course, one could've been witnessed in prehistoric times. I guess it should've been "first supernova ever recorded by man."

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

THC is, IMO, notorious for broadcasting factual errors. Why don't we list them?

This one isn't a factual error per se; but a grammatical one:

There was a supernova in China?

And of course, there's their claim that 'doozy' originated from the Duesenberg automobile.

Where are we supposed to get these quotes from? Your quote is unsourced. Are we supposed to watch the channel and transcribe?

The origin of doozy is still much disputed, BTW. It was probably self-proclaimed word expert and poet John Ciardi that people cite when they refer to the origin from the car. It was in print earlier, true...

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-doo2.htm

It is often said it relates to the 1920s automobile, the Duesenberg, but it was used in a letter by Carl Akeley at the Field Museum in the late 1890s so it cannot be the car that the word derived from.”

... but so were the Duesenberg brothers.

http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/doozy

However, prior to building their superb cars, the Duesenberg brothers built superb racing bicycles (raced them, too), and they began that business in 1895. The best speculation, then, is that our Good Word for today began as a clipping of the bicycle name which was reinforced in the 20s and 30s by the reputation of the car.

It's pretty sure that the word gained traction in the language from the car ads that said, it's a Duesie," no matter the ultimate origin (which is probably from "it's a daisy.")

Besides, we only have your claim that THC said the word originated, rather than was popularized, by the car. Can you point us to an exact quote?

If you're going to nitpick others, you have to be exacter than exact yourself.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

If you're going to nitpick others, you have to be exacter than exact yourself.

I included the ungrammatical sentence because I thought it was funny. That's not what this thread is supposed to be about. It's about factual errors that THC has made; not nitpicks.

Doozy: From your link, one person claimed to have found a cite from the 1890s. Clearly it did not, as THC claimed, originate with the car.

But again, this thread is supposed to be for enumerating factual errors on THC. I've caught several, but I can't remember them right now. I was hoping some would pop up in the thread.

[Bobotheoptimist]

My problem is that I can't remember if I'm watching THC, TLC, or TDC so if I were to complain about the factual errors in a show, it'd probably be the wrong show.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by Bobotheoptimist

My problem is that I can't remember if I'm watching THC, TLC, or TDC so if I were to complain about the factual errors in a show, it'd probably be the wrong show.

Hints:
If it's got Hitler, Nazis, or airplanes, it's THC.
If it's got large obnoxious men building stuff, it's TDC.
If it's got formula programs imitating 8 other channels, it's TLC.

[ftg]

The one show on THC I remember most for being "What the ????" was a Biblical documentary. The guy's logic went something like this:

1. A tiny fragment of papyrus has been found that contains the same words as part of passage of a gospel. (Not even a whole verse.) Based on the writing style, this was dated to mid-first century. Therefore the gospels were "contemporary" writings rather than later writings as most scholars believe.

2. Due to the earlier date, the gospels had to actually be 100% true.

3. He then went to the traditional spot where the Sermon on the Mount was given and used the above to "prove" that this in fact was the actual spot that Jesus spoke.

It was a complete and total sham from start to finish. But somehow that qualifies it as "History".

[Ignatz]

In the story on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge that crosses San Francisco Bay, they referred to it as the Oakland Bay Bridge.

In a story about repainting one of the big bridges they said the thickness of the new paint was to be 40 (or so) millimeters when they should have said 40 (or so) mils (numbers approximate due to my failing memory).

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by ChrisBooth12

Last time i checked the US does not have a committee for the English language. Not unlike France who actually does.

Were such a committee formed, I would have to report you to them. Nothing personal.

[ftg]

Per my previous post about that goofy biblical "documentary," here's the Wikipedia article on the fragment in question. That's right folks, the entire New Testament is 100% true because of that tiny bit of papyrus.

[Baldwin]

Let's see if my seventh attempt to post works.

Originally Posted by THC

In fact the first supernova ever witnessed by man occurred in China in 185 AD, 2000 years ago.

Bit of sloppy arithmetic there, too. (Unless you were watching The History Channel from the year 2185, which would be awesome.)

They repeated as fact the myth that the song "Ring Around the Rosie" is about the Black Death.

[Redfrost]

On an episode that aired last night about the end of the world as predicted by the Mayans they were comparing a variety prophets who predicted the end of the world. They referenced Native American prophecies and said that the Ghost Dance was inspired by some of Black Elk's visions. According to Black Elk, from Black Elk Speaks he heard about the Ghost Dance and went to check it out. He had nothing to do with the Ghost Dance other than being a witness to it. It was in full swing by the time he got check it out. In fact Wovoka (Jack Wilson) brought the Ghost Dance to the people.

[carnivorousplant]

The History Channel once showed a reenactment of a Revolutionary War battle with rifles using percussion caps.

[Katriona]

Originally Posted by ftg

The one show on THC I remember most for being "What the ????" was a Biblical documentary. The guy's logic went something like this:

1. A tiny fragment of papyrus has been found that contains the same words as part of passage of a gospel. (Not even a whole verse.) Based on the writing style, this was dated to mid-first century. Therefore the gospels were "contemporary" writings rather than later writings as most scholars believe.

2. Due to the earlier date, the gospels had to actually be 100% true.

3. He then went to the traditional spot where the Sermon on the Mount was given and used the above to "prove" that this in fact was the actual spot that Jesus spoke.

It was a complete and total sham from start to finish. But somehow that qualifies it as "History".

That has to be The Naked Archaeologist. I've noticed that he starts with a theory and forces everything he finds to fit, while discarding anything that doesn't "prove" it. I really wanted to like the show when I first ran across it, but it's really irritating.

[LurkMeister]

I watched an episode of The Naked Archaeologist. Never again. The show was supposedly intended to establish the cause of death for Herod the Great (IIRC). Most of the show consisted of irrelevant material about his reign, a few brief interviews with doctors about his supposed symptoms, and a lot of cutesy graphics.

[Bridget Burke]

From The History Channel--or perhaps History Channel International (supposedly the better one.) When the Normans invaded England, the Saxons were still pagan! Grrr...

I usually enjoy shows on the Earth's development; the fact that they give Young Earthers hives is just icing on the cake. However, the shows often include phrases like "A supercontinent formed, which was called Pangaea." As though the Pangaeans named it! Couldn't the show simply mention who invented the name & when?

[Lute Skywatcher]

If we're expanding this thread to cover TLC errors...

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

However, the shows often include phrases like "A supercontinent formed, which was called Pangaea." As though the Pangaeans named it! Couldn't the show simply mention who invented the name & when?

Maybe Mr. Burns named it?

Originally Posted by Bobtheoptimist

there's not been a supernova visible to Earth in the past 150,000 (or so) years? Not one?

Not one that was seen by someone who felt it was worthy of recording for posterity and who had the capability and luck to record it in some form that we can still access today and know that what we are looking at refers to a supernova.

That rules out most non-literate cultures. It's possible that such a culture could have made paintings depicting the event, but those are generally harder to date than a written account. They also might use symbols that the people of that culture would have understood, but that we don't understand today.

It's also possible that there was a reference to a supernova observation before that by a literate culture, but the record didn't survive until the present- the last surviving copy was on one of those scrolls in the Library of Alexandria that was burned, or there was a Chinese work referring to it and all the copies were destroyed in Qin Shi Huangdi's book burnings (which targeted written histories), or something like that.

[sskyking]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

The History Channel once showed a reenactment of a Revolutionary War battle with rifles using percussion caps.

I was watching a program on the history of the F-14 Tomcat fighter... they used "test footage" which was actually a single tail fighter which was supposed to be the twin tail F-14!

The series "Patton 360" claimed that Gen. Patton was in command at Kasserine, when in fact, it was Gen. Fredendall who was in command and Patton was sent there to take command after Fredendall was relieved AFTER the battle.

Given the wide variety of ghost hunting and ancient alien shows... they should perhaps be renamed the Mythology Channel! I watch mostly for the comedy of watching them shape facts to fit their theory.

I especially enjoy their habit to assume that because they don't know how something was done 15,000 years ago that it must've been done by aliens because "no primative human could've done it...". Have we forgotten how much was likely lost during the Dark Ages? They love to talk about the loss of the Library at Alexandria but could not much of that technology have been lost as well?

I was watching one show tonight and they point to a heavily weathered statue and start talking about how it shows features like a beard that they native people would not have had (how do they know?) at the time... and I'm looking at it and saying "what beard... I don't see a beard." They see what they want to see.

I also get ticked at how they dedicate every Christmas and Easter season to "documentaries" that attack and belittle Christian faith.

[Eve]

Originally Posted by sskyking

I also get ticked at how they dedicate every Christmas and Easter season to "documentaries" that attack and belittle Christian faith.

Oooh--I missed those. Can you bump the thread at Christmas and Easter with titles and times?

[Covered_In_Bees!]

Of course, but he'll be four years late.

[joebuck20]

Could we just go ahead and mention the entire run of Ancient Aliens.

[terentii]

One one show, the young Indiana Jones--type archaeologist hero-dude was trying to find a genetic connection between Jesus and some European royal family. There were no relics from the royal family's bloodline to subject to DNA testing, so they used a bone fragment from (wait for it!) a woman who had married into the family.

The results came back NEGATIVE (surprise, surprise!) and everybody was soooooooooooo disappointed....

Duh! This woman who married into the family might carry the genetic marker, don'tcha think? Let's give it a try!

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Is there a network that doesn't broadcast factual errors? It's not like some network gatekeeper fact-checks every line of every doc or tv series that gets aired. They're at the mercy that the writers and the editors at the production company (mostly independent contractors) have done their homework.

[Sailboat]

True, but the History Channel does unload some whoppers now and then. They have a recurring bit with someone who's supposed to be a carrier commander (and thus should know better) who says Midway was the first battle in which the two opposing fleets never saw each other, only each other's aircraft.

Leaving aside Pearl Harbor, where the fleets never saw each other but where the American fleet can hardly be said to have opposed much, the Battle of the Coral Sea is absolutely famously known for being

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

...the first naval engagement in history in which the participating ships never sighted or fired directly at each other. Instead, manned aircraft acted as the offensive artillery for the ships involved. Thus, the respective commanders were participating in a new type of warfare, carrier-versus-carrier, with which neither had any experience

cite, but you can find corroborating quotes anywhere but the History Channel.

This one's not subtle -- it's an obvious error, like saying Dan Quayle was the first black president of the US, and anyone moderately knowledgeable about naval warfare would have caught it.

[Boyo Jim]

How many men was it again who killed Kennedy? I can't keep track.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

They have a recurring bit with someone who's supposed to be a carrier commander

Upon reflection, it occurs to me this might have been on the Military Channel instead.

[Martini Enfield]

I've heard History Channel documentaries state that World War II began on December 7, 1941. This misinformation confuses and infuriates Lrrrr! I was disappointed that a glaring factual error of this nature would appear on a major TV network devoted to the subject of history.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Martini Enfield

I've heard History Channel documentaries state that World War II began on December 7, 1941. This misinformation confuses and infuriates Lrrrr! I was disappointed that a glaring factual error of this nature would appear on a major TV network devoted to the subject of history.

Well, technically (one might argue) it wasn't a world war until all the major powers took a side.

What bugs me is the casual suggestion that D-Day was the beginning of the end of the war in Europe. It was certainly a major aggravating element, but I'd cite Stalingrad as the turning point.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Originally Posted by Martini Enfield

I've heard History Channel documentaries state that World War II began on December 7, 1941. . . .

Yeah, even the Japanese invasion against western forces happeded two hours before the Pearl Harbor attack--on December 8!

[Namkcalb]

I'm starting to think South Park should be reclasified to a documentary... the last series had a episode on this topic, and since the History Channel's shows gets the honour of being called documentaries, then SP deserves it too.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, technically (one might argue) it wasn't a world war until all the major powers took a side.

What bugs me is the casual suggestion that D-Day was the beginning of the end of the war in Europe. It was certainly a major aggravating element, but I'd cite Stalingrad as the turning point.

Most British histories consider that WWII began in 1939, even if the US wasn't yet involved. (Yes, that's Wikipedia. But the contributors I checked out seem to have a UK orientation.) As a US citizen, I agree the war began in 1939...

But I'm sure I've heard idiot narrators indicating the war didn't begin until 12/7/1941. Generally the same sort who indicate that D-day was The Beginning Of The End. Not to reduce any respect the invaders deserve--but we can't forget Stalingrad. (Of course, Our Brave Russian Allies became Those Commies not long after the War & their role was diminished.)

[terentii]

I'm curious: At what point then did Europeans consider the conflict to be "a World War"? Hitler apparently did not view it as such until after his own declaration of war against the US on 11 Dec 41, judging from his remarks about his 30 Jan 39 "prophesy" regarding the Jews.

I once asked my dad when people started calling it "World War II." His reply was, "As soon as it started." I wish now I had asked when that was, September 1939 or December 1941?

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Montgomery0

Wow, nitpick much?

I doubt that anyone who understood the concepts of "man", "witness" and "Supernova" would seriously have the same interpretation of that sentence as you did.

Well I thought they meant it literally. You'll have to excuse me now, I have to do some editing on the textbook I'm writing.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by terentii

I'm curious: At what point then did Europeans consider the conflict to be "a World War"?

I believed Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin agreed to call it World War Two at Yalta, but cannot find a cite. I did find an English newspaper in 1939 after Poland was bombed with the headline "World War II began today..."

[Martini Enfield]

Originally Posted by terentii

I'm curious: At what point then did Europeans consider the conflict to be "a World War"? Hitler apparently did not view it as such until after his own declaration of war against the US on 11 Dec 41, judging from his remarks about his 30 Jan 39 "prophesy" regarding the Jews.

I once asked my dad when people started calling it "World War II." His reply was, "As soon as it started." I wish now I had asked when that was, September 1939 or December 1941?

Considering that the major countries in the British Empire declared war on Germany on or about September 3, 1939 (the UK, Australia, NZ, and India, and with South Africa declaring war on September 6 and Canada waiting until September 10), I'd say that's the point it became a "World War", with the events ofJune 22 and December 7 (or therabouts) merely expanding the scope.

[Johnny L.A.]

Not being an actual historian, I've always thought that the war started on September1, 1939 with the invasion of Poland, much like our entry into it started on December 7, 1941. IMO, the declarations (September 3, 1939, December 8, 1941, December 11, 1941) were only formalities.

[terentii]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

I believed Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin agreed to call it World War Two at Yalta, but cannot find a cite. I did find an English newspaper in 1939 after Poland was bombed with the headline "World War II began today..."

Interesting. I suppose that was logical, since up to that point WWI had often been referred to "the World War" (without knowing a second was on its way).

The Yalta Conference was held in February of '45; I can't believe they waited that long to decide on a name! (I've been to the site, BTW; it's still maintained exactly as it was back then).

Maybe such a resolution was made by Roosevelt and Churchill at one of their earlier meetings? As I recall, the three leaders met only one other time, in Teheran in '43.

I've always considered it began on 1 September 1939 too.

[Martini Enfield]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

Not being an actual historian, I've always thought that the war started on September1, 1939 with the invasion of Poland, much like our entry into it started on December 7, 1941. IMO, the declarations (September 3, 1939, December 8, 1941, December 11, 1941) were only formalities.

I should clarify this is how I see it too- WWII started when Hitler invaded Poland, the fact it took a few days to get the war declaration formalities on the Allied side sorted out afterwards notwithstanding.

[Maserschmidt]

Originally Posted by Martini Enfield

I should clarify this is how I see it too- WWII started when Hitler invaded Poland

You're in good company - John Cleese agrees with you!

[A Monkey With a Gun]

I think the more interesting subject is not when WWII began, but when it ended. Some experts believe that it ended not in 1945, but in June of 1947 with the capture of the Axis leaders.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

Most British histories consider that WWII began in 1939, even if the US wasn't yet involved. (Yes, that's Wikipedia. But the contributors I checked out seem to have a UK orientation.) As a US citizen, I agree the war began in 1939...

But I'm sure I've heard idiot narrators indicating the war didn't begin until 12/7/1941. Generally the same sort who indicate that D-day was The Beginning Of The End. Not to reduce any respect the invaders deserve--but we can't forget Stalingrad. (Of course, Our Brave Russian Allies became Those Commies not long after the War & their role was diminished.)

But why 1939? Japan invaded China in 1937. So, if we say when did the first fighting of WWII start, it was 1937. Sure GB didn't become involved until 1939, but then the US (and to a greater extent Japan) wasn't part until 1941. Thus picking 1939 instead of 1937 is being just as localized as 1941.

So, the point is- not when the first shots were fired of what became WWII, but at what point did the various Conflicts become a World War? There I agree- once all World Powers were involved, it becomes a World War.(In WWI, the USA hovered on the edge of being a World Power).

[Sampiro]

I wish I could find the video, but in a "documentary" about UFO's and the Bible one of the "experts" said that there are descriptions of UFO's in Genesis and the apocryphal books that were written more than 5,000 years ago. He did not say that the events took place more than 5,000 years ago but specifically said they were written that long ago.
Even the most amateur Biblical historian knows that the oldest parts of the Bible date back to way less than 5,000 years ago- probably more like 3,000, and that's only a few bits and pieces. It may sound insignificant until you think that the gap of 2,000 years, or even if you want to be really liberal and say it was just 1,000 years, is pretty significant when you're trying to establish any kind of credence for the account; a millennium of hearsay kind of negates any claim.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

But why 1939? Japan invaded China in 1937. So, if we say when did the first fighting of WWII start, it was 1937. Sure GB didn't become involved until 1939, but then the US (and to a greater extent Japan) wasn't part until 1941. Thus picking 1939 instead of 1937 is being just as localized as 1941.

So, the point is- not when the first shots were fired of what became WWII, but at what point did the various Conflicts become a World War? There I agree- once all World Powers were involved, it becomes a World War.(In WWI, the USA hovered on the edge of being a World Power).

Maybe, since they key word seems to be "World", it's not so much a matter of "world powers" as the geographic scope of the conflict. The Japan-China conflict was essentially a matter of a few thousand square miles of regional conflict. But Germany at war with the British empire did in fact include globe-spanning conflict, and the resulting U-boat war threatened to involve the US long before Pearl Harbor. The U-boat battles involved 4 continents. British, German, and Italian ground troops were in conflict in 1940.

So, to throw in some more candidate dates, one might choose June 10-11, when Italy declared war on England and their soldiers started moving against each other on the ground on a second continent (Africa).

Or how about February, 1941, when the German Africa Corps was dispatched to Africa to save the Italian. Maybe someone can chime in to answer the question as to whether Italy and Germany were officially allies in the war against Great Britain at that time, or technically each pursuing a separate war simultaneously against the same enemy. But certainly they became defacto allies (at least) at this time.

Or how about June, 1941 when Germany attacked Russia? Personally, I've never been terribly clear about where Europe ends and Asia begins, so maybe someone else can clarify exactly when this attack finally spilled over onto the Asian mainland, which would then involve a third continent fought over by a common set of foes.

And yet another candidate date -- September 27, 1940 -- the date that Germany, Italy and Japan formally signed the Tripartite pact which officially made them allies. The problem with this date is it didn't immediately change the scope or nature of any of the contemporaneous conflict. Germany and Italy were already fighting as Allies, and Japan didn't didn't take on Great Britain as an enemy until the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Still, it was ultimately the political cornerstone of the global nature of the war.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Maybe, since they key word seems to be "World", it's not so much a matter of "world powers" as the geographic scope of the conflict. The Japan-China conflict was essentially a matter of a few thousand square miles of regional conflict. But Germany at war with the British empire did in fact include globe-spanning conflict, and the resulting U-boat war threatened to involve the US long before Pearl Harbor. The U-boat battles involved 4 continents. British, German, and Italian ground troops were in conflict in 1940.

So, to throw in some more candidate dates, one might choose June 10-11, when Italy declared war on England and their soldiers started moving against each other on the ground on a second continent (Africa).

Or how about February, 1941, when the German Africa Corps was dispatched to Africa to save the Italian. Maybe someone can chime in to answer the question as to whether Italy and Germany were officially allies in the war against Great Britain at that time, or technically each pursuing a separate war simultaneously against the same enemy. But certainly they became defacto allies (at least) at this time.

Or how about June, 1941 when Germany attacked Russia? Personally, I've never been terribly clear about where Europe ends and Asia begins, so maybe someone else can clarify exactly when this attack finally spilled over onto the Asian mainland, which would then involve a third continent fought over by a common set of foes.

And yet another candidate date -- September 27, 1940 -- the date that Germany, Italy and Japan formally signed the Tripartite pact which officially made them allies. The problem with this date is it didn't immediately change the scope or nature of any of the contemporaneous conflict. Germany and Italy were already fighting as Allies, and Japan didn't didn't take on Great Britain as an enemy until the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Still, it was ultimately the political cornerstone of the global nature of the war.

I can see a number of dates. But the British seem to focus on when they entered the war. Of course, us Americans focus on when we entered the war.

Anyway there's something to be said for 1939 to 1941 as the start, depending on when does a World War start. Simply dismissing the American claims of 1941 as parochial & wrong is just as wrong as dismissing the British claims for 1939.

So, I accept 1939 or 1940 or 1941. All have some reasonableness, none are wrong.

[Martini Enfield]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

So, I accept 1939 or 1940 or 1941. All have some reasonableness, none are wrong.

Yes, they are, I'm afraid- 1941 is wrong.

No-one tries to argue that World War I didn't begin until April 6, 1917. Why is it even remotely acceptable - on a board allegedly dedicated to fighting ignorance - to seriously suggest that WWII didn't start until the Americans got involved?

And what Boyo Jim said about the Sino-Japanese War being a largely regional conflict until December 1941. I believe it's in the same category as the Spanish Civil War; a contemporary regional conflict that sort of ended up getting folded into grander events. Even though the Spanish Civil War had officially ended six months before the German invasion of Poland; the Germans and the Soviets were there testing some of their stuff out. It's sort of an overture, if you will, to WWII.