# Shame on Discovery channel



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

It seems Discovery are again trying to pass off clearly fake documentaries as factual. :|

This isn't the first time they have done this. Their mermaid one was another, but at least that was so ridiculous that _most _people didn't fall for it.

Mixing factual with fake documentaries and not telling viewers is shameful.



> *Did Discovery Channel fake the image in its giant shark documentary?*
> 
> Image showing Megalodon swimming past U-boats off Cape Town was doctored. Come clean, or prove me wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## s2panda (Dec 8, 2013)

Discovery Channel went to **** long time ago. It's like all reality crap now.


----------



## Alienated (Apr 17, 2013)

Gee... Brings somebody else to mind too, but he has no shame either.


----------



## sad vlad (Nov 9, 2013)

I dont watch those new ''reality tv'' like shows. They are probably doing it for better ratings. Some shows are obviously scripted like movies.

In the case you have presented it may be simply that they were trying to show viewers how big a Megalodon was by comparing it with a today's U-boat. Something meant to impress them too.

I can't see from that picture how big does the Megalodon look compared to the submarine. I see only that it is written 64 ft above the Megalodon. That length is plausible.

edit: I have now read the article. It's about claiming Megalodons might still exist. It's just like The Loch Ness Monster documentaries or Big Foot. They are meant to bring high ratings by exploiting all sorts of popular myths and legends. Something sensational. As long as they haven't presented the documentary as a science fact, but simply a collection of views about the topic, I wouldn't start throwing eggs and rotten tomatoes their way.

I don't like this sort of stories to be on Discovery but, today, the media is getting more and more tabloid. Guess they are trying to catch up. All comes down to money.









Well, I don't know why the author of the article is so upset about this little picture. It is clearly written ''entertain''. That seems to be their first goal now. So they are honest about it.


----------



## RelinquishedHell (Apr 10, 2012)

Alienated said:


> Gee... Brings somebody else to mind too, but he has no shame either.


"Bear Grylls"? lol


----------



## thrilla in manila (Jan 31, 2014)

I remember when I was a kid and I looked forward to watching nature documentaries on the Discovery Channel after school. Then the chop shop shows and the like took over and I found the network to be unwatchable. Only program I've given half a damn about in the last ten years was Deadliest Catch when it first came on.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

Sure... TV has been doing bigfoot style documentaries going on years now.

Don't dismiss things too easily, even if it comes across as entertainment rather than science.

After all, it's only in the last decade that we've witnessed underground sea volcano eruptions (not black smokers), and found giant squids.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...as-an-omen-by-japanese-fisherman-9140819.html



> An increase in the number of giant squid being caught along the Sea of Japan coast is leading puzzled fishermen to fear their presence may be some kind of 'omen' - although experts think the invertebrate are simply a bit cold.









> *Published on Jan 8, 2013*
> Discovery and NHK captured the legendary giant squid on film deep in the Pacific Ocean.


50 Feet long, eyes the size of dinner plates.

Anyways, I thought the Basking Whale Shark was the largest shark. Or is that a whale only?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Alienated said:


> Gee... Brings somebody else to mind too, but he has no shame either.


Jesus?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

sad vlad said:


> I dont watch those new ''reality tv'' like shows. They are probably doing it for better ratings. Some shows are obviously scripted like movies.


Yes it's to boost ratings by serving up mythological and dishonest crap as facts that gullible people of lower intelligence will find accessible.



> In the case you have presented it may be simply that they were trying to show viewers how big a Megalodon was by comparing it with a today's U-boat. Something meant to impress them too.
> 
> I can't see from that picture how big does the Megalodon look compared to the submarine. I see only that it is written 64 ft above the Megalodon. That length is plausible.
> 
> edit: I have now read the article. It's about claiming Megalodons might still exist. It's just like The Loch Ness Monster documentaries or Big Foot. They are meant to bring high ratings by exploiting all sorts of popular myths and legends. Something sensational. As long as they haven't presented the documentary as a science fact, but simply a collection of views about the topic, I wouldn't start throwing eggs and rotten tomatoes their way.


There was no indication in the documentary that it was fake, with actors playing the parts of "scientists" and doctored stock footage, which has been proven as people have found the original film.



> I don't like this sort of stories to be on Discovery but, today, the media is getting more and more tabloid. Guess they are trying to catch up. All comes down to money.


Yeah it's a shame when organisation lose their integrity to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator. :|









Well, I don't know why the author of the article is so upset about this little picture. It is clearly written ''entertain''. That seems to be their first goal now. So they are honest about it.[/QUOTE]

I feel their statement of "highest quality" can no longer apply.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

MrKappa said:


> Sure... TV has been doing bigfoot style documentaries going on years now.
> 
> Don't dismiss things too easily, even if it comes across as entertainment rather than science.


It's trying to pass light entertainment with fabricated nonsense as fact that I have a problem with, as it's deceptive. Not everyone will have the general knowledge to know it's not real.



> After all, it's only in the last decade that we've witnessed underground sea volcano eruptions (not black smokers), and found giant squids.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...as-an-omen-by-japanese-fisherman-9140819.html
> 
> ...


Black smokers and giant squid were always far more plausible than the existence of a long extinct largest shark even considering none were ever caught or found anywhere.



> Anyways, I thought the Basking Whale Shark was the largest shark.


The Whale Shark is currently the largest shark. The Basking Shark is a different species (and not called a Basking Whale Shark).



> Or is that a whale only?


 Sharks are fish, whales are mammals.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

No I agree... the best thing to hit documentary and educational TV in the last fews years is Ancient Aliens.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of Aliens either.

That's what people want, and Ancient Aliens is by and far cutting edge in terms of the information they elaborate on, both in an anti-orthodox sideways passive aggressive way, and the totally outlandish montage that it's slipped into recently.

Absolutely mind blowing for a few seasons at least.

Where do these people get their funding from anyways? It's got to be either from the Church, or from the Government, so they must be up against three walls.

What entertains?

What can pass as real science with no conflict of interest by funding sources?

What can be slipped in as true educational content?

That's why cable television is sounding a silent death horn. They are totally in denial and people who want educational programming need only go straight to the internet.



> Black smokers and giant squid were always far more plausible than the existence of a long extinct largest shark even considering none were ever caught or found anywhere.


No the underwater volcano was an example of how unexplored the sea world is. Black smokers are something different. Those have been known since what? The 1900s and mapped as early as the 60s?

The squids used to be total fiction...










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_squid#Timeline



> *Tales* of giant squid have been common among mariners since ancient times, and may have led to the Norse legend of the kraken, a tentacled sea monster as large as an island capable of engulfing and sinking any ship. Japetus Steenstrup, the describer of Architeuthis, suggested a giant squid was the species described as a sea monk to the Danish king Christian III circa} 1550. The Lusca of the Caribbean and Scylla in Greek mythology may also derive from giant squid sightings. Eyewitness accounts of other sea monsters like the sea serpent are also thought to be mistaken interpretations of giant squid.


Truly, the oceans are not as well known as we'd think.

http://www.nature.com/news/underwater-volcano-is-earth-s-biggest-1.13680



> *05 September 2013 - Underwater volcano is Earth's biggest*
> 
> Geophysicists have discovered what they say is the largest single volcano on Earth, a 650-kilometre-wide beast the size of the British Isles lurking beneath the waters of the northwest Pacific Ocean.
> 
> The megavolcano has been inactive for some 140 million years. But its very existence will help geophysicists to set limits on how much magma can be stored in Earth's crust and pour out onto the surface. It also shows that Earth can produce volcanoes on par with Olympus Mons on Mars, which, at 625 kilometres across, was until now the biggest volcano known in the Solar System.


I'm not saying there is a prehistoric shark. However, yeah, the possiblity that something was really there, is maybe a possibility. I couldn't be bothered to watch a show on that though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...rehistoric-fish-under-Great-Barrier-Reef.html



> *10:13AM BST 15 Jul 2010*
> 
> Australian scientists have discovered bizarre prehistoric sea life thousands of feet below the Great Barrier Reef, in an unprecedented mission to document species under threat from ocean warming.
> 
> Ancient sharks, giant oil fish, swarms of crustaceans and a primitive shell-dwelling squid species called the Nautilus were among the astonishing life captured by remote controlled cameras at Osprey Reef.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

MrKappa said:


> No I agree... the best thing to hit documentary and educational TV in the last fews years is Ancient Aliens.
> 
> It has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of Aliens either.
> 
> ...


Ancient Aliens is an abomination. It promotes jumping to ridiculous conclusions based on poor evidence, wishful thinking, ignorance, and discredits the ingenuity of our ancestors.

It's like religious beliefs for the post religion generation.



> Where do these people get their funding from anyways? It's got to be either from the Church, or from the Government, so they must be up against three walls.


Who are you talking about?



> What entertains?


What ever someone likes. Passing it off as factual knowledge can be dishonest/delusional though.



> What can pass as real science with no conflict of interest by funding sources?


Science that stands up to scrutiny.



> What can be slipped in as true educational content?


Science that stands up to scrutiny.



> That's why cable television is sounding a silent death horn. They are totally in denial and people who want educational programming need only go straight to the internet.


Yes cable TV may well be on the way out with online channels ultimately going to replaces them, but the internet isn't somewhere I typically look for quality programming. If something is free to access it's not as likely to have the quality of a commissioned TV documentary. (Unless it's an illegal download)

Nobody is making documentaries with the quality of say BBC's Horizon and putting them out for free on the internet. There needs to be a business model to fund it.



> No the underwater volcano was an example of how unexplored the sea world is. Black smokers are something different. Those have been known since what? The 1900s and mapped as early as the 60s?


Ah sorry I misread that. I don't think any volcanologists thought there was no such think as submarine volcanoes. The first one was discovered in 1650. If you are on land it can be expected the will in the ocean as well.



> The squids used to be total fiction...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There were enough sightings of them and even more importantly, carcasses washed up on beaches over the ages to substantiate a belief in them.

No megalodon carcases have ever been found



> Truly, the oceans are not as well known as we'd think.


Marine biologists are well aware of that. We know more about the surface of Mars that we do of our oceans.



> I'm not saying there is a prehistoric shark. However, yeah, the possiblity that something was really there, is maybe a possibility. I couldn't be bothered to watch a show on that though.


The footage has already been debunked as fake. The just (poorly) added in what looks like a large shark on to some stock footage, and added swastikas to the u-boats, which there never was on them in reality.

Plus they used "scientists" who no one has found any evidence of existing, which highly suggests they were actors. (Of course they were, they were positing Megladon existing.)


----------



## In a Lonely Place (Mar 26, 2012)

They do show some absolute crap unfortunately, Amish Mafia anyone? :sus:no

The Hunt for Bigfoot :um


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Ancient Aliens is an abomination. It promotes jumping to ridiculous conclusions based on poor evidence, wishful thinking, ignorance, and discredits the ingenuity of our ancestors.


No, what it does is clearly show that the world in ancient times was always globally connected.

Instead of going up against the old school scientific orthodoxy, it basically spits right in their face and says, "Well, it must be aliens then".










The man is basically a genius. Enlightening and educational on most fronts.

It enlightens scientists who are ignorant with obvious scientific facts.

It grounds those who are without scientific facts.

It amazes and awes about everyone else.

There has never been a mime with such resentment to every grace the internet.










I must admit, the newer seasons are stretching thin into totally outlandish montage. I don't know what happened, they must have run out of material, or went through staff changes, unsure...


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> There were enough sightings of them and even more importantly, carcasses washed up on beaches over the ages to substantiate a belief in them.


Ah, interesting claim. I remember carcasses that were so decomposed you could mistake them as anything.

http://ocean.si.edu/giant-squid



> The giant squid has captured the human imagination for more than 2,000 years.
> 
> most of what we know comes from dead carcasses that floated to the surface and were found by fishermen.
> 
> But only since the late 19th century has enough scientific evidence accumulated to replace the myths with fact.


Eventually they'll probably do a documentary on this, and people will see if it stands up with scrutiny, I guess.

*Mysterious Stone Chambers & Giants Discovered in New England- Jim Vieira*






(Some of the material is questionable, but the structures are awesome.)

The presentation gets really good around the 39 minute mark. It goes on an on about newspaper accounts (hundreds of them) of giant skeletons in North America.


----------



## Ckg2011 (Aug 9, 2011)

Cage goes in the water, you go in the cage, sharks in the water. Our shark.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

MrKappa said:


> No, what it does is clearly show that the world in ancient times was always globally connected.
> 
> Instead of going up against the old school scientific orthodoxy, it basically spits right in their face and says, "Well, it must be aliens then".
> 
> ...


You think saying "it must be aliens" deserves credit as it "spits in the face" of science?

It's debunkable/wishful thinking crap. Always has been. Why do you think the claimed "facts" are never published in peer reviewed journals?

It's laughable you think they are obvious "facts" and that vast majority of professionals scientists are ignorant of them.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

No... I said it spits in the face of orthodoxy.

There is a lot of science that goes into that program. Do you ever follow up and do your own research as well? That's real science.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

MrKappa said:


> No... I said it spits in the face of orthodoxy.


All it does is spit all over itself and its audience. :lol



> There is a lot of science that goes into that program.


Bad science.



> Do you ever follow up and do your own research as well? That's real science.


I'm not a scientist so no. I refer to reputable sources of good science instead.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

I see you are orthodox.

Here's one...

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/ethnic/mummy.htm

It was in fact Aliens.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

MrKappa said:


> I see you are orthodox.


Define orthodox.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

Sorry I may have ninja edited on you. That article on trans Atlantic contact with south america basically sums up the beliefs of the "Orthodoxy".

I'm only messing with you, but yeah, the man is a genius in some regards, because, "It must be Aliens" *saracasm*

(replace sarcasm with smug, bitter and humorous exhaustion due to years of butting heads with stubborn orthodox types. They are sometimes the majority.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei



> Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[64]
> 
> He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[65] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
> 
> His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[66]


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

MrKappa said:


> Sorry I may have ninja edited on you. That article on trans Atlantic contact with south america basically sums up the beliefs of the "Orthodoxy".


So why do you think ancient trans-Atlantic contact has credit? The article even gave good reasons why it was a dubious claim. (In that case)


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Here's a novel concept. How about simply not trusting anything that travels through a lens before it reaches your own eyes? Well, if it's your lens, maybe. If someone else is choosing what to show you, I would say you should trust what you see only as much as you'd trust them to safeguard your valuables.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Here's a novel concept. How about simply not trusting anything that travels through a lens before it reaches your own eyes? Well, if it's your lens, maybe. If someone else is choosing what to show you, I would say you should trust what you see only as much as you'd trust them to safeguard your valuables.


Isn't that the same as saying don't trust anything anyone tells you?


----------



## Myr (Jan 6, 2013)

RelinquishedHell said:


> "Bear Grylls"? lol


I know a group of mountaineers in Georgia who acted as consultants for Bear Grylls' show when they did the Georgia episode. I asked how much of the episode was faked and they laughed for a full 10 minutes. Then spent the evening drinking vodka and laughing about Bear Grylls.


----------

