3 ms·

This is all the same sort of thing that the folks who keep "finding" Amelia Earhart do, and it's all completely backwards. They are not finding bits of evidence

This is all the same sort of thing that the folks who keep "finding" Amelia Earhart do, and it's all completely backwards. They are not finding bits of evidence, investigating them at length, and then reaching a conclusion about Hitler. They're finding "evidence" and then asking "how can this prove my theory about Hitler"? It's the reverse of a real investigation, because it starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it.

bstar77 11y ago
As far as the show is concerned, I don't think this is true. They approach it forensically, first determining if they should even cast doubt on the historical assumptions. I know this is mostly dramatized tv, but it coming up with some great results using technology where it's never been used before. Of course a show needs a narative, and that's a bit dangerous, but it doesn't mean the new evidence is invalid. Funding archeology and investigations like this can only come though tv sadly. I hope some historians review the new material and give their feedback because I really don't want to have to rely on the History Channels accounts of these events.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Forensic science is also highly prone to confirmation bias. It's a rather low bar to say something was investigated forensically. Unfortunately, this means that even valid discoveries funded by someone with a story already in mind can't be given much weight, because there's no way of knowing what discoveries their preexisting bias prevented them from finding or acknowledging.
  - FushYumeng 11y ago
    Review this document, and decide for yourself: http://www.nl-aid.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sognnaes.pdf http://www.nl-aid.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sognnaes.pd...