3 ms·
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 a
by 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 agoForensic 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 agoReview 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...