Forbidden History (TV Series 2013– ) Poster

(2013– )

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Fails to meet potential
codygdietrich5 May 2022
I love historical documentaries especially when it's regarding religious beliefs/practices, anything secretive, lost or hidden history but this show is very dull most of the time. All the episodes are an hour long and most of the time I felt like what they discussed could be explained in a half hour episode. They reuse the same experts every episode, I would love to know what qualifications does a woman who wrote two books in Mary Magdalene have regarding Nazi Germany political and military tactics including weapons, propaganda and stolen artworks or on ancient Roman and Greek oracles. I am not saying she can't I just find it strange that the only mention of her expertise is related to earlier Christianity which is if a completely different time period and geographical location than the Nazi party or Ancient Greek and Roman oracles. They discuss the Fraternity if Freemasons but never mention the Raja Shrine or Daughters if the Eastern Star both of which are groups associated and connected with the Freemasons. The one "expert" said the temple of Luxor was recreated in Paris with the Louvre museum only a minute or two after saying the pyramids in front of the Louvre are replicas if the pyramids of Giza. The logical question anyone paying attention would have is what are representations of pyramids from Giza doing in a representation of a temple from Luxor. The only logical explanation is it wasn't a recreation of them temple of Luxor which didn't have pyramids and the pyramids are representative of Giza, two separate locations in Egypt.

Bottom line is most of the episodes don't have much (or at least an hours worth) of information some of which is incomplete, wrong or just assumptions with no real evidence for it (if the temple of the oracle collapsed how do you know there was a fissure in the ground where they sat allowing volcanic gasses to leak up through, you don't). Funny how the science channel has a show that seems largely based in speculation and not proven fact, so much for scientific method.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Interesting and well presented, but unfortunately misleading
bekahgrace-6367213 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I have enjoyed watching this show before bed, and contemplating some of the more interesting ideas presented. We do know that history has been rewritten to remove many women, science, culture, etc. This show explores a lot of alternative ideas that at times do seem fairly plausible, but within seconds of a fact check, nothing really holds up. For example, one episode looks at the man in the iron mask. We have some documents about this man, but don't know his identity. One of the expert historians made completely false statements that had no basis in what I could find online. It was said that this mask was literally riveted front and back to this man's head, so that it could not be removed until he died 34 years later. This was treated as fact and a basis for the episode. Nothing found has really ever suggested that this happened. Another time they quote Princess Elizabeth talking about having gone to see him, but this didn't happen. She wrote a letter about what she had heard in court, dated 8 years after his death.

I wouldn't really trust anything this show stated as any kind of truth. Facts and statements are frequently completely false or inaccurate. I found it entertaining, but was consistently so frustrated because this could have been a great source of information had it been accurate, and conspiracy theorists hadn't been given a platform to state their ideas as fact.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unwatchable if you have a brain AND cannot find this amusing
thepuzzlingcentaur23 October 2017
Pseudo-historic, non-scientific sensationalist garbage where non-experts, non-intellectual spew their garbage. Most of the times I avoid them but just today I decided to give them a chance because there was a topic about a famous German executioner Johann Reichhart, a person with an interesting story I was familiar with. I expected the episode to be over the top, wild, sensationalist and so I prepare myself to endure some stupid statements. But...I couldn't force myself to watch this for more than five minutes. Right from the start, they wanted to present this man as one of the worst monsters that ever lived, they instantly switched to Hitler's era and let mostly average but disturbingly uneducated people to drag on with their wild claims and stupid ideas about how life in Germany was during that time (who cares?. I stopped watching after a woman with bellow-average intelligence started making one irrelevant and silly statement after another with no end in sight. If Hitler's isn't involved, then it isn't interesting, right? 1 star for demonizing a man who had the most unpleasant job ever during a time where such a job was normal (in most of the world) and the method of execution the most humane option available. He didn't deserve it.
30 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Good Job
sheena_b-5487618 May 2021
Love this show..and its History. Would love to be on this show. New Mexico-Native American.
1 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible. Incomplete research, wrong information.
rr-5318030 April 2019
I've watched some of the episodes and fact checked them. Interesting story line, facts need to be checked. I like the enforcer/critic rolls, however, the research is incomplete, thus making what they state as fact, actually wrong in many ways. I encourage fact checking. Not even in the least, entertaining. While new information is coming to surface every day, if they are going to claim a fact of which falls under "common knowledge", at least get that right. It seems that they want to look like fools. To make a suggestion to them, fact check. I've always had to use multiple sources, do they? I'd love to pick on each episode individually, however, I'd be writing books, creating a redundancy of what is already readably available. Fact check. I'd give it a 0 out of 10 except that it is a conversation starter, and a bad one at that.
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Pseudo historical but entertaining.
sergioschout20 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A lot of these so called "history documentaries" are part fact but mostly fiction and some do not even have that much facts in them. I kind of have it with people that proclaim they are "historians" while failing basic academic modus operandi.

Do I expect some great academic approach to a topic? Well not completely but if your fumble and fail to use actual sources, it is kind of huge red flag that you are in fact not a historian ( or that your degree comes from a crappy university)

Is it entertaining.. 50-50. Some episodes are OK-ish while others are borderline bad. This program feels more like a promotion stunt for the writers that come on this program than actual informing people. For example: when they are discussing Arthur and ALL of them said that " there was no evidence and that it was all a ruse by the church to get funding blah blah blah". Then a real historian comes to on and SHOWS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE!!! Manuscripts and books from before the "Arthurian legendary tales" actually were written. I mean if you ignore pretty important evidence like these source materials you clearly have no clue what you are doing and in every academic perspective you are not an academic as such. Is image of Arthur romanticized? Yes, but according to the evidence there was a person called Arthur, who fought many battles against the Saxons.

I would rate this show at a 3/10 because of the factual incorrect ramblings of some of the "experts" who aren't experts. Either you are doing a historical documentary or you are doing fiction. Don't fumble mc stupid it up and get impressionable people confused. You want a great show that is factual accurate AND keeps an open mind when talking to academics, real experts ( not the self-proclaimed drivel this show is having) you should pick Destination Truth and Expedition unknown and even Expedition Mungo. "Forbidden history" is not history it is a farce, put together by writers of fiction who then proclaim to be historians but really aren't.

To watch or not to watch? I would recommend "not watch" unless you want to be bored to tears by the so-called "experts". Lot of flash-words, which means a lot of awe but no substance.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
unbearable
mattwett20 April 2020
Tried watching ´Mystery of Yamashitas Treasure´. Couldn't take it anymore after being informed that the Japanese were. hiding gold and that some dude wasn't heard of for 4 years for about 50 times... over and over the same infos.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
NOT history !
phil-9133129 October 2020
A series largely based on the speculations of so-called 'experts' who have no qualifications in their fields.

Given a choice of three possible explanations of anything, the programme will always choose the one with the least hard evidence to back it up.

Don't waste your time watching this rubbish.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Rubbish.
oofyprosser-9448721 May 2020
Rubbish. Claptrap. Pseudoscience or pseudo-history presented by an amazing parade of pseudointellectuals, mediocrities, self-promoting theorists and downright cranks. The only positive is that it's all dished up with a certain amount of gloss, like filet of roadkill with bechamel sauce. Never mind that--it's still faintly nauseating.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Episode covering The Shroud of Turin
monicarule28 October 2020
I would give 0/10 if there was that option! If you are going to show a programme about the most analysed religious artefact ever studied then you need to give both sides of the argument and not just the opinions of atheists who obviously know nothing at all about this relic. There was one brief interview with a scientist who believed it genuine, but the rest of the people who spoke on the programme were laughable in their ignorance, especially the woman author (whose name escapes me) who maintains the relic was produced by Leonardo de Vinci. Even the flawed carbon dating done in 1988, dated it before he was even born! No mention of the pollen analysed which showed it came from the Holy Land and the fact that the piece of the relic sent for carbon dating had been repaired in the middle ages after a fire. After watching that one episode I would never watch anything so ridiculous again.
7 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
History? Fact? Science?
mfullom17 December 2023
These are not scholars, but actors whose presentations are dedicated to sensationalism, shock and self-promotion.

These self-styled "experts" are all over the map on any topic they choose for the week. Their technical background is nil. Their work experience in the topic is nil.

Even at the high school level, the most basic rules of scholarship require research, supporting authorities, reasoning and analysis. These hour long shows posture a lot but prove nothing. They pretend to be skilled experts on every topic under the sun - but they aren't even close.

So, before you waste even an hour on one of these shows, look up the backgrounds and histories of the presenters. Decide for yourself.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed