Conspiracies Decoded (2020– ) User Reviews

They need to check their research

[kajayne · 6/10 · 5 March 2021]

I just discovered this show and was enjoying watching it until they reported on a story I am very familiar with regarding my home state of North Carolina. The story was about the lost colony of Roanoke Island. The narrator stated the island is off the coast of Virginia and it is NOT. It is off the coast of North Carolina. Now I question the accuracy of ALL of their stories!!

Fantastic!

[darkdementress · 7/10 · 18 April 2021]

I love this series! I really hope they make more. Its fascinating, informative and they use updated science! Finally strange, confusing or bizzare cases are solved.

Interesting BUT

[agamemnon500 · 7/10 · 23 April 2021]

They should have had the Ancient Aliens guy as one the analysts due to some theories not being solved. Then they can cue him in.

Creating not decoding conspiracies

[mls4182 · 1/10 · 26 March 2021]

This is the sleaziest of the pseudo science shows. It is literally laugh out loud. When discussing the Lindburgh kidnapping, a Ph. D. said, ."Imagine the hysteria if a Kardashian was kidnapped." Oh lord. I'm still crying I laughed so hard.

Comment above is incorrect - Roanoke was in Virginia

[Historybuff245 · 10/10 · 16 May 2021]

Responding to kajayne above - Roanoke was established in what was then Virginia. It later became North Carolina (in 1729) but that state didn't exist at the time of the Roanoke colony (1587). The commentary is accurate.

Wiki - " The name "Virginia" may have been suggested then by Raleigh or Queen Elizabeth, perhaps noting her status as the "Virgin Queen", and may also be related to a native phrase, "Wingandacoa", or name, "Wingina". Initially the name applied to the entire coastal region from South Carolina to Maine, plus the island of Bermuda."

News Alert! Science Communicators on board!

[jazBB · 2/10 · 20 October 2022]

Another fear and scare tactics show from Science Channel.

As long as they stick with this fear monger formula from those so-called "science communicators" and "science journalists", don't waste your time on these tabloid grade programs.

It is sad that these days even the Science Channel needs to be melodramatic to attract some viewers. Strange Evidence is the same way. "Are we under attack?" Is it from out-of-this-world beings (UFO, supernatural)? A decent show like "What On Earth" pretty soon took on the same formula by the directors/producers to use dramatic FUD for any topic they cover.

Notice the same "commentators/analysts" have different titles for different shows. Thanks, but no thanks, "Science Communicators."

Not Decoded

[RedPlum · 3/10 · 9 November 2022]

Most of the stories they did not really solved. I thought it was supposed to say at the end that this is the science that solved years old conspiracy theories. Why did the people fall asleep. Why do you have to write a whole book to review a short stories that did not even makes sense. If you put something like this on then a person should actually learn something from science. In actual fact all they say that the science of today still fail and they still can't solve it. They should get Scully in to solve there problems and it might be better entertainment to watch and not to learn something. And this is my last say.