CSI, NCIS, Law and Order, and other similar shows have so many patently absurd things that you have to think of them as being comedy shows much of the time.

It was so horrible that it was impossible to willingly suspend disbelief.

1) Amen!
2) I see you read Stephen King.

 

CSI, NCIS, Law and Order, and other similar shows have so many patently absurd things that you have to think of them as being comedy shows much of the time.

I always love how they solve some bizarre case and prove the guilt of someone by finding "dry ice residue" or "liquid nitrogen residue" on the killer's boots or some similarly asinine thing.

.

Apparently, the earliest episodes weren't that far from real life. But it quickly became obvious that criminals were watching the shows and becoming forensically aware.

Maybe because of my scientific curiosity, I can spot some of the glaring forensic fictions in CSI now, its in a place where villains can no longer trust what they learn - the really stupid one's will take it at face value and leave loads of clues.

 

Apparently, the earliest episodes weren't that far from real life. But it quickly became obvious that criminals were watching the shows and becoming forensically aware.

I've heard that claim and I don't buy it -- it's nothing more than an empty claim dreamed up by the publicists when they got caught too flat-footed with their absurdities. Pick any of these shows and just watch the pilot episode. The reason that they get worse and worse over time is simple -- they can only recycle the same gimmicks so many times and they have to keep coming up with new and "novel" plot devices.

 

I've heard that claim and I don't buy it -- it's nothing more than an empty claim dreamed up by the publicists when they got caught too flat-footed with their absurdities. Pick any of these shows and just watch the pilot episode. The reason that they get worse and worse over time is simple -- they can only recycle the same gimmicks so many times and they have to keep coming up with new and "novel" plot devices.

I've heard of people who steal cars for joyriding going prepared by lifting cigarette ends from somewhere like a pub ash tray and plant them in the stolen car. There have been cases of innocent people being arrested because forensics found their saliva on cigarette ends in the stolen car.

Not all crooks are dumb and dumber - a few (the successful one's) never miss a trick.

 

I've heard of people who steal cars for joyriding going prepared by lifting cigarette ends from somewhere like a pub ash tray and plant them in the stolen car. There have been cases of innocent people being arrested because forensics found their saliva on cigarette ends in the stolen car.

Not all crooks are dumb and dumber - a few (the successful one's) never miss a trick.

Apples and oranges.

I'm not saying that criminals can't learn useful things by watching a TV show that has forensics. But then again, criminals can learn useful things by going to school or reading a book.

I'm saying that I do not buy the claim that these TV shows started out with accurate forensics and then deliberately reduced the accuracy because criminals were learning useful things from the show. I am saying that these shows never HAD accurate forensics in the first place and that, even if they did, they would not have dumbed them down out of some sense of societal obligation. They started out bad and then got worse simply because they used up all the even remotely valid technobabble in the first few seasons. I'm saying that they CLAIM that their forensics have gotten worse because of a concern about criminals learning bad things from the show, but that the claim is publicity spin garbage aimed at turning a lemon (their horrid forensics) into lemonade (we're so socially aware and concerned and good citizens), realizing that the overwhelming majority of their audience will buy it.

 

1) Amen!
2) I see you read Stephen King.

Don't know what the Stephen King reference is. I've read a number of his books, and in most cases have found that he is the exception rather than the rule -- most movies made from his books are better than the book (and that is vanishingly rare).

 

The phrase, "suspend disbelief" was attributed to Stephen King by someone, somewhere...maybe written on the paper jacket of a hard cover book. I thought you might have picked up that phrase from his writing.

 

1) Amen!
2) I see you read Stephen King.

Washing machines do eat people dont you know particulary these large industrial ones. If you hear a strange noise stay away just in case. The door may open suddenly and then that was it...

Btw Im keeping two you know these pet cemetery thingies in a small cardboard box not because a resurrection just I like to have them...a 911 plane since lately on top of the ants container which in turn sits on my microwave.

Lecter doing this quite inappropiate recreational thing the woman walks by his cell...well... you can see that on the street here sometimes its weird local custom as it looks.

In the living daylight just dont pay attention to it.

 

Walk the walk talk the talk and eat your cake yet we havent heard back from OP...usually it goes that way when degree of weirdness for spelling proposals or description is in excess of a certain degree including could be freely made up and OP in for proof of denial of benefit of doubt.

 

Voodoo mental washing machine...no touch please. And its actually real. Used for ordinary cooking too among other things.

 

we havent heard back from OP...

We do tend to wander off the subject when the OP quits directing our focus.

 

The phrase, "suspend disbelief" was attributed to Stephen King by someone, somewhere...maybe written on the paper jacket of a hard cover book. I thought you might have picked up that phrase from his writing.

Oh. I never new it was attributed to him. I can't recall when I first hear the phrase "the willing suspension of disbelief", but I'm sure it was as a teen (of course King had plenty of time to coin it before then, I think).

I just did a Google search and found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

Somewhat interesting, but nothing surprising. It didn't mention King at all, but it's possible that something he wrote for a book jacket using the phrase popularized it for a new generation.

 

Apples and oranges.

I'm not saying that criminals can't learn useful things by watching a TV show that has forensics. But then again, criminals can learn useful things by going to school or reading a book.

I'm saying that I do not buy the claim that these TV shows started out with accurate forensics.

I never said they portrayed accurate forensics - I said they were closer to real life than in more recent episodes.

It has been demonstrated that criminals were at least getting inspiration from these shows, and there can be no doubt that they've been dumbing it down to discourage this.

IWHT: some of the technical stuff that wouldn't serve a criminal any useful purpose is probably not fictionalised to the same extent, and they're probably keen to impress on would be villains that forensic science will get them sooner or later.

 

I never said they portrayed accurate forensics - I said they were closer to real life than in more recent episodes.

I think you have a rich fantasy life...maybe both you and WBahn. Last November I was witness to the investigation of a gunshot death. There was a hole in the ceiling and no hole in the roof. The stumble-bums with badges still couldn't find the bullet.

Oooh! Gee whiz! How awfully technical! How very brilliant!

Not.

 

I never said they portrayed accurate forensics - I said they were closer to real life than in more recent episodes.

And I believe that this is due overwhelmingly by the writers running needing to constantly come up with new material and ever-increasingly exciting material to keep the show "fresh" and retain/attract viewers. Much of the commentary by the writers and directors is focused on this.

It has been demonstrated that criminals were at least getting inspiration from these shows,

I have absolutely no doubt about that

[QUOTE
and there can be no doubt that they've been dumbing it down to discourage this.
[/QUOTE]

But I don't by this. Yes, they are dumbing it down, but I don't buy that they are doing it intentionally or for this reason. Quite the opposite -- any publicity is good publicity. Everytime there is a news story that links to a TV show in any way, the ratings for that show spike, at least temporarily. Back when I used to watch TV news I noticed that stories that had a link to Show X would often be covered on both the network and the local news on the station that was affiliated with the network that ran Show X and that the linkage would be emphasized and often made to appear as the main point of the story but that same story wouldn't even be covered on the other stations or networks. If the story was big enough to be covered by others they would often completely leave out the linkage to the show or would downplay it.

 

I think you have a rich fantasy life...maybe both you and WBahn.

When the series first started, the science was at least plausible - since then its become so obviously fake that the show has pretty much lost its entertainment value.

Increasingly corny and unimaginative story lines don't help either.

Forensics can also be dead basic - I've heard of burglars getting caught when police followed their foot prints in the snow that led right back to their door.

 

Derail detected.Thread compromised. Evacuate immediately.

 

I think you have a rich fantasy life...maybe both you and WBahn. Last November I was witness to the investigation of a gunshot death. There was a hole in the ceiling and no hole in the roof. The stumble-bums with badges still couldn't find the bullet.

Oooh! Gee whiz! How awfully technical! How very brilliant!

Not.

How am I having a rich fantasy life? I'm the one that keeps saying that these shows are completely divorced from reality.

In one of those shows the main character would have been walking toward the house and seen a leaf on the ground that was pointing in a different direction than the ones near it. Upon seeing the hole in the roof, they would have deduced that this was the result of the concussion of the bullet hitting the underside of the roof, but not breaking through, near the second joist from the end a couple feet short of the gable. They would then demonstrate their extreme parkour skills to get up on the roof, whip out their knife and dig the bullet out from that side. This is the level of crap that is in these shows.

 

Derail detected.Thread compromised. Evacuate immediately.

This often happens with the TS abandons their post and won't provide the requested information to keep the thread focused -- everyone else operates open loop.

 

This often happens with the TS abandons their post and won't provide the requested information to keep the thread focused -- everyone else operates open loop.

Add some positive feedback and boom, it feeds itself with oscillation!