Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Eschete Last night, I watched a show on the "History" Channel called "Decoded" about the supposed "mystery" surrounding the Georgia Guidestones, a bizarre monument erected by an anonymous millionaire near Atlanta in 1980. I feel stupid even using the word "mysterious" in relation to this collection of large granite slabs, because there are some people who know exactly who paid the half-million dollar price-tag, but were sworn to secrecy in order to secure the patron's business (and entice tourists).The show starts with the sophomoric and hasty assumption that the builder was a Rosicrucian, based on the pseudonym of the monument's builder, "R.C. Christian" and the cross-like shape of the monument, and then runs with that assumption for the rest of the show, investigating no other possibilities, not even in passing. Keep in mind, this was aired on the History Channel. The channel calls itself that; that just blows my mind.The show's host/narrator, Brad Meltzer, makes appearances from time to time to act as wooden as humanly possible and ask maddeningly stupid questions that add absolutely nothing to the investigation. And what an investigation! The fieldwork is handled by a gang of three other blithering morons who go off on unfocused tangents that make a nine-year-old boy drinking red Kool-Aid in a room full of video games and toy guns look laser-like by comparison.Here's the "arc" the investigators follow during the course of this sub-moronic television show: Who made this monument?--Rosicrucians did it—Who were the Rosicrucians?—Rosicrucians are scary--Rosicrucian mind control techniques—Using the brain to control artificial limbs(!) in a lab—Rosicrucians are harmless old women into New Age crap—Sweaty old dude remembers meeting the guy who paid for monument in 1979—NASA astronomer says solar flares no big deal—Investigators somehow come to the conclusion that solar flares could destroy human society because antennas and power girds won't work--Edgar Cayce's predictions about North America—Edgar Cayce wasn't a crank--2012 is scary—We don't know who made this monument—The End.This is not an exaggeration. The show was this disjointed and melodramatic. And pointless. The cause of popular awareness of what historical research entails was set back by 3000 years watching this hunk of crap show.And, America: whenever you meet someone who claims to be a doctor and he has large piercings in his ears and is carrying a map depicting what Edgar Cayce said would happen to America and earnestly relays to you that Edgar Cayce was "usually right," I would HOPE that you would demand to see/hear this person's credentials.And "looking it up on the Internet" is NOT research, America. Jesus! I cannot remember ever feeling such rage at a television show, mostly because I know—call me smug or superior, fine—I KNOW that the audience is generally going to be too stupid to spot the slag-heap of logical and procedural flaws that make this show the piece of crap that it is.The History Channel sucks. Take it from me, I'm a doctor. No. Really. Trust me.

standrkm The show itself is pretty much like a watered down "national treasure" but with more facts, opinions, and boredom. A team of people that yet unbiased, have no idea of what has happened with anything in history walk around asking questions about things that are somewhat interesting but are also borderline unimportant. They should be investigating more to date and extremely important mysteries and conspiracies and be a lot more knowledgeable also. Anyway the statue of liberty episode gives a couple interesting facts. It then touches a small amount of the story around who built it and what secrets lie within it. The problem is they only have an hour and 20 minutes of commercials to do that. The problem I had with this particular episode is that they seem to judge people by the way they look, they hear no evidence against suggest the illuminati exists and take that as enough proof to say they don't, and when looking for Luciferian symbols they seem to completely ignore inverted stars yet film them over and over.Now I am really interested in the illuminati and the Freemasons and there is more than enough evidence out there to suggest that this stuff is real and that is clearly enough information to go on to at least investigate it rather than spend half a show debunking the statue of liberty-Lucifer connection which is what they should have never been wasting time on in the first place. Why don't they follow the symbols, the money trails, talk with the people that have been involved with the illuminati, Freemasons and so on. If they want a credible source, they should seek Jordan Maxwell, his life revolves around this and also research svali, the shock doctrine, mk ultra, bilderberg. Really look into skull and bones and celebrity satanism. Look at photo's of celebrities now, you see them covering up one eye, wearing checkered clothing, goat heads (baphomet), 666 hand signals. It's all over lady gaga, kanye, jay z, beyonce. Check out vigilantcitizen.com to get started. This show is seeming more like a misinfo campaign than an actual investigating team. The corner stone can't be found because it's buried at the bottom of the capitol, no crap, what are you doing to dig for it? No, sure it's probably there, that show was a complete waste. And I'm sure those Freemasons were being completely honest with you, lol.