# Ancient aliens on the history channel. Arrrrghhh!



## ProfessorPain (Mar 9, 2009)

Tonight on the history Channel, I saw a 2009 documentary called Ancient Aliens, which argued that many ancient mysteries from the bible and from history were interventions by an Alien race. ARRRRGHH. There was a great deal wrong with this program. But I will stick with its discussion of the Piri Reis Map. As a history student we had to research the significance of the Piri Reis map for our Historiography final. It is a 16th century map of the world by a Turkish admiral named Piri Reis. It shows Europe, Parts of Africa, North America and South America. There is a landmass in the bottom of the map attached to south america that some claim is antarctica. The show makes several incredible claims. First, that it must be from aliens, because it is the first map to show antarctica and it is rendered accurately. This couldn't be further from the truth. The map is not accurate at all. It has numerous errors. The errors are understandable given the time period, but they exist. Also, it is unclear if this is meant to be antarctica at all. It is attached to South America on the map and many think it is just a sloppy way to continue the coast of that continent. It also isn't the first map to have a landmass in the vicinity of antarctica. It was convention to do so. Not because people knew it was there, but because they anticipated another continent might exist to the south. I wouldn't mind the history chanel presenting these theories, if they placed them into context, and explained few take them seriously. They should also show the other side of the debate. Curse you History Chanel!


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 9, 2009)

I'd rather have whacked out shows like that than shows like "Iceroad Truckers" on the _History_ Channel.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 9, 2009)

Psssst...  You do know they are helping set up the upcoming alien invasion/big reveil that humanity was created by aliens < / tinfoil hat>


----------



## freyar (Mar 9, 2009)

This kind of, uh, "reporting" was why I dropped a subscription to Discover mag 10 years ago, though there is was the article about pets being psychically linked to their owners.


----------



## Wycen (Mar 9, 2009)

I actually looked at the name last night while flipping channels and said to myself "huh, well I guess they are trying to branch out and not be just the World War 2 channel".


----------



## ssampier (Mar 10, 2009)

This is different from the series where they try to find Bigfoot and other oddities?

I do enjoy the History Channel. I find more it interesting than competitive reality shows. However, the History Channel is hardly scientific.


----------



## Orius (Mar 10, 2009)

And people say we don't need PBS.  Their documentaries are at least well-produced and well-researched.  Cable hasn't made them irrelevant, if anything, cable has sunk to the level of cheap sentationalism for the sake of ratings.  The History Channel was actually better when it was "Old WWII Footage You've Seen a Gazillion Times Before, 24/7."

Ancient aliens, bah.  Yeah, those early maps are accurate alright, so accurate they have a giant Antarctica but somehow manage to leave out Australia. Especially since they were supposedly mapped by aliens who presumably would have technology greater than our own current satellite mapping capabilities!  You're right though, telling viewers about contemporary theories about the "Terra Incognita Australis" would have been interesting, as would some of the secretive missions the British Admiralty sent to the south seas to find said continent.

I've toyed with the idea of including a similar sort of southern continent in my own game worlds because I've always been fascinated with the idea, and maybe even connect it to my campaign's equivalent of Australia or something.  I'd use it as a home for all sort of strange non-human cultures, particularly for obscure old monsters few players have ever heard of.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2009)

Let me get this straight:  you are watching a show about "Ancient _Aliens_", and your primary concern is the reporting about a map?

That's... kind of like walking into Taco Bell and complaining that there aren't place settings on the table


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 11, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Let me get this straight: you are watching a show about "Ancient _Aliens_", and your primary concern is the reporting about a map?
> 
> That's... kind of like walking into Taco Bell and complaining that there aren't place settings on the table




No. My primary concern is that the "History" Channel is airing a show about Ancient Aliens and presenting the theories in a vacuum. The map was an illustration of how badly their evidence was presented.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 11, 2009)

ssampier said:


> This is different from the series where they try to find Bigfoot and other oddities?
> 
> I do enjoy the History Channel. I find more it interesting than competitive reality shows. However, the History Channel is hardly scientific.




To be fair, this is the first time in a while I sat down to watch the history network. But they used to have respectable documentaries. This is just conspiracy theory non-sense, which has no real place in anything that presents itself as History. Unless you dealing with the History of Conspiracy Theories. But to view the past through the lens of conspiracy is irresponsible on their part.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> No. My primary concern is that the "History" Channel is airing a show about Ancient Aliens and presenting the theories in a vacuum.




Well, of course they are.  Aliens come from the vacuum of space, don't they?  Evidence for them will also come from the vacuum 



> The map was an illustration of how badly their evidence was presented.




Okay, sorry, you went on at length on details of that, which made it seem like those details were the important bit.  Clarification received.

Let's be blunt - it is a show about _aliens_.  What else could you possibly expect?

I don't begrudge the channel the occasional bit of tripe, honestly.  At least here, it is on a subject that the audience really needs to be taking with a grain of salt.  If you want to get upset, get upset about less obvious, and less easily checked, inaccuracies in things that look more like scholarly work than "Ancient Aliens".


----------



## freyar (Mar 11, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I don't begrudge the channel the occasional bit of tripe, honestly.  At least here, it is on a subject that the audience really needs to be taking with a grain of salt.  If you want to get upset, get upset about less obvious, and less easily checked, inaccuracies in things that look more like scholarly work than "Ancient Aliens".




I can see your point.  But the problem for me is that a surprising number of people can't really tell that even this needs a grain of salt (or honking big rock of salt, really).  And now there's an "authority" endorsing the idea of aliens in our history.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 11, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Let's be blunt - it is a show about _aliens_. What else could you possibly expect?
> 
> I don't begrudge the channel the occasional bit of tripe, honestly. At least here, it is on a subject that the audience really needs to be taking with a grain of salt. If you want to get upset, get upset about less obvious, and less easily checked, inaccuracies in things that look more like scholarly work than "Ancient Aliens".




Maybe my expectations were unrealistic. I don't mind them having a program on aliens if they want. I just wish they would present the mainstream arguments against their evidence, and make it clear how far fetched their so-called experts' line of reasoning is. Essentially they gave the Alien Proponents last say on every argument, and this makes it look like there is no rebuttal. Again, I haven't watched the history channel in some time; I had just figured they took their name a little more seriously. 

I haven't seen many other documentaries on the History channel, but your last point is important. Moving images are potent, and we tend to absorb them more passively than the written word. When Woodrow Wilson saw Birth of a Nation (the movie that made the KKK look like knights in shining armor) he famously said it was like "...Writing history with lightning..." or something to that effect. The closer you get to a presentation that looks restrained and academic, the greater the danger becomes. And I have seen plenty of documentaries present a rogue theory as if it were accepted by all in the field. Or worse, films like Ben Steins "Expelled" (Which was actually well made considering the subject matter), build the other sides' position into a straw man.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 11, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Let's be blunt - it is a show about _aliens_.  What else could you possibly expect?




Well, the least they could've done is interview a few.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 11, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> Well, the least they could've done is interview a few.




Interview with an Alien:

interview with an alien - Google Video#


----------



## Umbran (Mar 11, 2009)

freyar said:


> I can see your point.  But the problem for me is that a surprising number of people can't really tell that even this needs a grain of salt (or honking big rock of salt, really).  And now there's an "authority" endorsing the idea of aliens in our history.




"It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."  
-W.C. Fields

I think that about sums up my position.  The people who produce or air the show are not responsible for the audience's lack of critical thinking ability.  

Plus, for all I know, the History Channel was right


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 12, 2009)

Umbran said:


> "It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."
> -W.C. Fields
> 
> I think that about sums up my position. The people who produce or air the show are not responsible for the audience's lack of critical thinking ability.
> ...




I can't agree with this. It sounds nice, and lets people who think they are smart absolve themselves of personal responsibility to those they consider suckers...but if you are going to present something as a report of the facts, you should be truthful. Especially when the venue calls itself the History Channel. Its harmful to feed people information that isn't true, but make it appear like real scholarship. Just as it is harmful to feed people candy thats filled with poison, but looks like a sugar coated treat. Saying its okay because suckers deverve what's coming to them is cruel. I am not saying the history channel should be censored. But at the very least, they should be taken to task by the news media and professional historians.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 12, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> but if you are going to present something as a report of the facts, you should be truthful.




Maybe they were truthful, and everything you know is wrong... 

If this had been a show about, say, Napoleon, and they said something plausible, but incorrect, then I'd agree with you.  But it was a show about _aliens_ dude.  

There is a point where the producers are no longer responsible for the viewer's gullibility.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 12, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Maybe they were truthful, and everything you know is wrong...
> 
> If this had been a show about, say, Napoleon, and they said something plausible, but incorrect, then I'd agree with you. But it was a show about _aliens_ dude.
> 
> There is a point where the producers are no longer responsible for the viewer's gullibility.




I see your point, and maybe I am over reacting. I just think conspiracy culture is dangerous. And a station like the history channel promoting it, irresponsible.


----------



## freyar (Mar 12, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I see your point, and maybe I am over reacting. I just think conspiracy culture is dangerous. And a station like the history channel promoting it, irresponsible.



This sums up my thoughts nicely, too.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 12, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I see your point, and maybe I am over reacting. I just think conspiracy culture is dangerous. And a station like the history channel promoting it, irresponsible.




Ah, you see, I view conspiracy theory and culture to be a fun mental plaything, but not something that's apt to have notable real-world impact.  It presents no palpable danger to me.

Plus, consider that showing such things is self-limiting their credibility.  When History is showing things about Aliens and Bigfoot and all, they rather tarnish their own good name, such that they are taken less seriously overall.

So, the more they do this, the less meaningful it is.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 12, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Ah, you see, I view conspiracy theory and culture to be a fun mental plaything, but not something that's apt to have notable real-world impact.  It presents no palpable danger to me.
> 
> Plus, consider that showing such things is self-limiting their credibility.  When History is showing things about Aliens and Bigfoot and all, they rather tarnish their own good name, such that they are taken less seriously overall.
> 
> So, the more they do this, the less meaningful it is.




What if shows like these turn out to be one of the primary sources of information for most people? At what point does it lead to people on a large scale believing in such stuff and basing their actions (or policies) on it? 

And it's not as if you couldn't get viewers by refuting myths and conspiracy theories!


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 12, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What if shows like these turn out to be one of the primary sources of information for most people? At what point does it lead to people on a large scale believing in such stuff and basing their actions (or policies) on it?
> 
> And it's not as if you couldn't get viewers by refuting myths and conspiracy theories!




This is the issue. There are places in the world where this is the case, and the results usually lead to greater degrees of racism, intolerance and willingness to fight the government. If you read Arabic Media for instance, conspiracy culture is mainstream. Something like 65% of Arabs believe 9/11 was an inside job. And many buy into Jewish conspiracy theories. And the widespread existence of these sort of beliefs, makes rousing a crowd to violence against their government or a foreign adversary that much easier. Or if you look at groups in the US like Aryan Nation or Christian Identity, they feed off of conspiracy theories. I will be the first to admit, a show about aliens is a far cry from a show that demonizes ethnic or religious groups; but these shows do have a consistent theme of Us v. Them. The marginilized conspiracy buff against the mainstream forces that reject conspiracy (or even the government that usually has a hand in covering up conspiracy in these narratives).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Mar 13, 2009)

I saw the show and rather enjoyed it, even though I think most of the "alien sightings" stuff is bs.  I just like ancient history, and seeing those cultures continually befuddle us at how freaking smart they were.  Thanks to the OP about the map, though.  I had never heard of it before and they didn't do a great job of showing how it was a perfect map, anyway.

I really liked the ruins in Bolivia and the massive drawings in the Chile desert.  The former especially, I can't fathom how they built that stone wall, if it's true about needed a diamond-tipped tool to cut some of that stone, as well as the sheer weight of it all.  Most annoying part of the show to me wasn't so much the lack of dissenting voices, but how utterly awful they were.  In particular, I couldn't stand that catholic college professor, that I think was a nun, having the most idiotic, rationalization-free arguments I've ever heard on that channel.  Than again, I've purposely avoided Monster Quest...



As for the channel itself, I disagree with the majority.  I'm very, very, very glad it is no longer the hitler 24/7 channel.  I can't stand modern history, I love ancient/medieval as well as martial arts history.  So lately, the channel's been pretty nice.  Human Weapon, sadly gone, remains one of my favorite tv shows aired.  They just started a show last week Battles B.C., which, once they go to more obscure stuff than Hannibal and David vs. Goliath (the premiere and next monday's eps, respectively), I could really enjoy.  Last night was the premiere of Warriors, and was about the Mayans.  The host kinda sucks at narrative, but it was still enjoyable, and assuming he gets better at it, will also be a great program.  Oh, the History of Sex series that aired not too long ago was also excellent. 

Down with constant WW2 footage!


----------



## jaerdaph (Mar 13, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> I'd rather have whacked out shows like that than shows like "Iceroad Truckers" on the _History_ Channel.




QFT. And that "Ax Men" crap too. Move those to Spike or something.


----------



## Elodan (Mar 13, 2009)

I'm not sure what the conspiracy was here.

This was about one dude's (whacked out) theory that aliens helped out our ancestors.  They didn't have a lot of them but they had people rebut the guy's theories (i.e. the guy from Skeptic magazine).

I thought the Lost Book of Nostradamus was more favorably biased toward its topic (of course if you paid attention you noticed that all the pro "experts" had books on the subject and had a financial stake in getting people interested).  Buyer beware and all that.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 13, 2009)

Elodan said:


> I'm not sure what the conspiracy was here.
> 
> This was about one dude's (whacked out) theory that aliens helped out our ancestors. They didn't have a lot of them but they had people rebut the guy's theories (i.e. the guy from Skeptic magazine).
> .




To be fair they did present other opinions, but they skewed so that the opposing viewpoints appeared weak. This guy has been around forever, claiming mainstream academia won't take his views seriously. When his "research" is really just a rehash of some pop-books that came out years before. The fact is, he doesn't really present evidence at all. All he does is draw conclusions from specious arguments. Most of his arguments boil down to gee this looks awfully like something aliens built. Or our ancestors were far too primitive to construct something this nice without the aid aliens. If you watch the show, there is never any actual proof presented. There is vague circumstantial evidence, that are explained with simpler arguments than aliens coming down and giving mankind a hand in the building process. The truth is ancient people were advanced in their own way. The greeks had all kinds of unusual devices and technologies. These were very smart civilizations. It does not take aliens to know how produce power from steam or design gears. Men like Von Daniken, just prey on peoples' ignorance of the past; and amaze them with things most historians already know.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What if shows like these turn out to be one of the primary sources of information for most people?




Then we are not educating our own people in how to think critically, and we/they deserve what we/they get.  



> And it's not as if you couldn't get viewers by refuting myths and conspiracy theories!




I wouldn't expect you to get too many viewers with "debunking" - the ones who believe the theories generally won't believe your program. The ones who don't believe the theories don't need the program.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 13, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Then we are not educating our own people in how to think critically, and we/they deserve what we/they get.




But we are educating our people to think critically; and these things are still having an impact. There are more classes on media availble in colleges today than ten years ago. And they are even teaching media criticism at the junior high and highschool level.  In fact, I'd wager a bet that these shows are most popular among those with college education. At least, judging by the way the evidence was presented. I know a guy who has a masters degree in communication and media-- he knows all the tricks documentaries use to make people believe the absurd, yet he buys into documentaries just like this...because the subject matter itself is outside his field. These documentaries are not shoddy productions, which is what makes them so effective. They actually present their argument very well, and cherry pick evidence to support their position. But someone who doesn't have in depth knowledge of something like the Piri Reis map, could easily swallow what they say. 





> I wouldn't expect you to get too many viewers with "debunking" - the ones who believe the theories generally won't believe your program. The ones who don't believe the theories don't need the program.




The best way to market a debunking program is as a conspiracy program. I remember when I was a kid I bought a book called Monsters (or something like that); that looked like it was going to be all about big foot, loch ness, etc. And it was, for about the first 120 pages. Then after presenting all the evidence for why you should believe Big Foot Exists, it set about debunking itself.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 15, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I wouldn't expect you to get too many viewers with "debunking" - the ones who believe the theories generally won't believe your program. The ones who don't believe the theories don't need the program.




One of the amusing bits on Monster Quest is where they do debunk things.

Like, for example, the "rods", which they confirm at the end of the show are merely camera artifacts.  Or these Alien Big Cats that they point out, based on proportions of pictures and video, are just big housecats.  Or that without a reference, you can't tell how big or high something is flying.

The problem is that these come in towards the end of the show, and people miss those after they leave in disgust.

Brad


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Mar 24, 2009)

The history channel is great fiction.


----------



## jaerdaph (Mar 24, 2009)

I'm really enjoying Battles B.C. so far. Last night I watched Warriors (vikings) and was pleasantly surprised  -I really didn't think it would be my cup-a. Looking forward to more of both.


----------



## jaerdaph (Mar 25, 2009)

_The Universe_ and _How the Earth Was Made_ - the History Channel needs more quality shows like this.


----------



## ssampier (Apr 1, 2009)

Battles B.C. is really neat; I rather enjoyed the Biblical battles of Joshua and David.

The animated gore was getting a bit tedious, though. It will be a fantastic program if they keep the animations subtle.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Apr 2, 2009)

Anhtkythera Mechanism, go read up on it
nothing to do with aliens (far as we know),  just that our ancestors knew a HELL of a lot of stuff they weren't supposed to be able to have the capacity for.

Lots of other such oddities, like "vitrified forts" in my part of the world. Despite attempts with fires burning for a week etc, no one has been able to turn the rock ramparts into glass on the hill forts today, which is what occured in antiquity.

I strongly doubt aliens, but since we have no proof to the contrary, hey 0.0001% possibilities can happen, I just won't bet on them 

"Aliens versus Predator" movie was complete poo, though, hehe.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 3, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Anhtkythera Mechanism, go read up on it...




Actually, that's "Antikythera Mechanism".  The spelling you gave is the misspelling found on an early edition of the "This Binary Universe" album by BT - which shows up a lot more than the mechanism when you do a web search.


----------



## megamania (Apr 11, 2009)

I have mixed feelings on these shows.

I honestly believe we are not alone and we are checked on occationally.  That said, I also believe people see a lot of things that are not what they either think they are or want them to be.  These shows feed that.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Apr 11, 2009)

Umbran,
lol yeah had ot check the spelling online


----------



## caudor (Apr 13, 2009)

There was once a guy named Galileo.  He championed Copernicanism, which was crazy and controversial within his lifetime.  And, he was locked up.

The danger goes both ways.  Even now days, what we don't know is much greater than what we do know.


----------



## Immortalis (Apr 24, 2009)

I saw Ancient Aliens.

I liked the part best where that one doctor talked about how the pyramids were actually used as landing platforms by an advanced alien race.

Jackson, I think, was his name.

Excellent. It could make for a good movie.

Oh wait, maybe I'm thinking of something else. a six pack of beers into any of these shows and they are all equally amusing


----------



## Jack7 (Apr 24, 2009)

_So PP_, are you saying that you don't believe in ancient astronauts drawing maps for Turkish Admirals, _or that you don't believe in the History Channel?_




> I'd rather have whacked out shows like that than shows like "Iceroad Truckers" on the History Channel.




I like Axe Men better, though I'm not sure who runs it. At least those lumberjacks get compound fractures and stuff.




> though there is was the article about pets being psychically linked to their owners.




I think my bitch is. Every time I think I've snuck out of the house to go for a ride she ambushes me or is waiting for me in the back seat. Which wouldn't be so bad except for all the shedding and gnawing on my hand as I drive. Still, she's got some kinda lock on me. I just ain't figured it out yet. 




> This is different from the series where they try to find Bigfoot and other oddities?




I'm not sure bigfoot thinks he's odd. It may just be glandular. We'll probably never know til we get one in a bear cage, or catch one coming out of an Applebees.




> That's... kind of like walking into Taco Bell and complaining that there aren't place settings on the table




Every time I walk into a Taco Bell I get diarrhea. It happens when I walk back outta there too. It must be something in the Mountain Dew.




> it is a show about aliens. What else could you possibly expect?




A discussion about NAFTA, and free trade?




> Well, the least they could've done is interview a few.




I've seen em in commercials, so they can't be that hard to find. Somebody should probably try Hollywood, or Haight-Ashbury.




> At what point does it lead to people on a large scale believing in such stuff and basing their actions (or policies) on it?




I based a paper airplane model I built one time on something I saw flying out of Area 51. But I'm not sure of that counts.




> Even now (a)days, what we don't know is much greater than what we do know.




And I suspect you may know what you're talking about.


----------



## megamania (Apr 25, 2009)

Take me to your leader


----------



## ProfessorPain (Apr 25, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> _So PP_, are you saying that you don't believe in ancient astronauts drawing maps for Turkish Admirals, _or that you don't believe in the History Channel?_
> .




I don't believe in Ancient Astronauts drawing maps for Turks, and I believe the History Channel has a serious credibility issue. The problem is, sometimes they do serious documentaries with interviews of reputable scholars, but they mix it up with stuff like Alien Astronauts. If it were clear when they were being serious and when they were being tongue in cheek, it would be fine. But they just don't do that. THe alien astronaut program bothered me (more than say the monster quest program), because they built very strong arguments for the alien theories, but didn't contextualize the arguments within the broader debate and failed to present the other side.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Apr 25, 2009)

caudor said:


> There was once a guy named Galileo. He championed Copernicanism, which was crazy and controversial within his lifetime. And, he was locked up.
> 
> The danger goes both ways. Even now days, what we don't know is much greater than what we do know.





That doesn't mean every 'crazy' idea should be taken seriously. Especially when the evidence just doesn't support it. The thing with Galileo was, the evidence supported his position. He was going up against tradition. The alien thing is mroe like tradition going up against the evidence. I don't think alien theorists are in danger of being locked up. And to be fair, they get way more air time than they probably deserve.


----------



## Jack7 (Apr 27, 2009)

> The alien thing is more like tradition going up against the evidence.




I like the way you said that PP.

And no, not every crazy idea is anything like being even close to the truth. On the other hand some crazy ideas are only not true til the world changes enough to catch up to them.

Still, I get your point. But then again I was just being facetious.
However I will say this about television - it usually does a far better job at exposing information than explaining it.

I'm kinda skeptical about all television.
Everything except the cartoons, and I usually don't believe them.


----------



## Wycen (May 10, 2009)

Well, in the same vein, right now on the Biography channel is:

Independence Day.












As in the sci-fi movie if you weren't sure.


----------



## ssampier (May 16, 2009)

Ancient Aliens documentary or Angels and Demons documentary, hmmm, which is worse?


----------



## freyar (May 16, 2009)

While the physics and (probably -- I don't know myself) in Angels & Demons (at least the book) is pretty awful, the documentary may have some decent science about antimatter.  Clifford Johnson, a theoretical physicist at USC, filmed a segment for the documentary: see here.  Clifford's fairly well known in high energy physics theory, and he's also done a lot of outreach work in terms of public education and science in  media.  Can anyone tell me if his segment stayed in the documentary?


----------



## jaerdaph (May 18, 2009)

On a positive note, these pseudo-history/pseudo-science shows and specials make great source/reference material for games like _Dark•Matter_ and _Conspiracy X_...


----------



## ProfessorPain (May 21, 2009)

ssampier said:


> Ancient Aliens documentary or Angels and Demons documentary, hmmm, which is worse?




At least you know its a show about a work of fiction, but they support some untenable ideas. It could be worse, they could be airing "The Secret".


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 21, 2009)

My biggest peeve with both History and Discovery is when they say "some experts believe..." and then go off on some crap about a comet hitting the earth in 2012 or planet x colliding with us next week, or the Jellystone super volcano erupting and killing us all.  Just who are these "Experts," and what are their credentials?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 23, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> My biggest peeve with both History and Discovery is when they say "some experts believe..." and then go off on some crap about a comet hitting the earth in 2012 or planet x colliding with us next week, or the Jellystone super volcano erupting and killing us all.  Just who are these "Experts," and what are their credentials?




The 2012 stuff is pretty much crap.

Yellowstone, well, last I checked, was a pretty damn big volcano, and the eruption could send destructive ashfalls over much of the Midwest.  While there would be climatic effects from the eruption, the destruction of the farming infrastructure in the Midwest could quite possibly be worse.

While it's not particularly *likely* at any point, such an occurence would be catastrophic, especially to the viewers of American cable channels.

Brad


----------



## ProfessorPain (May 25, 2009)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> The 2012 stuff is pretty much crap.
> 
> Yellowstone, well, last I checked, was a pretty damn big volcano, and the eruption could send destructive ashfalls over much of the Midwest. While there would be climatic effects from the eruption, the destruction of the farming infrastructure in the Midwest could quite possibly be worse.
> 
> ...




Yellowstone isn't an exageration. It probably isn't gonna blow any time soon, but it is a super volcano, and an eruption would be catastrophic for the US. I remember we had to study it in my geology class back in college. Basically its on  something like a .5-1 million year cycle (for the large scale eruptions--there was a smaller eruption like 10 or 20 thousand years ago). The last eruption was over 600,000 years ago. So in a sense "we're due", but that could mean it will happen anywhere from tomorrow to 400,000 years from now; or that it might never happen.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 25, 2009)

freyar said:


> While the physics and (probably -- I don't know myself) in Angels & Demons (at least the book) is pretty awful, the documentary may have some decent science about antimatter.



By the way, shouldn't the antimatter explosion at the end of the book... well, irradiate most people in the vicinity pretty hard? Because the annihilation should produce loads of high-energy gamma rays - even the annihilation of a simple e+ and e- produces two photons of ~500 keV! And IIRC, hard X-ray radiation is usually around ~125 keV!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## ssampier (May 25, 2009)

If Yellowstone explodes, that could suck royally. I am pretty sure Southeastern Utah is on the "kill zone".

What's more likely Yellowstone exploding or a large asteroid hitting Earth?


----------



## freyar (May 25, 2009)

Lord Tirian said:


> By the way, shouldn't the antimatter explosion at the end of the book... well, irradiate most people in the vicinity pretty hard? Because the annihilation should produce loads of high-energy gamma rays - even the annihilation of a simple e+ and e- produces two photons of ~500 keV! And IIRC, hard X-ray radiation is usually around ~125 keV!
> 
> Cheers, LT.



Yeah, I'd expect the radiation from a 1/2-kilo of antimatter annihilating to be pretty bad.  

The way the antimatter is created from nothing in the book is also ridiculous.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 25, 2009)

freyar said:


> Yeah, I'd expect the radiation from a 1/2-kilo of antimatter annihilating to be pretty bad.
> 
> The way the antimatter is created from nothing in the book is also ridiculous.




...a half kilo?  Shouldn't that turn Southern Italy into an island?

Brad


----------



## freyar (May 25, 2009)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> ...a half kilo?  Shouldn't that turn Southern Italy into an island?
> 
> Brad



The book is pretty terrible physics-wise. It was a 1/2 kilo IIRC.  

Let's see.  1/2 kilo antimatter annihilating efficiently with 1/2 kilo matter gives mc^2 = 9x10^16 Joules.  According to wikipedia that's about 1000 as much as the "Fat Man" bomb, or 21 kilotons TNT.  Also on wikipedia, both the US and Soviet Union have tested or even deployed nuclear weapons in excess of 25 megatons TNT as far back as the early 1960s, which is comparable to our 1/2 kilo of antimatter.  So 1/2 kilo antimatter is about like a big nuke from the 1960s.


----------



## Korgoth (May 26, 2009)

The problem with History Channel first becomes evident when you watch a show about something you've studied. After that, you realize that you can't trust anything you've ever seen on any History Channel program, because if you didn't already know about the subject being presented, you have no way of knowing what was true and what was utter codswallop.

Case in point, a show about WWII. "German tanks roared across the border...", and they show footage of _Russian_ tanks.

When you know about what is being shown, you'll find that a large percentage of what is said on a History Channel show is either extremely misleading or outright false. So if I didn't know about (for example) Alexander the Great, why would I watch their show about him? Half of what they said would be wrong, and I would go from ignorance about the person to the much worse state of fallacious opinion about the person. At least if I were wholly ignorant I wouldn't think that I knew something about him. Whereas the History Channel would possibly show him riding around on a late Seleucid war elephant fighting Mamluks with a Swiss halberd. Scratch that: with _two_ Swiss halberds.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (May 26, 2009)

Some programs are better than others in that regard.  I didn't notice any major errors in the recent Warriors series, at least of the battles/armies/leaders I knew about already.

The other series I tried to watch on that channel lately, Battles B.C. was AWFUL, though, in that regard.  They portray King David as a sort of mafia don (which is fair, I guess), but mostly let Caesar and Alexander the Great off the hook for character criticism?  Holy bias, batman!


----------



## Korgoth (May 26, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> The other series I tried to watch on that channel lately, Battles B.C. was AWFUL, though, in that regard.  They portray King David as a sort of mafia don (which is fair, I guess), but mostly let Caesar and Alexander the Great off the hook for character criticism?  Holy bias, batman!




And evidently Hannibal was a 7-foot tall black pro wrestler in leopard skin shorts who fought with two swords.


----------



## Agamon (May 26, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I can't agree with this. It sounds nice, and lets people who think they are smart absolve themselves of personal responsibility to those they consider suckers...but if you are going to present something as a report of the facts, you should be truthful.




Good point.  Not as harmful as, say, the antivax movement, but yeah, they should at least forward it by saying that this is a bunch of malarky intended for your entertainment only.


----------



## jaerdaph (May 27, 2009)

I had to stop watching The Universe and Life After People because they were depressing the crap out of me. The Universe makes everything in my life seem so small, pointless and meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and the episode about infinite alternate universes and hearing that somewhere there is a universe where the love of my life and I are together (and all the other 'the grass is always greener' on the other side of the cosmic fence type things) and it's not this one really pushed me over the edge. 

I think I want aliens to draw a map for me now...


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 28, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> The Universe makes everything in my life seem so small, pointless and meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and the episode about infinite alternate universes and hearing that somewhere there is a universe where the love of my life and I are together (and all the other 'the grass is always greener' on the other side of the cosmic fence type things) and it's not this one really pushed me over the edge.




If it makes you feel any better, there're infinite universes where you're exactly the same, except a red blood cell only rotated 30 degrees while going through your heart rather than 31 degrees.  One while being perfectly straight, one at 1 degree, one at 2 degrees, and so on, up to the one where it did the lambada while doing so.

Of course, there are also infinite universes where I'm being eaten alive by rabid weiner dogs, and the only differences are the patterns on their fur.  Of course, each one of those varies based on which limb they started on, and which of the dogs has a small incontinence problem.

I honestly think that the above are better examples of infinite universes than what The Universe used.  It's a nice general science program with a lot of relatively up to date stuff, but it's not going to be perfect.

Brad


----------



## Korgoth (May 28, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> I had to stop watching The Universe and Life After People because they were depressing the crap out of me. The Universe makes everything in my life seem so small, pointless and meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and the episode about infinite alternate universes and hearing that somewhere there is a universe where the love of my life and I are together (and all the other 'the grass is always greener' on the other side of the cosmic fence type things) and it's not this one really pushed me over the edge.
> 
> I think I want aliens to draw a map for me now...




Eh. Alternate universes? That's the History Channel for you... goes right along with all the shows about Big Foot, Nessie and the Da Vinci Code.


----------



## Umbran (May 28, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> The Universe makes everything in my life seem so small, pointless and meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and the episode about infinite alternate universes ...




Now you know why physicists are always a little... weird.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 29, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Now you know why physicists are always a little... weird.



I found Thermodynamics waaaaaay more depressing. But then, one of the great minds in that field, Boltzmann killed himself due to depression, so did his student Ehrenfest, who worked in the field of statistical mechanics (which is pretty close to Thermodynamics).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Tiberius (May 31, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> the episode about infinite alternate universes and hearing that somewhere there is a universe where the love of my life and I are together (and all the other 'the grass is always greener' on the other side of the cosmic fence type things) and it's not this one really pushed me over the edge.




Feeling adventurous? Try experimenting with quantum immortality! (NOTE: *DO NOT DO THIS!*)


----------



## Mikaze (Jun 4, 2009)

I miss Engineering An Empire.

And Cities of the Underworld.

All the good stuff is on History International now, and I worry how long it will be before _that_ goes the way of MTV2.  And Fuse.

TCM really is the only channel that hasn't decayed, huh?


----------



## baphomet68 (Jun 13, 2009)

*I see aliens where they saw gods*

Prejudice has no friend like education. Our vast middle class has been programmed by the Agents of Darkness to sneer at any suggestions not approved by our Evil Overlords. I do envy the certainty about the world many posters on this thread share, but I cannot share it. I can't stick my head in the sand and pretend that the Aliens are not here, excersizing power on our species as they have for thousands of years. While my experience and (like ANYONE) my innate prejudices lead me to my beliefs, I believe I am being reasonable when I feel certain we have been visited/interfered with by aliens, and have _Faith _in various other "Conspiracy Theories". I will happily admit that these are just my opinions, but I am not alone in these beliefs. I would also point out that, even though your own conclusions may have been shaped by currently popular "experts" and the (possibly Alien controlled) education system du Jour, opinion is all that lies at the heart of the smartypants naysayers arguments as well. 
     While the History channels' nod to ancient astronauts and "True" fiction like the Davinci Code do a little good, they are pop culture simplifications that are hardly in any danger of making converts; they just preach to the choir. Still, it would be nice to see views so close to my own so prominently featured in the media, until one pauses to remember that the saurian Aliens control the media.
     So, why is it all of a sudden not a threat to the saurian media overlords to be a prominent part of the popular myth lexicon? Are they grown so powerful that they are ready to emerge, and fight the Vampire Illuminati directly? These are the questions we should be asking ourselves, instead of denying their existence/effects on our species development.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 13, 2009)

Tiberius said:


> Feeling adventurous? Try experimenting with quantum immortality! (NOTE: *DO NOT DO THIS!*)




LOL! I LOVE it! Russian Roulette for physicists!


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jun 13, 2009)

baphomet68 said:


> Prejudice has no friend like education. Our vast middle class has been programmed by the Agents of Darkness to sneer at any suggestions not approved by our Evil Overlords. I do envy the certainty about the world many posters on this thread share, but I cannot share it. I can't stick my head in the sand and pretend that the Aliens are not here, excersizing power on our species as they have for thousands of years. While my experience and (like ANYONE) my innate prejudices lead me to my beliefs, I believe I am being reasonable when I feel certain we have been visited/interfered with by aliens, and have _Faith _in various other "Conspiracy Theories". I will happily admit that these are just my opinions, but I am not alone in these beliefs. I would also point out that, even though your own conclusions may have been shaped by currently popular "experts" and the (possibly Alien controlled) education system du Jour, opinion is all that lies at the heart of the smartypants naysayers arguments as well.
> While the History channels' nod to ancient astronauts and "True" fiction like the Davinci Code do a little good, they are pop culture simplifications that are hardly in any danger of making converts; they just preach to the choir. Still, it would be nice to see views so close to my own so prominently featured in the media, until one pauses to remember that the saurian Aliens control the media.
> So, why is it all of a sudden not a threat to the saurian media overlords to be a prominent part of the popular myth lexicon? Are they grown so powerful that they are ready to emerge, and fight the Vampire Illuminati directly? These are the questions we should be asking ourselves, instead of denying their existence/effects on our species development.




Well, I'll just say that to me, personally, the concept of there being alien life is a lot easier to believe than religion and the existence of god(s).

Also, it doesn't much help your case when you rant like a crazy person.  Coming from someone who frequently rants like a crazy person.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jun 13, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Also, it doesn't much help your case when you rant like a crazy person.  Coming from someone who frequently rants like a crazy person.



I think it was parody... the "saurian media overlords... fight the Vampire Illuminati directly" was probably rather obvious, no?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## baphomet68 (Jun 14, 2009)

*Gnomes of Zurich to grant Sasqhach sanctuary; deny extradition to Vampire Illuminati*



Lord Tirian said:


> I think it was parody... the "saurian media overlords... fight the Vampire Illuminati directly" was probably rather obvious, no?
> 
> Cheers, LT.




     To spread the TRUTH, you have to hide in the cloak of a wingnut - otherwise THEY get wise to you.
    We see what we expect to see. While mostly figurative (or symbolic), *I* see aliens and monsters all around us. Some people, adherents to the church of the Modern Rational, would appear to be constitutionally unable to see an Alien even if one landed in their driveway, popped out of its Flying Saucer and demanded to be taken to our leader. It seems that today one needs to be a member of the Modern Rational Church to fit in with the educated crowd. While perhaps not a formal organization, the church of the Modern Rational is a clearly body of Faith, with a cosmology and set of necessary assumptions no more provable or objective than the cult of the sinister saurian T.V. executives. 
     Daniken raises some ideas that are exciting to many people; many of us have wondered if the stories in the ancient books could have been inspired by alien visits, etc. I think relatively harmless wingnuts like him are so popular because they are so thin and non-threatening (to the C.M.R.), and are accessable to the general public, with no demanding or technical language. People that make better arguments in that vein (like David Icke) do not get as much attention, even though they have (sometimes) stronger arguments accompanied by more "factual facts".
     Well written, competently argued compositions supporting ancient extraterrestrial astronauts or uncovering that the Unseelie Court and Supreme Court are in cahoots will never gather the attention that light, dismissable attempts achieve.  The OP was upset about the ancient Astronauts story being presented as a supported view. Even though the entertainment vector you select is called "History", it is still an entertainment vector. I was entertained; but sadly there is no danger of Daniken convincing any but the already converted. To get on the NYTimes best seller list, you have to be a nonthreatening crank like Daniken, or hide behind a veil and pretend to be "fiction", like the DaVinci code. To contrast us, the OP dislikes the presentation of Toy Fluff as Fact; I dislike the presentation of Fact as Toy Fluff. (both in reference to the ancient astronauts show/book)


----------



## baphomet68 (Jun 14, 2009)

*StreamOfTheSky taunted with accusations of sanity*



StreamOfTheSky said:


> Also, it doesn't much help your case when you rant like a crazy person.  Coming from someone who frequently rants like a crazy person.




     I am just hawking up loogies of truth, not trying a case. The case cannot be lost or won here - and I would be pretty worried if my post convinced anyone of anything. Best case is we understand one another better. I know I run a rich Signal-to-Noise mixture, sometimes the method overwhelms the message.
      And its easy to claim Crazy Rant Cred, why waste most of your post quoting mine? I call you on it - throw down with some Crazy Rant or admit to mundane sanity.


----------



## Eridanis (Jun 14, 2009)

Let's keep clear of real-world politics and religion, please.


----------



## megamania (Jul 4, 2009)

What if I were to say that Bigfoot is a byproduct of alien manipulation of early man?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 5, 2009)

megamania said:


> What if I were to say that Bigfoot is a byproduct of alien manipulation of early man?




I'd ask why australopithicus had to be an alien manipulation.

Brad


----------



## megamania (Jul 5, 2009)

Wasn't it about 200,000 years ago there was a HUGE evolutionary jump for "mankind" that originated in Madagascar.   Why the huge jump?  Manipulation?   Bigfoot the natural progression and we are the test subjects running amok?


----------



## Dr. Harry (Jul 5, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Maybe my expectations were unrealistic. I don't mind them having a program on aliens if they want. I just wish they would present the mainstream arguments against their evidence, and make it clear how far fetched their so-called experts' line of reasoning is.
> 
> .




   I feel your (Professorial) pain.  I'm an astronomer, and that's how I read your original post.  I was OK with the sixteenth century admiral knowing about Antartica because I thought "Hey, didn't Magellan see Antartica?"  Then I looked it up and saw how large the Drake Passage really is.  What set me off was the idea that aliens would pay a truly unbelievably gigantic energy/time debt to come to Earth to ... what?  Give us incomplete maps, and maybe Chicklets?  Aliens are smart enough to cross the distances to get here and avoid leaving any physical evidence, but not good enough to keep Skeeter from seeing them?

  I second everything that you have said on the thread.  

   Do you have a book on the subject of historiography that you would recommend?  I might actually have gotten into DMing because maps are cool.

  Oh, by the way, all the stuff later posters said about physicists is pretty much true.  Happily, observational astronomers are better off.  Sure, there's still that tiny objects in a mind-staggeringly big universe, but at least we get to see how pretty it is.  Always go for the shiny to take the edge off.


----------

