Yesterday filmmaker Chris White released his new, three-hour documentary Ancient Aliens Debunked, which will be of interest to my readers since it is an exceptionally thorough examination of the specious claims made on the History/H2 series Ancient Aliens in the light of actual facts. The documentary goes through such claims as "impossible" megalithic architecture, "alien" images in art, and "extraterrestrials" in ancient texts and demolishes each with surgical precision. It doesn't hurt that the movie quotes me extensively at various points.

First, a bit of disclosure: Chris White asked me to participate in the documentary back in the spring, but our schedules did not mesh when he was filming. Despite the extensive use of my material in the sections on Arthur Posnansky, ancient atom bombs, and vimana aircraft, I was not involved in the production in any way and have not received any compensation from it. I did not see the film until its release yesterday.

White has provided what is perhaps the clearest and most understandable discussion of the "mysteries" of Puma Punku I have ever come across, with a detailed explanation step by step of how the Tiwanaku culture built the site, and, more importantly, how ancient astronaut theorists like Giorgio Tsoukalos and David Childress systematically omit, distort, and lie about key evidence in order to construct a false narrative of alien construction. Tsoukalos calls Puma Punku the only site in the world actually built by aliens, but his complete and utter ignorance of every fact about the site (down to the very types of rock from which it was built) mark him as a huckster and a fraud.

However, White's documentary can be a bit confusing for anyone who has never watched or has not paid close attention to Ancient Aliens. White assumes a great deal of familiarity with the program's personalities, including Tsoukalos, Childress, and Erich von Däniken but fails to either introduce them or to provide enough background to understand who they are and what they believe. He presents Ancient Aliens as a coherent piece of propaganda and glosses over the wild discrepancies in the various talking heads' ideas. 

White's purpose is to challenge the claims presented on Ancient Aliens, not the people, but a bit of sociology would be helpful in placing this in context. From a film perspective, a bit of background on the filmmaker--who narrates in the first person--would have been helpful. It isn't clear until near the end that he has something of a dog in this fight. White is a Christian (which I know because he told me so), and he has a Biblical perspective that leads him to propose, for example, that the flood of Noah really happened and that global myths are connected through one exceedingly ancient source (a la the Tower of Babel). This doesn't significantly impact the good work he does in his film (it's a very minor part of the story), but it would have been helpful to know two hours or so earlier.

Overall, Ancient Aliens Debunked is a thorough, carefully presented, and rigorous challenge to the sloppy thinking and cult of personality that passes for educational programming on Ancient Aliens. 
 


Comments

Felipe
10/01/2012 1:36am

It was an excellent documentary, although I lost track when he started to talk about the Flood and the Giants. It would have been good if he had presented some good evidence for the existence of the Nephilim and all that.

Reply
Jessica
10/01/2012 4:41am

I watched the documentary yesterday and I thought it was very well done. I like how White actually used clips from AA to debunk its claims. I think this approach will have a stronger impact on people who watch the series and are taken in by its lies. I also really appreciate that White referenced everything on his website and has provided links to the original ancient texts so people can check for themselves. i look forward to seeing how he will develop the site in the coming months. Hopefully this will be a very large nail in AA's coffin.

Reply
MissAnnThrope
10/02/2012 5:45am

I found your site from watching that documentary. I have to say, from the folklore perspective, I love Ancient Aliens. I also find it to be a comedy. I enjoyed the documentary, but I did have a problem when he started with his personal beliefs on Noah's Ark. I was disappointed to see Creation Magazine listed in the footnotes, as I don't consider them a credible source for science. Other than that, I did enjoy the documentary and I am glad I watched it. I'm looking forward to White's updates to the site, too.

Reply
10/06/2012 11:24pm

MissAnnThrope your criticism concerning Creation magazine seems misplaced since he cited them as a source concerning world flood legends not science.

Reply
10/07/2012 2:53am

I think that it is interesting that you wish that Chris White would have explained that he was a Christian at the beginning of the film. How is his being a Christian relevant to his systematic discrediting of the "facts" put forth by Ancient Aliens?

Furthermore, how many people do you think would have turned off the film in the first 5 minutes, if Chris had announced that he was a Christian?

By the way, I am a Christian. ;-)

Reply
Jamie
10/15/2012 9:29am

Because it now feels like you were lured into a 'christian trap' meaning he's using the AAT topic as a way to evangelize and promote his believes. It would have been more honest if he told the viewer in advance.

Reply
Malkiyahu
10/08/2012 7:58pm

"It isn't clear until near the end that he has something of a dog in this fight." Really? Based on the fact that he made a 3-hour documentary about it, how could you not assume he had a dog in the fight? Doesn't everyone who teaches on the subject (like you) have a dog in the fight? I hope you're not implying that there is a certain class of people (yourself included) capable of teaching something without any kind of bias, without your own beliefs determining how you approach it. Based on this website, it looks like you definitely have your own dog in the fight.

"...he has a Biblical perspective that leads him to propose, for example, that the flood of Noah really happened and that global myths are connected through one exceedingly ancient source (a la the Tower of Babel)." I'm not sure what you're saying Chris White said about global myths and the Tower of Babel, but it doesn't seem right, because I don't remember him mentioning the Tower of Babel, so if he did it must have been in passing. Also this wording makes it sound like he said that all (or most) global myths are connected, but of course he was only talking about flood myths.

"...it would have been helpful to know two hours or so earlier." Why?

Sorry I'm focusing on these little things in an otherwise good review. I just find it strange that you dedicated 1 of 6 paragraphs (it looks like the longest) of your review to "a very minor part of the story" that "doesn't significantly impact the good work he does in his film."

Reply
10/08/2012 9:00pm

As noted by the parenthetical and the use of the phrase "a la" (meaning "in the manner of"), I was using the Tower of Babel as a literary reference to a time when all people shared the same culture and langauge--it was a poetic way of referencing White's suggestion that there was an ancient ur-myth. I did not mean he literally spoke of the Tower of Babel. This is one of the problems with the decline of shared literary references: Literary flourishes are too often mistaken for literal statements of fact.

Obviously White, like me, has a skeptical perspective on ancient astronauts, but White has an additional level of belief, his Christian mythos, which leads to statements like the Flood discussion, that are not supported by science. As you yourself note everyone has some sort of perspective and/or bias; I thought that knowing White's would have helped the viewer in understanding his perspective and evaluating his work.

And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, know that I put my own views and history on record in the introduction to my Cult of Alien Gods, which is also online on my website. It's how my readers judge where I am coming from, and I only suggested that knowing something about White would have been just as helpful.

Reply
Dave
10/14/2012 4:04pm

I'm afraid as soon as Mr White said that something remarkable could have happened in the past and that ancient mythologies shared consistent themes (0:02:26) I was immediately on my guard. I don't think that the subsequent analysis suffers much because of this (apart from using Wikipedia as an information source - doh!) but it leaves him open to legitimate attack. Refuting one crazy theory to implicitly further another bizarre one is not good practice. As for those who are commenting that Mr Colavito also has a dog in the fight, they miss an unsubtle point. There is a huge difference between sceptical enquiry and attacking an opponent. Seeking the truth is not agenda driven.

I am also mystified by the duplicity of American TV. Von Daniken was outed in Europe as a huckster and convicted con man DECADES ago. To use him in a TV program shows that there is no attempt at truthfulness on the part of the "History" channel. Entertainment should be labelled as entertainment not passed off as a documentary.

Reply
Malkiyahu
10/15/2012 1:35pm

By "attacking an opponent," you obviously mean arguing against what they believe. You seem to be missing an unsubtle point: that's what Mr. Colavito does. There is a huge difference between skeptical inquiry (like reading books that argue against Ancient Astronaut ideas) and attacking an opponent (like writing those books). Seeking the truth is not agenda-driven. Writing books about it is. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with doing that (in fact, there is something right), but confusing those two things like that is not very skeptical.

Reply
10/15/2012 1:39pm

I'm not sure what you are saying here, Malkiyahu. It sounds as though you are saying that any attempt to assert the truth ("writing those books") is an attack and therefore not an inquiry into truth. But if truth-seekers can't make their ideas known, or even assert which ideas are right or wrong, then how does the truth come out?

Malkiyahu
10/15/2012 1:53pm

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I did NOT mean that "writing those books" is an attack "and therefore not an inquiry into truth." Those are not even the terms I would have chosen to use, but I was pointing out that in the dichotomy Dave created ("sceptical enquiry" vs. "attacking an opponent"), he had falsely implied that you, Mr. Colavito, do not attack opponents and are therefore not agenda driven. I was simply trying to point out that your books ARE arguments against other people's arguments, and they are therefore agenda-driven. I just wanted to clear that up, as he seemed confused. I also pointed out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with "writing those books." Any inquiry into truth involving attacking lies is a very good thing. I recommend people read your books. I also recommend that they don't believe your books are 100% unbiased and agenda-free, as you've already pointed out yet Dave seemed to miss.

10/15/2012 2:01pm

I see your point now, but I would suggest that any book, by virtue of having a thesis, therefore has an "agenda" (which is to prove its thesis). Without this, the book would have no point in existing. The question is whether the thesis was arrived at through a fair examination of the evidence or whether it was chosen first with evidence forced to fit the preconceived idea.

Larian1983
05/23/2013 6:09pm

Well, first of all, I want say I still believed in Ancient Alien theory. Because as I was always wondering if the so called Gods are actually more advanced intellectual beings, I turned on TV one day, and saw ancient aliens. It made me believe in god instead of wondering what is god. For those of you only want to accept the fact that God is just a spiritual being, well, I think Gods are physical being. God didn't creat us just so he can guide us to a perfect world. Gods create us in their own image, so we can follow their will and do their deeds.

Reply



Leave a Reply