A Roundup of Ancient Astronauts in the News

2/7/2015

Nationally syndicated columnist Tina Dupuy, who in her childhood was a member of a cult, wrote against charlatanism and anti-science in America culture in a recent column. Dupuy singled out the History Channel and its corporate owners, Disney and the Hearst Corporation, for making money from what she called the television equivalent of homeopathic scam remedies:

The History Channel, a joint venture between Hearst and Disney, has fed into this fevered fetish with their programming: “Ancient Aliens,” “UFO Hunters,” “Decoded,” “The Bible Code,” “Cities of the Underworld,” “Mystery Quest,” “Nostradamus Effect,” “Armageddon.” We effectively have an ahistorical History Channel.

This is something no one else will tell you … unless you turn on Disney-owned cable television.

Although not everything she wrote seemed to make complete sense from a writing perspective, the sentiment is spot-on. Dupuy concluded that from fake history documentaries to fake medicine “charlatans are indicative of simple economics: supply and demand. As long as we demand manure, someone will step up to shovel it. And business appears to be good.”

And it’s only going to get better if Post Star blogger Martha Petteys is to be believed. Petteys was selected to report her television viewing to A. C. Nielsen to calculate TV ratings. Petteys announced on her blog that she plans to watch Ancient Aliens. Every viewer is extra money in Disney’s and Hearst’s pockets!

Further evidence can be found in the recent distribution of Giorgio Tsoukalos’s In Search of Aliens on cable and satellite channels around the world. You may have seen some of the Spanish and/or Portuguese promos for the show that have popped up online in which the Ancient Aliens star promotes the series to Latin American viewers. I found interesting this Spanish-language article from Costa Rica that discusses Tsoukalos and the role of the History Channel in making the ancient astronaut theory mainstream not just in America but around the world. (All translations are mine.)

“History Channel is one of the major contributors to the debate [over alien visitation] thanks to its many programs, documentaries, and specials that look up at the sky and wonder what else is up there,” writes Danny Brenes of La Nación. “The new series, In Search of Aliens, is the latest piece of History’s interstellar puzzle.”

It’s probably hard to deny that you’re a purveyor of pseudoscience when even the puff pieces promoting your programming describe you as the loudest voice promoting ancient astronauts.

Brenes goes on to describe Tsoukalos as one of the driving forces behind the ancient astronaut theory before wrongly describing him as a writer. Tsoukalos has never produced a book, and so far as I can tell his literary output is limited to a handful of forewords to ancient astronaut books and occasional pieces in his irregular ancient astronaut newsletter, Legendary Times.

Brenes, though, does make one very astute comparison that rarely shows up in English-language media coverage of Ancient Aliens and its ilk: “This hypothesis says that the development of human cultures, technologies, and religions is due to visits from aliens to our planet throughout history. Something like an alien creationism.” Here in America, where creationism is a political football, it’s rare to see the media equate the belief system of high ranking politicians and their constituents to the obviously fantastical belief in aliens, as though to imply an equivalency. Creationism and ancient astronaut theories are mirror images of one another, rely on very similar “evidence,” and serve similar purposes as part of their respective cultural revitalization movements. One just happens to command more cultural respect in America due to its close association with powerful political and religious interests.

32 Comments

666

2/7/2015 02:59:08 am

If you get a kick out of it, it isn't real history.

Cathleen Anderson

2/7/2015 03:04:52 am

Real history can be made just as interesting as all of this nonsense. It would be even better, because real answers to questions can be shown to exist.

2/7/2015 03:15:42 am

Nobody's really interested in how the stone monuments in Baalbeck were constructed.

Jean-Pierre Adam, Roman Building: Materials and Techniques, Bloomington: Indiana University Press 1994

Only Me

2/7/2015 04:51:33 am

@ Cathleen
I whole-heartedly agree.

@666
Doesn't the fact we know how the stones at Baalbek were constructed, along with other megalithic sites, disprove your assertion "nobody's really interested"?

Duke of URL

2/8/2015 04:44:45 am

Cathleen, I whole-heartedly agree with you. Learning about REAL things is ever so much more interesting (and useful) than faked things.

Bob Jase

2/8/2015 05:25:04 am

Absolutely - fairy tales entertain but reality amazes.

Dora

2/10/2015 05:24:16 am

Agree Cathleen! Real history is better, to have real answers. And in real history is so much diversity, and the logic of thinking and methodology is richer and much more fascinating.

2/7/2015 03:37:00 am

Anyone remember when 666 was pretending that he's been banned? Those were good times. (Because 666 wasn't posting.)

2/7/2015 04:58:01 am

Nobody gets a kick out of how Roman Monuments were really constructed. Educational textbooks do not become bestsellers. Only university students ask for such material in libraries.

2/7/2015 05:33:18 am

"Educational textbooks do not become bestsellers."

They're not written to *be* best sellers. That's like being miffed the Webster's Dictionary isn't the perennial number one spot on the New York Times Best Sellers List.

Again, someone "got a kick out of" ancient construction or we wouldn't know how it was done. Just because many are incapable of giving ancient civilizations credit for their achievements, in favor of aliens/giants/Nephilim, doesn't mean everyone is.

Jerky (Cellphone)

2/7/2015 05:40:19 am

I do 666, And I'm an illiterate high school drop out who's never set foot on a university in my whole life. So I guess I'm living proof that you are wrong.

2/7/2015 06:01:31 am

It's heartening to know there are people with intuitive understanding

2/7/2015 06:12:32 am

"Educational textbooks do not become bestsellers."

Yeah, that's not true.

2/7/2015 11:20:11 am

666: http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-discoveries

There's an entire show about how ancient peoples built things, which means that people ARE, in fact, interested in how these things were done--and enough people to carry an entire TV show. Four seasons of it. Now, I don't know exactly how well-researched this show is--it IS on History, after all--but I HAVE seen it, and it's pretty fascinating.

Also seen plenty of other shows about "how were these things built" ranging from Stonehenge to pyramids to the Easter Island statues. You don't make shows about stuff "nobody is interested in."

Sorry, you're totally, completely, 100% STUPIDLY wrong. A TON of people "get a kick" out of how various ancient structures are built, ranging from engineers to archeologists to writers to people who just like history. They do all have one thing in common, though, that you clearly don't share: they all like to use their MINDS.

I suggest you look into trying that. You might find you LIKE it.

2/7/2015 11:36:31 am

666 blames everything on evil psychiatrists and their evil crazy pills.

Makes ya think.

2/7/2015 11:51:50 am

Check out the 1990s television series "Secrets of Lost Empires"

Some of the episodes of Ancient Discoveries are seriously dodgy.

MartyR

2/7/2015 04:22:54 am

It's all about money, of course. Much of this programming takes place on Friday and Saturday nights, the worst nights of the week for TV. So, you have relatively inexpensive programming, filling a niche for what has to be a good profit margin. That's all Disney is and was. Remember Sunday's Wonderful World of Disney? it was the first infomercial for the amusement park.

Paul S.

2/7/2015 07:43:32 am

I used to watch the History Channel back in the days when it mostly showed documentaries on World War II. It was kind of one-dimensional but at least it was real history.

I've been following this blog for about a month now. It's very interesting to me because I used to believe in some of the "ancient aliens" type stuff from reading people like Von Daniken and Graham Hancock. I eventually stopped being interested because there didn't seem to be any real evidence for it. Since I don't watch much TV anymore, I had no idea that there had been such a revival of this kind of pseudohistory in the last few years on TV. It's good that there are places online where people can get a critical view of these claims. Unfortunately, when people want to believe in something, they generally won't accept anything that's critical of it, but you might at least be able to sway some people who are on the fence.

Rick

2/7/2015 12:20:28 pm

Same here with older shows. I mainly watch the new stuff because it's interesting but also to pick it apart.

Since I've started reading this blog after the AU episodes I've found that people like SW and their theories are such of a stretch to begin with that they know they can't argue very much about it because they have no deep well of information to draw from. So they start name calling quite quickly to draw away from the main points. SW is quite good at it and usually derides people for using his anonymous feature to post to his blog. If it's that big of a deal remove the option. But he won't because it's an easy way to get one more point of contention up on somebody who disagrees with him. So he allows it to remain and puts on a dog and pony show about its us. Usually bringing it up several times to put down the user. Nothing like trying to ask a person a question on a blog and the blog owner calling you names. He is usually quite quick to accuse the poster of arrogance or deride them for some perceived tone. Which works for him because it's tough to write a critical piece that doesn't come off as short or terse in the eyes of the person it's directed at. Its really interesting in that he reserves the right to be a total ass to people at all times for any perceived offense no matter how insignificant, all the while holding the poster to an extremely high level of civility that he feels is due him. So pretty much unless you are on his blog to fall at his feet and tell him how great and smart he is because he took several other people's idea and then made up a dialog to go with a symbol he found, be prepared to be in a verbal street fight in which he is allowed to pull out all stops but your held to unwritten rules that force you to be formal in addressing him at all times. Or he requires the poster to cite sources for points they are making but then doesn't require that of himself.

It's really a no win situation. But the problem is that he's blind to how it makes him look. His review section on one of his books had 14 reviews, 12 positive and only one negative. He proceeded to have a 100+ page arguement with that person with numerous posts of his deleted by Amazon. It's incredible. I think no web presence would be better than what he is doing.

Joe Scales

2/7/2015 01:19:42 pm

"Or he requires the poster to cite sources for points they are making but then doesn't require that of himself."

You can argue with Wolter on his blog to a point, but as he must approve all posts, he will not let you post links to true scientific critiques of his work by even those in the field of geology; even if you're polite about it. He simply badmouths any such sources, claims they're not legitimate, but most tellingly, won't allow his faithful following the opportunity to consider it. I often wonder how many of that following aren't actually internet "sock puppets", controlled by him and/or his minions. Perhaps just wishful thinking on my part, in hopes people aren't truly that ignorant.

2/7/2015 01:31:06 pm

I hope that all the illiterate women trying to get that forensic petrographer dick at least aren't sockpuppets. The alternative is too sad to contemplate.

2/7/2015 08:08:00 pm

Believing in Scott Wolter stuff is a type of fix.

It's not the same thing as serious scholarship, like foir example researching plate tectonics.

That type of thinking involves reading educational textbooks by Jean-Pierre Adam - something rejected by the Graham Hancocks of this world.

2/7/2015 09:20:09 pm

The likes of Scott Wolter and Graham Hancock, do they privately know that what they believe in and are peddling is bullshit, but they get a kick out of believing it, that's the question.

2/8/2015 12:34:38 am

@joe
Last time I was on his site him and SStC were calling for sources pretty quickly from this one guy. That and deriding him for posting anonymously. Of course then both of them proceeded to post their conclusions with no sources or links to any papers(even their own) whatsoever.

One thing I have noticed is that he seems to get a lot of one off posts praising him for going against the machine of academia. Its quite funny in that any legitimate find could make a persons career, yet we are to believe they quietly suppress such information to tow the party line so to speak. He presents them all as in cahoots with each other but in reality they are each independent. Need to go ask him if he must submit to the machine when doing his real geological work. He must right? Unless no such coordination exists and all the beliefs, methods, and data come from independent work that is then peer reviewed with the conclusions either confirmed or denied.

I'm still waitng on his papers on dating carvings. Where are they? I saw one paper on the KRS that really didn't tell me much of anything. Surely he has papers underway that use thousands of examples showing the weathering in different climates accounting for precipitation levels, temperature extremes, etc. Because the lack of papers makes it appear as though he is just looking at the carvings and guessing.

2/8/2015 04:06:12 am

"I'm still waiting on his papers on dating carvings. Where are they? I saw one paper on the KRS that really didn't tell me much of anything. Surely he has papers underway that use thousands of examples showing the weathering in different climates accounting for precipitation levels, temperature extremes, etc. Because the lack of papers makes it appear as though he is just looking at the carvings and guessing."

Here are some reports critical of Wolter's work, which are not allowed to be posted on his blog:

http://richardnielsen.org//PDFs/Runestone%20Museum%20Rpt%20062608.pdf

http://richardnielsen.org//PDFs/KRS.comments.04.pdf

So when Wolter claims he has the only true scientific handle on all things related to the KRS, you'll see his work was indeed reviewed by those much more qualified in said regard; who shred him accordingly.

The thing about Wolter however, is that he is more easily felled by basic logic. In his Holy Grail in America show, he basically concluded that given his weathering findings, the KRS carvings had to be at least two hundred years older than when it was found. He then argued that since no one was in the area of the find during the 1600's other than Native Americans, the KRS couldn't have been carved during that century. So the only way to date it for certain would be to look at the inscriptions themselves, which revealed 1362 as the inscription date. It's astounding by itself, that he can rule out a Scandinavian presence in the 1600's in making the case for them to be there in 1362 with absolutely no more evidence other than the KRS itself. So to authenticate the KRS, he uses the KRS to do so, and he stands by that same logic, or lack of same, to this very day.

I would like to believe that he's aware of his own ruse, but more and more, I'm coming to the conclusion that he has such a rare combination of ego, stupidity and bravado... that he actually believes what he says. When he states over and over that the KRS has been proven to be genuine, it's not just proof by assertion. It is his identity.

2/8/2015 05:28:42 am

"

02/07/2015 3:43pm

I used to watch the History Channel back in the days when it mostly showed documentaries on World War II. It was kind of one-dimensional but at least it was real history."

Yep, people made fun of 'the Hitler Channel' but compared to their present crap that's a downright compliment.

2/8/2015 06:25:40 am

History's current programming: Literally worse than Hitler :)

HITLER WAS OFTEN LITERALLY WORSE THAN HITLER

2/8/2015 07:52:08 am

at best, A+E'z "hilter" channel izz inferior copy

2/8/2015 12:55:34 am

> going against the machine of academia

Of course, nothing in academia to get a kick out of

Clete

2/8/2015 01:18:20 pm

I used to watch the History Channel quite a bit. It was really the go to channel when there wasn't a good movie on, or baseball, the only other things I watched. Then it changed and that change can be traced to one person...Nancy Dubrac. A & E put her in charge of the channel with only one goal...increase rating.

The first thing she did was begin with the show "Pawn Stars". Quasi reality crap. The rating shot up and a quick procession of other quasi-reality shows began, now the channel is crowded with that stuff. Then she went out and purchased crap like UFO Hunters, Ancient Aliens, America Unearthed, etc, etc. The rating remained high.

Even now, when they put on "historical" programming, it is terrible. A good example is their latest offering "Sons of Liberty". Not even close to being accurate. I mean, John Adams playing Rambo, really.

2/8/2015 02:29:42 pm

"Even now, when they put on "historical" programming, it is terrible. example is their latest offering "Sons of Liberty". Not even close to being accurate. I mean, John Adams playing Rambo, really."
Actually, it was Sam Adams they had playing Rambo, jumping from rooftop to rooftop escaping armed British soldiers. A young, poseur Rambo at that, and not the roughly 50 year old rotund politician that he actually was at the time. Their portrayal of John Adams was even less believable, as they made him the quiet one.

Pawn stars, as contrived and staged as it is, probably represents the nearest thing to actual history you're going to find on that channel, with Rick's little bits here and there. So what began as a departure from true history programming, is now it's best representative of it. Sad, truly.

JL Adamson

2/9/2015 12:59:35 am

I admit I have only seen a couple of episodes of Cities of the Underworld but I'm confused why it would be in the same category of Ancient Aliens and UFO Hunters.

Same with Decoded. At least that show seemed to make an effort at being honest with the facts presented.