American Heroes Channel Sets March 2 Air Date for My Episode of "Codes and Conspiracies"

2/19/2015

Good news, everyone! You will be able to watch me on TV on Monday, March 2 at 10 PM ET when the American Heroes Channel debuts the “Ancient Astronauts” episode of Codes and Conspiracies, which will examine the history of the ancient astronaut theory and some of the shady elements of Erich von Däniken’s criminal past. I shot commentary for the show back in September, and unless producers were happy to throw out all the money they spent coming out to Albany to film (and pay) me, I should actually be in this episode.

Here is the episode description:

Did aliens help build the Pyramids and other monuments? Or does the "ancient astronauts" idea go back to Swiss author Erich von Daniken, whose books challenge religion and science? Who were his enemies? What were his influences? Why was he jailed?

This morning I did an interview with a production company making a documentary about the Caucasus Mountains for BBC Radio Three. We talked about my book, Jason and the Argonauts through the Ages and the role that the Jason myth played in framing the Western understanding of the Caucasus. We also discussed the way pseudoscientists have attempted to rope the Caucasus into everything from Bible giants to the ancient astronaut theory to Noah’s Ark.

I don’t know when the program will air, but I’m supposed to get a head’s up before it is on later this year.

Speaking of Jason and the Argonauts, did you know that the Jason myth is still really profitable? I didn’t until I learned this week that you can now go on a two-week Legendary Voyage of Jason and the Argonauts cruise to visit the supposed route of the Argonauts (apparently the one proposed by Apollonius of Rhodes) for the rock-bottom price of between $8,000 and $12,000 per person. The cruise ship has 26 rooms, of which 24 are double occupancy, yielding a gross of at least $500,000 each way since they are running the ship from Greece to Georgia and back again for two cruises. A million bucks is a pretty nice prize for a month’s cruise. Obviously, after expenses the cruise won’t profit a million dollars, but I imagine expert consultants Nina Tumarkin (an expert in Russian and Soviet history) and Mary Lefkowitz (a Classical scholar) will come out the other side with a pretty hefty sum for essentially a paid vacation.

I’m in the wrong line of work: My Jason book has made me virtually nothing in royalties; in fact, the biggest payout I got from the book was licensing one of the maps I made for its website to another publisher. A single photograph earned me more than writing and selling the book. On the plus side, I still have another eight months as the only major recent study of the Argonaut myth; Classical scholar Helen Lovatt’s In Search of the Argonauts, originally scheduled for publication last year, has been delayed until October. It will be interesting to see how her book does or does not agree with mine.

While we’re on the subject of scholars, I saw an interesting article about resident Ancient Aliens folklorist Sabina Magliocco, who admitted Cal State Northridge’s Sundial that she knows Ancient Aliens misrepresents her and her work but thinks that the twisted truths on the show still serve to educate audiences. Magliocco told the newspaper that she knew from the first episodes of Ancient Aliens in 2010 that they were intentionally twisting her words to make her look like she supports the ancient astronaut theory. She says she raised objections but has continued participating for five years anyway, reminding them each time that she doesn’t believe in the ancient astronaut theory:

This is something that I have told them on camera a million times but they never put it in. […] I am completely opposed to the show’s theory. As an anthropologist, it’s important to understand that our ancestors were as smart as we are today. There are all kinds of symbolic explanations for pictures and representations that don’t have to involve aliens.

Magliocco added that she loves being on television. “When I find a producer that I like to work with, I will consider doing more television.” After five years, it’s pretty clear she likes Ancient Aliens and its producers despite her opposition to the very core of the show.

It’s something I can’t quite understand. How can someone be “completely opposed” to a media product, know that its producers will twist and misrepresent you to support a preconceived agenda you claim to loathe, and still spend five years contributing to that show?

43 Comments

Walt

2/19/2015 07:01:27 am

That's the same reason I always say you're doing more harm than good by killing episodes in which you were invited to appear. Everytime you don't appear, you miss an opportunity to spread the truth, however small it may be. Sure, you prevent some show about a silly topic from ever airing so nobody new starts believing, but you also prevent 10, 100, or 1000 other people from disovering all of your other excellently researched work.

How many people still believe something bizarre today because you killed an episode that would've led to them being enlightened? No way to know, but I agree with Magliocco's position. There's no such thing as bad press.

2/19/2015 08:45:22 am

It's like no matter the issue, you never fail to take the position, no matter how implausible, that is most directly or indirectly in support of AA...

2/19/2015 09:35:30 am

I'm not a supporter of AA, not a fan, dont watch it, don't remember ever saying anything in support of it., and have consistently said that Jason is wasting his and everyone else's time by covering every AA episode and alien conference. It's a complete waste of resources for everyone involved, and Jason isn't doing any good whatsoever by reviewing it, despite what he thinks. I've consistently said all of that, so how you believe I always end up being supportive of AA is beyond me. Out of everyone here, I have to be the least supportive of the entire topic. I'd say I'm dismissive of everyone involved, including Jason.

I do say it's just a TV show that doesn't have to stick to facts just because it happens to air on a network named "History", but that'd be the end of my support, and has much more to do with governing laws of commercial television than the topic covered.

I do remember a few interesting episodes and blogs before they totally went off the deep end, but that's maybe 3 or 4 episodes, out of 7 seasons. Generally, it's really all just a waste of everything.

Shane Sullivan

2/19/2015 05:35:16 pm

"I do say it's just a TV show that doesn't have to stick to facts just because it happens to air on a network named "History", but that'd be the end of my support, and has much more to do with governing laws of commercial television than the topic covered."

I don't think anyone 'round here has ever said what History does is, or should be, illegal (unless you meant "laws" in a more generic sense), but that doesn't mean we can't call them idiots and/or expect better of them

Reductio

2/20/2015 04:20:34 am

Walt said, "Jason is wasting his and everyone else's time by covering every AA episode and alien conference. It's a complete waste of resources for everyone involved, and Jason isn't doing any good whatsoever by reviewing it, despite what he thinks."

This is befuddling. Jason reviewing and writing has gotten him to where he is. His readership appreciates the thorough approach. Being judicious about what media he participates with is absolutely the right strategy toward protecting his voice.

Mike

2/20/2015 05:31:40 am

Walt, I think the issue some people have with the shows lying on air is that they are presenting themselves as telling the truth. And it's not just that the network is called "History" but that they, in general, present themselves as a factual, educational, network.

The deliberate spreading of misinformation is not something that should be supported, and it is made worse when it's done by a network that (at one time) had credibility for being focused on education.

People frequently comment that the AA shows are about entertainment and not meant to be taken seriously, while I have no idea what the intention is of the producers, clearly many people do take them very seriously, and this does measurable harm.

Rlewis

2/20/2015 01:57:04 am

Yes, I think we should encourage people to smoke. That way other people will see how bad it is for them.

2/20/2015 05:29:50 am

I SHALL DOX YOU ALL!!! :D

(Also, Minod, once you learn to read good, you'll see that I didn't tell anyone to kill themselves. So "technically" it certainly is not indistinguishable from what I didn't say.)

2/20/2015 05:35:01 am

The above comment is a reply to a post that has been deleted.

RLewis

2/19/2015 07:33:31 am

Did you give the secret M hand single as a shout out to SW?

Richard Neimeyer

2/19/2015 07:52:20 am

I can only say for now I love that photo of Sabina and that stange looking skull. It looks like a model rather than a real skull. Something out of Star Trek or Stargate?

Jason Colavito link

2/19/2015 07:58:19 am

It's her mockup of a Grey alien skull that she discusses in the article.

2/20/2015 11:05:06 am

Yeah, I really have to read the articles first then comment.

2/19/2015 08:30:50 am

Are these people "expert consultants"? I thought they just gave lectures on board the cruise. But hey, Mary Lefkowitz, at least, deserves all the paid vacations she wants as reward for standing up to Afrocentrist pseudohistory.

On the other hand, Nina Tumarkin's scholarly expertise has nothing to do with any of this. Also, based on what I've read of her work she's not particularly intelligent. On the other hand, she happens to be married to Harvey Cox, who happens to hold an endowed chair at Harvard School of Divinity and who also happens to be lecturing on board this cruise. Even though his work has as little to do with any of this as his wife's.

(According to their brochure, Tumarkin and Cox "have lectured on numerous cruises and travel/study seminars on various rivers, canals, and inland waterways from the Aegean Sea and the Corinth Canal and beyond." LOL)

The last lecturer is the head of Classics at Yale, but I don't know his work at all.

spookyparadigm

2/19/2015 09:28:35 am

I was going to comment on Dr. Magliocco's attitude towards scholarship, but as I don't work for a tv production company, there isn't much point, is there?

2/19/2015 09:46:03 am

I'd like to hear it, actually. Besides, it's not like she says she *only* likes TV producers :)

2/19/2015 01:28:48 pm

The above more or less is my comment.

2/19/2015 01:45:04 pm

Good thing you're not a producer, then. Because I doubt Dr. Magliocco would want to work with you :)

2/19/2015 01:53:54 pm

To be fair, I know her book at least a little (I think I used to own it), and I'm not casting aspersions on her actual scholarship.

But all of her scholarship reaches a small percentage of the audience (and a very interested audience) that Ancient Aliens does. If she knows that her words and views are constantly misrepresented ... then what laudable motivations are left? The show and its participants paint academic study in general as bad, don't pass on any good information but instead lots of bad information, and repeatedly disrespects her work and words.

Maybe this is a sub-field issue, but I find it problematic to continue helping people, knowing in advance that they will misrepresent you, who damage the larger field of anthropology's efforts.

Reading this interview, like many of her generation of anthropologists she is fixated on reflexivity. Fine. I actually agree with some of what she says there, though not all of it, and not full-throatedly

http://ethandoylewhite.blogspot.com/2014/06/an-interview-with-dr-sabina-magliocco.html

Further, I'm not as much the hardliner on "alternative archaeologies" as some people who discuss this stuff are. At the same time, if you're not going to respect the evidence, then what's the point of being in the academy (other than to trade on the declining social capital of the Professor title). Why not just go full Ancient Aliens and make up stories about Reptilian Deros?

There is an argument for opening up academic and archaeological interpretations. Ancient Aliens is not that argument, and is in fact good evidence against that argument.

Which leaves the "at least some good info is getting out if I participate" idea. Which I don't buy for a second. It might in a "two sides of the story" model of shitty journalism, but we're not even hitting that level here, and she openly admits it.

2/19/2015 02:04:05 pm

"like many of her generation of anthropologists she is fixated on reflexivity."

You mean this stuff:

"the very act of studying something forces us to distance ourselves from it, to be reflexive about our participation in it, and thus changes our relationship with it. There is really no such thing as a “native ethnographer.” Along the same vein, anthropological notions of “going native” are based on old-fashioned ideas that served to separate Western anthropologists from the colonized peoples they studied. They also assume that identity is fixed and unchanging. We now understand the fluid, evolving, and contextual nature of identity, such that who we are and how we choose to identify depends on many different factors, including whom we are with. That means that either-or constructions of identity are inaccurate and unhelpful."

Leaving aside my many theoretical reservations about this kind of talk, the context of her interview I kept saying to myself "So what?". (Even the interviewer kinda hints parenthetically at it being something of a non sequitur.)

2/20/2015 01:56:09 am

Well, that's the thing. You see this a lot with some anthropological and even archaeological responses to pseudoarchaeology. Theoretical arguments, some that now seem old hat (the statement you quote would at one point have been quite controversial, but not for some time) others that are quite vibrant (multivocality in interpretation, aka why are all the interpretations of the past made by outsiders who are a small elite within their own society) get misapplied in the case of pseudoarchaeology. Go check out, for example, Cornelius Holtorf. I like his book Archaeology is a Brand!, but in other writings he somewhat gleefully challenges the idea that archaeology should be challenging stuff like von Daniken. He argues instead that acting like such is too close to being a crusader attacking heretics (he uses those terms, find an article by him in World Archaeology from 2005), and that all of the stuff Jason covers is within the spectrum of archaeology.

I don't entirely disagree. I think it is "within archaeology" in several senses, but not because it is epistemologically worthwhile. Or to paraphrase Ken Feder and Garret Fagan when they responded to Holtorf's article in their own in the same volume "Have you met these people?"

So you get some scholars who for various reasons don't like positivism, the history of archaeology or the broader sociopolitical framework that allows archaeology in the sense we understand it to exist (aka Modernity), or more specific critiques of the field or of science more broadly. They end up finding something mildly attractive in other critiques of the field (or alternatively, if the mean archaeologists hate this thing so much, it must somehow be interesting). It's akin to some of the early fans of Charles Fort, authors and intellectuals who liked that he was playing court jester to science in an age of scientific triumphalism and scientism. Perhaps he was, but the only real effect Fort had was to empower the believers he also didn't like very much, using less than intellectually honest anomaly hunting in problematic sources (like 19th century newspapers).

2/20/2015 07:27:45 am

My reply is below.

2/19/2015 09:55:29 am

I'd mark in a reminder for the show right now, but my on-screen guide is only showing me the schedule up to the 1st. I'll do so as soon possible.

Only Me

2/19/2015 01:18:02 pm

This may be the only episode of Codes and Conspiracies I'll watch! I hope they don't mangle your interview, but, we'll see.

Oh, and keep doing what you're doing. If you see no reason to stop, then ignore the nihilistic attitude that sometimes finds its way to this blog.

2/19/2015 01:45:46 pm

"nihilistic attitude that sometimes finds its way to this blog"

Huh?

2/19/2015 01:55:55 pm

Nothing matters, it's just a tv show/idea/thing. Nothing matters in the end. It.just.doesn't.matter. :)

2/19/2015 02:04:52 pm

Oh, you mean Walt? Gotcha. ;)

2/19/2015 03:32:38 pm

Hey I started off good suggesting Jason shouldn't turn down interviews no matter how bizarre the topic because he doesn't know how many people will ultimately be helped by that appearance.

It's EP's fault I had to explain how big of a joke I think anyone involved in the subject of ancient aliens is.

2/19/2015 03:42:47 pm

The joke. On you it is.

2/19/2015 04:04:01 pm

I just can't believe you haven't figured out who I am yet, EP. tsk tsk. The joke is most certainly not on me.

2/19/2015 04:12:46 pm

If this is some kind of weird sex fetish game you're playing, then I'll have you know, good Sir, that I'm a Christian youth prayer group leader, and I've not had these urges for over two months thanks to the prayers of everyone at the deprogramming camp.

2/20/2015 05:30:33 am

If any of them ever had you for a patient, that would explain quite a few things...

2/20/2015 05:31:33 am

(The above comment is in response to something that has since been deleted.)

2/19/2015 08:46:52 pm

Let me see if I understand you, Walt.

You tell Jason to go for interviews discussing woo topics on TV shows (at best, a 50/50 chance any single individual will watch), and that will help spread the truth. This is good.

However, Jason's articles and episode reviews covering the same woo topics on his own blog, which will be available for years afterward to anyone researching such topics, is a waste of time and resources. This is bad.

Your logic is severely flawed. This blog has been around for five years now, and if you honestly think it's a waste of time, why do you bother to visit? Just look at the post for Scott Wolter's alleged honorary masters degree. It's *still* receiving heavy traffic from folks who are trying to find out if Scott is all he claims to be, two years later. Are you really going to tell me Jason would have had as much impact with that news if he had appeared on a TV show that may not even be on the air today? How could he share his research with the same effectiveness on an edited TV show, as opposed to here? Would the viewing audience be able to check his sources, which are made available in his posts? You might want to rethink your position.

Bob Jase

2/20/2015 04:02:27 am

I look forward to the show. Myth Hunters is pretty good and started out skeptical but has been drifting towards woo & endorsement of Christian myth asa history - expect its due to pushback from the conservatives out there who reject reality.

Joe Scales

2/20/2015 04:19:33 am

Ancient Aliens has always taken plausible and generic commentary from academics and surrounded it with that from the resident lunatics to make it appear as if they were all on the same boat. Quite simply put, I suppose the true academics do it for the money and exposure; hoping those with a discerning eye realize what they're not saying.

2/21/2015 05:27:51 am

It may well be for that, though they also may think that their statements will not be taken out of context (at least if they are new to the show). It's good for Ancient Aliens cause they can have the occasional actual scientist with a real title and education, rather than all their speakers have "Wrote some book about woo" under their name.

If somebody has continued to go back, even if they were the dissenting opinion I could see it about trying to educate. If you watch the early episodes of Ancient Aliens they really do have the ocassional expert saying something "real" about how this is all extremely unlikely or impossible (something the theorists immediately disagree with of course) but at least they got to make real, presumably un-twisted statements.

However over time they have on several occasions edited the statements to take them out of context. This is the point when the experts who are speaking have become part of the problem, and if they are aware that this is going on the responsible thing to do is not to keep going back.

2/21/2015 01:17:21 pm

"However over time they have on several occasions edited the statements to take them out of context. This is the point when the experts who are speaking have become part of the problem, and if they are aware that this is going on the responsible thing to do is not to keep going back."

Narcissism certainly comes into play. That and gaining television credits for future appearances on other shows. My uncle used to grouse all the time about "experts" appearing on documentaries, speaking of things within his own areas of expertise; and this was many years ago when you still could find actual documentaries on television. Rarely are they chosen for what they actually know, or their true standing in the academic community. It's how they appear for the medium. That their principles might not measure up to expectations shouldn't come as a surprise.

2/20/2015 07:24:48 am

@ spookyparadigm

"the statement you quote would at one point have been quite controversial, but not for some time"

To be clear, I think the statement I quoted contains several claims that *should* be controversial (at best).

"the very act of studying something forces us to distance ourselves from it, to be reflexive about our participation in it, and thus changes our relationship with it."

This is such a gross over-simplification that I don't even know what she's really trying to say, so I can't tell whether the thing she is trying to say really makes any sense. It wouldn't "force us to distance ourselves" if we're not already relatively close to it, for example (whatever "close" means here). I have no idea what "reflexive" means in this sentence, like, grammatically. And why all this *must* change our relationship, even if it often does, is unclear to me.

I think it's important to ask ourselves which to which domains of inquiry these stricture apply. Surely there is nothing wrong with psychologists separating themselves from their study subjects. Indeed, it's typically a problem if they don't. Why isn't anthropology like psychology, at least sometimes?

(Also, I insist that we lose something of value when we refuse to acknowledge that, say, magic doesn't work and ghosts don't exist. One of the most important things we may hope to learn from the human sciences, beyond just particular empirical knowledge, is insight into what determines whether people form true or false beliefs about a given matter.)

"There is really no such thing as a “native ethnographer.”"

"anthropological notions of “going native” are based on old-fashioned ideas that served to separate Western anthropologists from the colonized peoples they studied."

"They also assume that identity is fixed and unchanging."

No, they don't.

"We now understand the fluid, evolving, and contextual nature of identity"

Not really. I mean, we have fortunately moved away from some gross generalizations of the past. However, we often replace them with other generalizations, which may indicate moral progress but which are just as intellectually deficient. Moreover, I think it's too early to speak of "understanding" when most people who claim it struggle to express coherently what it is that they mean.

such that who we are and how we choose to identify depends on many different factors, including whom we are with.

"That means that either-or constructions of identity are inaccurate and unhelpful."

It doesn't mean that (in the sense that it doesn't imply that). And it's just unlear what she's saying here, anyway. Inaccurate in what ways? Compared to what alternatives? Unhelpful for what purposes?

"multivocality in interpretation, aka why are all the interpretations of the past made by outsiders who are a small elite within their own society"

It sounds suspiciously like "methodological pluralism", etc. - a good idea in principle, but in reality a code-word for lack of scholarly and intellectual standards (and hence rigor).

"Go check out, for example, Cornelius Holtorf."

We've discussed Holtorf a while back, as I recall, though not, perhaps in as much detail as we could have.

"It's akin to some of the early fans of Charles Fort, authors and intellectuals who liked that he was playing court jester to science in an age of scientific triumphalism and scientism. Perhaps he was, but the only real effect Fort had was to empower the believers he also didn't like very much, using less than intellectually honest anomaly hunting in problematic sources (like 19th century newspapers)."

This is actually a running theme with a lot of the more intellectually interesting shit-disturbers of the last 200 years. Eliphas Levi and Friedrich Nietzsche come to mind. There is a price you pay for explicitly positioning yourself as an opponent of the intellectual establishment. You end up grist for the mill of people who are less intelligent or interested in honest inquiry than the people whose culture you oppose.

2/20/2015 07:27:23 am

Oops, some bits are missing...

"There is really no such thing as a “native ethnographer.”"

This is just false, for any reasonable construals of "native" and "ethnographer".

"anthropological notions of “going native” are based on old-fashioned ideas that served to separate Western anthropologists from the colonized peoples they studied."

I don't know what she's trying to say, but sounds like what she ends up saying is false.

2/20/2015 12:19:46 pm

I'm not going to defend Magliocco's arguments because yeah, they're kind of warmed over, which I think makes sense in the context of the interview. I will respond that

"It sounds suspiciously like "methodological pluralism", etc. - a good idea in principle, but in reality a code-word for lack of scholarly and intellectual standards (and hence rigor)."

Yes, I agree. In principle, we should be multivocal. But then yes, it does run into problems. Not so much of rigor, that can be done, but lack of concern for rigor once you get outside of attempts at same. Like you say, open that door up, and you're going to become the most favoritest subject ever for cranks and axe-grinders.

2/20/2015 12:36:57 pm

And once you combine it with something like "appropriation of voice", then abandon all hope ye who enter here...

intelligentheating

2/21/2015 02:05:31 pm

"Caucasus Mountains for BBC Radio Three"

Jason for those of us in the US we may get lucky and we able to hear it at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3

Unlike the TV iPlayer material I believe a lot of the Radio programs are not geo-restricted.