I received some bad news yesterday. One of the country’s top literary agents had asked to read my mound builder manuscript, but told me that he couldn’t possibly sell it to publishers because no mainstream publisher would take on a book with a topic like that. Now, I know this is not true since Doubleday is publishing The Secret Token by Andrew Lawler in a few weeks, and that book is an almost mirror image of my own, except on the topic of Roanoke instead of mounds. Though now that I think about it, Lawler does offer some words condemning mainstream historians, so perhaps that is my problem. I am relating history rather than attacking it. Whatever the problem, it is depressing to be told time and again how much educated people love my writing but that it can never be published because the public would never buy it. I haven’t decided what to do with the book. It seems like a waste to let it sit unread, but it is also rather pointless to give it to some small press where it will never be seen. Today, though, I’d like to talk about Robbie Graham’s new article at Mysterious Universe examining a forgotten B-movie from 1980 called Hangar 18. The movie Is a dramatization of a UFO conspiracy theory. In the film, astronauts aboard the space shuttle collide with an unidentified object, which the U.S. government later recovers. The object is a space ship in which dead human-like aliens are found, along with inscriptions in ancient alphabets used on Earth. The conclusion is that ancient aliens founded Earth’s civilizations and were worshiped as gods, and, once the inscriptions are translated, the movie’s scientists learn that they plan to return. They try to destroy all the evidence by blowing up the ship and all witnesses, but the ship turns out to be indestructible. Witnesses hiding in the ship then go public with the news. The movie was one of the first featured on Mystery Science Theater, in 1989, during the its KTMA run. Graham thinks this movie is really important, even though it self-evidently is not. He sees it as important because 1980 was the same year that Charles Berlitz (yes, him again) published the first popular account of the so-called Roswell Incident, and it was the year of the MJ-12 hoax. Graham believes that this is not entirely a coincidence, and he imagines that the movie presaged events in which Ancient Aliens pundit Linda Moulton Howe allegedly participated: Hangar 18’s depiction of human-looking extraterrestrials is particularly interesting, as is the idea that these beings jumpstarted the human race—these very same details were to appear three years later in a “secret” Air Force report shown to UFO writer and journalist Linda Moulton Howe as part of her preparation for a documentary on UFOs. […] Most shocking to Howe was a paragraph that said the extraterrestrials had manipulated DNA in an evolving primate species to create Homo sapiens. Elsewhere in the document it was noted that the ETs had created a being on Earth whose purpose was to teach humans about love and non-violence. That person was, of course, Jesus. Graham actually provides the correct solution to the problem in his article but chooses to ignore it. The production company behind Hangar 18 was Sunn Classic Pictures, which is the same company that produced Alan Landsburg’s and Rod Serling’s string of UFO documentaries in the 1970s that were inspired by Chariots of the Gods, including In Search of Ancient Astronauts and The Outer Space Connection. Hangar 18 was nothing but a dramatization of these films, drawing on their material and recasting it in fictitious form. While Sunn Classic was not the producer of the Golden Globe-nominated 1974 Serling film UFOs: Past, Present and Future, the plot of Hangar 18 is basically cribbed from that one, with added background from Sunn’s back catalog. The film had been released in 1979 and seems to be the motivating factor for Hangar 18. Graham speculates that the movie was actually a propaganda effort by the Mormon church to indoctrinate audiences into the Mormon belief in space aliens from the planet Kolob. Sunn Classic was founded in Utah and run by Mormons, and much of its output involved Biblical material, but this is an odd claim because Mormons have never emphasized space aliens as a key element of their faith, and the ancient astronaut theory’s attribution of New World antiquities to aliens directly contradicts the Book of Mormon’s claims that the Jews built them. Nevertheless, Graham writes: The key question relating to Sunn Classic Pictures (and one that, for now, remains unanswered) is this: was the studio’s alien-themed output simply a reflection of Mormon ideals and beliefs held by the studio’s core writers/producers/directors (as well as an attempt on their part to cash in on the ever-popular subject of UFOs), or, was it a more lofty strategy on the part of Mormon Church itself to subtly educate the public about an aspect of the Mormon faith which, in the century of the UFO, was becoming both increasingly taboo and increasingly relevant (i.e. life on other planets and its possible links to humanity)? I’m going to say no. The first alien documentary they released, In Search of Ancient Astronauts was not even their own. It was a recut version of a European documentary based on Chariots of the Gods to which Sunn had happened to have the rights because it distributed the European version in America in 1970. The subsequent films in Serling’s and Landsburg’s series were similarly adapted from ancient astronaut literature. Serling was Jewish, and the films that were released under Sunn Classic’s banner were actually produced by Landsburg’s Alan Landbsburg Productions.
The only conspiracy involved was the conspiracy to make money exploiting the Chariots of the Gods craze in every way possible. Hangar 18 was a little Close Encounters, a dash of Capricorn One, and a steaming pile of 1970s ancient astronaut documentaries. I don’t think we need to layer on a Mormon conspiracy to explain that.
62 Comments
Hal
5/18/2018 08:55:17 am
You are a self published author already. What’s the problem?
Reply
Smitch
5/18/2018 04:15:16 pm
Do you ever get tired of being a tedious little snot? Do you know how funny it is that Jason is living rent-free in your "brain"? Given the apparent size of that brain, is there room for any other little obsession?
Reply
Hal
5/18/2018 06:53:10 pm
Nope, I’m good. Thanks.
Hal 2
5/18/2018 09:01:45 am
Why would a self-proclaimed “bestselling author” have trouble finding a publisher?
Reply
Graham
5/18/2018 09:06:25 am
I agree with you. Hangar 18 was simply the distillation of everything that had come before it. Sadly it did provide the template for the later iterations of the Roswell Myth, Abductions et al in the same way that The Andromeda Strain provided the inspiration for the Dulce Mountain story.
Reply
5/18/2018 09:40:57 am
I certainly didn't say there were no Mormon references in sci-fi! But there is probably a difference between "inspiration," "allusion," and "propaganda."
Reply
crowfoot
5/21/2018 05:40:37 pm
Why don't you publish it Canada? Canadians as a whole are better educated and less likely to follow crap science. If I were a betting man I would say you would do quite well publishing your books here.
Mary Baker
5/18/2018 09:32:33 am
LDS writers seem to have a knack for sci-fi and fantasy. This, IMHO, is not propaganda. It is more a function of of a theology which is enthusiastic about the possible existence of extraterrestrials. That is deeper within their belief system (Pearl of Great Price), and often denied.
Reply
Jwk
5/18/2018 09:52:13 am
If it’s fear, it’s fear of not selling many. But it isn’t fear. Only a couple hundred copies would sell. Jason will self publish and sell to people here. Maybe 200 copies. Probably less than 200 because most of you won’t buy it.
Reply
Machala
5/18/2018 02:49:36 pm
JWK - You're right. Publishers don't give a damn if the public is "offended" by an author, so long as the public buys the book and the publishing house makes a profit.
DPBROKAW
5/18/2018 03:46:48 pm
Machala - Being seen on TV sure doesn’t hurt. I saw Jason on a show about UFO conspiracies or some other nonsense. It got me curious enough to look Jason up online mistky because I despise these carpet baggers trying to fleece the public with their nonsense. It heartens me whenever I see someone talk sense out of the TV. I’d be interested in reading Jason’s works/books. But unfortunately it’s almost a battle of “them against us”. These UFOLOGISTS are entrenched now, partly due to the fact the genuine geologists, scientists and anybody with an education that knows better refused to contradict those spoutining nonsense. Most thought it wasn’t worth the air to try and talk to theses nutcases. Now there everywhere and they have our children’s interests. I’m grown with grandkids and my eldest grandson (23) is in college. He tells me some of the ideas going around these days and it depresses me. Somewhere along the way we forgot to teach them critical thinking skills.
Joe Scales
5/18/2018 11:03:28 am
"I am relating history rather than attacking it."
Reply
5/18/2018 12:21:48 pm
Many of the best history books were written by non-historians. "Presidential historian" John Meacham has a bachelor's degree and worked as a journalist. "Historian" Barbara Tuchman was proud of the fact that she did not have an advanced degree in history.
Reply
Joe Scales
5/18/2018 02:04:40 pm
The difference there being their subject matter. War and presidents are things people want to read about. Mounds, not so much. It was their subject matter and artistry that worked together to make them popular authors. Not that I was even on you for not having some sort of degree in History. It was more of a suggestion to leave the more mundane for those of whom it might interest. 5/18/2018 03:55:23 pm
While the content is about the mound builders, the actual book itself is directly about the U.S. presidents who were involved in utilizing he myth to justify Indian Removal and the Indian Wars. The book revolves around figures like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and various U.S. leaders in government, science, and religion.
E.P. Grondine
5/19/2018 08:43:09 am
Hi Jason -
Hal
5/18/2018 01:03:07 pm
Joe is right. Since Jason is only partially educated that’s his ticket.
Reply
David Bradbury
5/18/2018 03:19:35 pm
Everybody who has ever lived or ever will live is only partially educated.
Hal
5/18/2018 03:43:35 pm
So why didn’t you make that same comment when Jason used the same term to discredit someone?
David Bradbury
5/18/2018 06:27:21 pm
Because, dearest heart, Jason's use of "partially" referred back to the book title "Bureau of American Ethnology: A Partial History" earlier in the same blog entry, which allowed it to pass as an attempt at humour.
Hal
5/18/2018 06:56:22 pm
Gee, his words, “the partially educated Emmert” is exactly what you quoted! Great example of how you just lie.
David Bradbury
5/18/2018 07:04:30 pm
Which "you"?
DPBROKAW
5/18/2018 02:23:45 pm
Getting a book published is not easy I’m told. I don’t write, but have a friend that did. His first experience with the whole process definitely left him frustrated. He told me that unless you have previously written books/articles, or are famous it’s hard. Also Jason, where did you write that you were a best selling author? I found statements you made that you had written books that had been published, but didn’t catch the “best selling author “ phrase. Maybe I’m wrong. Be nice to be a best selling author I’d imagine!
Reply
Hal
5/18/2018 03:20:56 pm
For years Jason claimed to be a bestselling author here and on Wikipedia. The claim was deleted by the wiki editors. Go to the way back machine on archive dot org to see his claim on this website and click on the Wikipedia history page on him.
Reply
DOBROKAW
5/18/2018 04:00:59 pm
You went to all that trouble because you read somewhere in the past that Jason claimed to be a best selling author?! If Jason wants to give you the time of day and argue with you, but that’s his business. My point is that if you go to Georgia tsoukalos or Hutton Pulitzer web site (or just about anybody in the pseudo-everything community) you will find falsehoods in most of their bios if not all. And I don’t believe for one second that anyone from Wikipedia changed his bio. You might agree with Jason, but he has integrity. Especially if he makes a mistake. He always acknowledges it and makes the appropriate changes. Look that up in Way-Back
Hal
5/18/2018 04:13:37 pm
Total BS. I know who first put up his Wikipedia page. They copied the bio from Jason’s website bio. Read the history on his page. After Wikipedia editors changed his bestselling author claim Jason changed his bio here. That and a dozen other false claims he’s made are on the members forum of AO. He tries to bury this stuff but he exaggerates himself. Publishers know that too.
David Bradbury
5/18/2018 06:42:18 pm
"copied the bio from Jason’s website bio"
David Bradbury
5/18/2018 07:02:53 pm
"That and a dozen other false claims he’s made are on the members forum of AO. "
An Anonymous Nerd
5/18/2018 10:09:10 pm
To say the claim was there for years on the Wikipedia is actually demonstrably wrong.
David Bradbury
5/18/2018 03:26:54 pm
A few years back one of Jason's books was the best seller in Amazon's archaeology category (which is a fairly broad category- compare Graham Hancock's current success in "Archaeology> Methodology & Techniques" with "Fingerprints ..." easily beating titles like "New Perspectives on the Origins of Americanist Archaeology" and "Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology").
Reply
Hal
5/18/2018 03:46:42 pm
Please show us this bestseller claim proof. It’s a false claim made to inflate his stature. It was removed from Wikipedia when the claim was shown to be baseless. 5/18/2018 03:58:31 pm
Yes, David is right. One of my books was in Amazon's "bestseller" list for a few weeks after its release. I used that in my promotional materials and promotional biography while trying to market myself. After the claim became outdated and irrelevant, I removed it. Amazing, though, the way my critics are more concerned about something that was (briefly) true than the fake degrees and fake professorships and fake adventures of the fringe folk.
An Over-Educated Grunt
5/18/2018 04:15:28 pm
Again, assertion is not evidence.
David Bradbury
5/18/2018 06:21:35 pm
Hal, sweetie. 5/18/2018 06:24:17 pm
I removed it from my own webpage. I have never touched Wikipedia, and I don't believe one is even supposed to edit his own page. If someone put that on my Wikipedia page, that is not my fault, nor under my control.
Hal
5/18/2018 06:44:47 pm
You don’t quite get what I’m doing. Jason takes screen shots all the time to prove things. If amazon declared him a bestselling author he’d have a picture of it.
An Anonymous Nerd
5/18/2018 10:48:40 pm
Personally I have to wonder if Jason shouldn't have left it in his official biography. People make demonstrably false claims all the time (case in point the claims about Jason's wikipedia page, as I've demonstrated elsewhere), and this one seems to actually be accurate.
Hal
5/18/2018 04:32:44 pm
Go to page 1 of his wiki history and move forward, liar.
Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
5/18/2018 04:37:46 pm
And again, where is your evidence that it was "removed when shown to be baseless?"
Reply
An Over-Educated Grunt
5/18/2018 04:49:30 pm
Actually, don't bother. Going to the very first edition of his wiki page doesn't show a single mention of the text strings "best" or "sell." Even your one attempt at trying a fact, rather than a simple assertion, is without value. You're just not very good at arguing.
Reply
Hal
5/18/2018 05:50:39 pm
Lies. It’s there. You just have to look. But you prefer to defend your fraud.
Reply
5/18/2018 06:25:50 pm
Again, let me repeat: I don't control Wikipedia and have nothing to do with what appears on it. I control only my own webpage. I removed the reference on my own biography page on my website. I do not add to or edit my Wikipedia page.
Reply
David Bradbury
5/18/2018 06:34:56 pm
I've done a fair amount of Wikipedia editing, and yeah, if Jason was suspected of editing his own Wikipedia page, his account would be blocked. In reality, "Mr X" who created the page including that information in March 2013, was already by that time an experienced editor with contributions in a much wider range of topics than would be associated with Jason.
Reply
Clete
5/18/2018 06:35:52 pm
Hal, I looked up your WikiPedia page. It stated that you are a witless moron and I, for one believe it. Please, if you, like Jason can remove this, then I suggest you get your head out your ass and do so.
Reply
Hal
5/18/2018 07:51:29 pm
Thanks. But my page is very different than that.
orang
5/18/2018 08:11:25 pm
My comments:
Reply
Hal
5/18/2018 08:26:10 pm
Hey! I resemble that remark!!$&?
Reply
Machala
5/18/2018 09:45:38 pm
ORANG,
Reply
Hal
5/18/2018 09:59:36 pm
What does this comment have to do with Mormon propaganda? Quit mixing metaphors. This isn’t rocket surgery.
Clete
5/19/2018 09:24:14 am
What, prey tell, is rocket surgery?
Hal
5/19/2018 04:30:16 pm
Exactly.
Hal
5/19/2018 04:25:37 pm
Jason should go back to calling himself a bestselling author. And he needs a public go fund me page or something like that to fund his new book that’ll cost nothing to issue on amazon. It’d give all the skeptards an opportunity to show their real support. “Dig deep” says the main skeptard.
Reply
Dunior
5/21/2018 11:49:56 am
I'm offended by your use of the word "skeptard." I have worked with handicapped people in the past and this is just a reference to the word "retard." Plus the word is a combination of "skeptic" and "retard." Kind of insensitive to people who aren't like you I would guess. Still malfunctioning. You need an update HAL. While you're at it open the freaking pod bay doors or go home.
Reply
Huh? What?
5/21/2018 08:07:37 pm
"The terms used for this condition are subject to a process called the euphemism treadmill. This means that whatever term is chosen for this condition, it eventually becomes perceived as an insult. The terms mental retardation and mentally retarded were invented in the middle of the 20th century to replace the previous set of terms, which included "imbecile" and "moron" and are now considered offensive. By the end of the 20th century, these terms themselves have come to be widely seen as disparaging, politically incorrect, and in need of replacement."
Dunior
5/22/2018 11:32:19 am
You point out that the term is abusive and insulting yet use it liberally. So what does that say about you? There is something wrong with you bro. Get a lifestyle. Your intentional trolling is mildly entertaining but is growing old and weak. You have not made one good argument and seem to be here to only cause trouble and angst. I do kind of sense that you are about fifteen years old based on your lack of response to valid arguments and ad hominum attacks designed to insult and demean. So. Tell us more about how you believe in the flat earth and get it over with. I bet the aliens did that too!
huh? what?
5/22/2018 01:51:54 pm
I think you're confused.
Kal
5/19/2018 11:43:23 pm
Scientology has the space men in the volcano, Xenu or some other, and the space souls returning in humans, not Mormonism.
Reply
Kal
5/19/2018 11:45:27 pm
Kal was a wikipedia contributor in the middle 20000s, but it sucked, so we stopped.
Reply
Amanda
5/20/2018 04:06:25 pm
Hanger 18. That brings back memories of my teenage years watching rubbish science fiction.
Reply
J.K. Roiling
5/23/2018 06:48:19 am
First, there is a big difference between being "a bestselling author" and having a book be the best-selling new book in a specific category on Amazon for a month or two (that could mean five, ten, or twenty books sold total). I don't think anyone would consider an author who sold five, ten, twenty or even one hundred—or five hundred!—books a "bestselling author." The term simply does not mean the same thing when used in those different contexts, and it is rather duplicitous to take the term from one context (number of books sold in a specific category relative to all other new books sold in that category in the space of a couple of months) and apply it to another (sales of author's book(s) in general), in such a way that someone who simply sold 10 books in two months, where other authors of new books in the same category only sold 1, 3, 6, or 8, is suddenly being trumpeted (or tooting his own horn...) as a "bestselling author." Does this even need spelling out in such a gathering of near-geniuses as this??
Reply
Americanegro
5/23/2018 12:51:46 pm
Surrender, Dorothy!
Reply
Denise
5/23/2018 03:21:52 pm
And thus is the problem with the book industry in general and society in particular. 200 pages a commitment? WOW I guess I'm old, that might last me and hour or two depending on the subject matter. Read "Albion's Seed" (which I think every student of American colonial history should read) with its copious footnotes, then get back to me.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
February 2025
|