Ancient Aliens is a ridiculous pack of lies

I've been meaning to write a longer post about the farcical "History" Channel show called Ancient Aliens. For now, though, I'll just post this brief note. I recently watched one of its most-viewed episodes, "Unexplained Structures", and having seen it, I want to make one thing perfectly clear:

Do not believe a single thing the people on that show say. They're lying.

While it's possible that some of them mean well and are just misguided, the overwhelming majority of them are deliberately misrepresenting the truth in order to sell you stuff. The genuine scientists on the show probably aren't lying, but frankly, I question the judgement of anyone who appears on that show and isn't a kook trying to sell you a magic healing stone.

Let's just take a few examples from that particular episode. Firstly, Göbekli Tepe, the prehistoric megalithic site in Turkey. It's a pretty impressive, even revolutionary archeological find, but that doesn't stop Alien Hair Guy and his buddies lying about it. For crying out loud, the Wikipedia page I just linked tells us that even though the show says the opposite, both flint stone-working tools and the quarry the rocks were cut from have been found at the site. So there's no mystery whatsoever to how it was constructed. By people. With tools. No extraterrestrials necessary for assembly.

Much of the rest of the episode is set firmly in woo-land, with the usual wild narrative hopscotch ("if so...") and straight-up nonsense like the vimana dude walking among the Carnac stones and talking about their mystical auras. The bit set in the Americas does contain one of my favorite Ancient Aliens lines ever, when one of the "experts" explains that some of the Inca stonework has been exposed to large amounts of "thermal heat". The best kind, really.

By the way, they seem to mean vitrified stone. In both this and a previous episode, Ancient Aliens seems to treat vitrification as something that happens when an alien shoots a ray gun at a stone block. In reality, it just means the stones were exposed to fire. It may have been done deliberately, although it actually weakens the stone. Now, stone age people might not know that, but surely the aliens would. In my mind, their suggestion that the Inca built using alien rock-melting technology is completely ridiculous. If you have what basically amounts to concrete and want to build a wall, certainly you'd build a mould of the wall and pour in the concrete, as opposed to molding thousands of different-sized stone blocks and fashioning a wall out of them. But never mind that, here's an Inca shaman with a censer, and he says woo.

But it's the already mentioned Carnac stones that bring us to the most fantastically stupid claim in the whole episode: Alien Hair Guy tells us they're one of only three objects on Earth that are visible from space. He lists the Carnac stones, the Nazca lines (a perennial Ancient Aliens favorite) and, of course, the Great Wall of China.

Now, once again, there's a Wikipedia page: Man-made structures visible from space. It will tell you, if you don't know already, that from any altitude where the Great Wall is visible, so are a whole bunch of other things. The same goes for the Nazca lines, and as for Carnac, well, look at them:

The individual stones are really quite small, and if they're that evanescent in an aerial photo, do you really think they're uniquely visible from space? The claim is totally absurd. Then again, that information and the picture are from Wikipedia, and if you're liable to believe Alien Hair Guy, you probably think Wikipedia is a reptilian disinformation operation. Like this blog. Boo!

In fact, I couldn't find any source for the notion that the Carnac stones are visible from space... except Alien Hair Guy. Mostly the claim appears in the exact same "one of only three objects" form he made it in. So he literally made that up. And that's really what this show is about: making stuff up. Specifically, inventing totally implausible claims with no regard for observable reality or even Wikipedia-level research. Since just about everything I've ever fact-checked from that show has turned out to be just lies, I frankly recommend no-one believe a thing that's said on it without double-checking it. Even better, don't watch the damn thing at all. Nothing they've ever presented has any merit, and the joke gets kinda old pretty quick. Real history is much more interesting, exciting and even, at times, mysterious than puerile "lol aliens" TV.

Ancient Aliens does take your mind to another dimension. Unfortunately, it's made up, and it sucks.

This blog on TV

Wow, I missed this. Earlier, I criticized Radley Balko for co-operating with Russia Today here. What I didn't know, and only found out just now, was that while Radley's response to my criticism was, well, underwhelming, Alyona Minkovski decided to address me on a video she published for her show on Russia Today.

It's strange to hear someone talk about my panties on television. What's stranger, however, is that Ms. Minkovski would bother to address my criticism on the air, by name and by showing a shot of my blog, but not actually talk about what it is that I said. In the video, Ms. Minkovski implies that I've said she shouldn't be allowed to criticize her government.

That's absolutely ridiculous. My actual criticism, which you can read from the link in the first paragraph, was directed at Radley Balko. This was the gist of it:

In my view, working with Russia Today, and even more so in letting Russia Today's employees broadcast themselves through his blog, Radley Balko has put a big question mark next to his name and his integrity as a journalist. To me, it's profoundly unethical to blithely co-operate with the propaganda organs of one of the most repressive states in the world and simultaneously cultivate an image of oneself as a libertarian human rights advocate.

Another quote, this time more directly applicable to Ms. Minkovski herself:

Furthermore, I don't believe the people making shows for or otherwise directly working with Russia Today are exactly pursuing an agenda of human rights. Surely if they were concerned with police brutality and human rights, they wouldn't be working for the Russian government. So either they have a very limited definition of human rights that excludes, say, the Russian opposition parties and sexual minorities in Russia, or then they have a different agenda. What's certain is that the channel they're working for is pushing the Russian government's agenda, not a human rights one. And by letting its employees promote themselves and their channel on his blog, Mr. Balko is also taking part in the Russian government's information warfare, to the direct detriment of human rights in Russia.

I don't see how it's possible to read my post as implying that I think Ms. Minkovski shouldn't "dare" criticize her government. What I'm trying to say is that it's more than a little dishonest to criticize the United States for police brutality while working for the Russian government. Surely the two are different things.

When Ms. Minkovski says I should be concerned that US mainstream media isn't reporting on police brutality, I can only say that I am concerned. I've written about SWAT teams and the war on drugs plenty of times on this blog. But what I was trying to say in my previous post is that I'm also concerned that her network isn't reporting on similar stories from Russia. Why is it okay to downplay and ignore police brutality in Russia? For that matter, why is it okay for Russia Today to distort the truth in their country, while it isn't okay for American mainstream media to do the same? That seems like a double standard to me.

Seeing this video was a little bizarre. On the one hand, Ms. Minkovski and, presumably, her producers, felt a need to address my criticisms of her appearing on Mr. Balko's blog. However, they couldn't seem to bring themselves to actually answer my questions, but instead attacked a bizarre strawman. If anything, this would seem to confirm to me that my criticism of her and RT was well-founded. If her reply to a question on journalistic ethics is to distort the question beyond recognition and mock me for asking it, I guess that's all the answer I need.

Not to mention that me and this blog are much more famous than I thought!