Scarlett Letters

I spent a good portion of the day on the couch, feeling rather low energy, and so had the TV turned on to something mindless, in this case the TV series "Ancient Aliens." I remember my mother having a copy of "Chariots of the Gods" in the house. The idea (in case you're unfamiliar with it) is that aliens visited Earth thousands of years ago and are responsible for many human technological wonders and advances, including amazing architecture, gargantuan statuary and so on. Erich Van Daniken's basic premise includes the idea that evidence of alien presence in ancient times is all over Mayan bas relief, Egyptian pyramids and so on. The episodes I watched this afternoon credited everything from bible stories to Nikola Tesla's personal brilliance to either the direct influence or the indirect guidance of extraterrestrials.

While all this is entertaining stuff, I find it remarkably limited in its vision. In short, if you believe that ancient aliens are responsible for things like the creation of Rapa Nui's moai, the building of the pyramids, and Tesla's amazing intellect, you discredit humanity entirely, our potential, our vision, our creativity. We are nothing in the grand scheme, worthy or capable of no genius, no inspiration, no vital spark unless it comes from elsewhere.

Now, it's true that Tesla believed in the possibility of life on other planets and even wrote about communicating with the inhabitants of Mars if they in fact exist. So do I, for that matter. But he roundly disagreed with the idea that he himself was anything special or otherworldly, as was hinted at during his lifetime. So to see these TV shows theorizing on that idea is not only kind of silly but in direct contradiction to his own convictions.

Van Daniken appeared in a couple of these episodes, bound and determined to be heard, completely convinced of his premise. He kept saying that his job was to make people think and question conventional approaches to archeology and history. And all I could think was that all of his premises were based on surmise and interpretation, not research, evidence and careful validation. As a result, he gives humanity no credit at all for its accomplishments, its growth and development, its own progress and brilliance. It is, frankly, insulting to the rest of us. (It's actually a rather neo-Republican perspective, as I think about it.)

Personally, I'd rather believe that we are the products of our own evolution and development, that we produced the masterworks of our world. The concrete evidence supports it. I won't say that I don't look forward to the day I can shake hands with extraterrestrials; I do, with great enthusiasm. But I won't give them credit for our accomplishments. Absolutely not.

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I edited books for a Major New York Publisher. And because I'd had a longtime interest in UFOs, alien abduction, and the paranormal in general, I edited a couple of titles on these subjects for said employer. I had a quiet conviction that, while I didn't know what had happened to people who claimed to be alien abductees, something had happened to them, and I was fascinated by the possibilities, as horrific as some of them seemed to be. (And once you've read as many books on this subject as I admit to having read, you realize that these ideas are horrifying.) But nothing can turn a believer into a skeptic so quick as receiving a phone call from an alleged abductee wanting to know where her money is. Or a book proposal that pushes the edge just a little too far. The proposal that ended my career as an editor of the paranormal attempted to relate all of the paranormal phenomena you can think of into one big package, a sort of unified field theory of the weird, if you will. Pyramids were related to crop circles were related to aliens were related to the Kali Yuga World Cycle were related to ghosts, and if A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C and WE'RE ALL DOOMED! I didn't acquire that project, and I never edited another one of these books again.

Now, I should state for the record that I still have an interest in all these subjects. It's hard for me to pass up TV shows about alien abduction, or the occasional episode of UFO Hunters or The Haunted. It's fun stuff to think about, and spooky goodness is always entertaining. For every twenty or thirty crackpots, there are one or two serious researchers (like the well-credentialed Dr. David M. Jacobs, whom I interviewed for a project, who does really interesting research, and who was completely credible--and funny as hell, too) who make pretty convincing arguments on the subject. And I admit that I'm still intrigued by the idea that There's Something Out There. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and, these days, I'm far more interested in the credibility of the evidence than I am in the extraordinariness of the claims.

Which brings me to why I'm posting about all this stuff this morning. On Facebook, an acquaintance whom I know to have some interest in these things posted a link to an article that discusses a video making the rounds in conspiracy circles. The video claims to show President Obama being guarded by a shapeshifting alien secret service agent at a public speaking event. It's all about video artifacting effects, of course, but the narration is hilariously serious, especially the bit about "Illuminati elites being in bed with extraterrestrials." I presume the "Illuminati elites" refers to the president and the assemblage to which he is speaking, specifically, a meeting of AIPAC, also referred to in the video as a "Zionist cabal." What this article and the video it analyzes demonstrates is how a simple misunderstanding of evidence leads to incredible conclusions. In some circles, of course, video can't be argued with; this video may--MAY!--be evidence of government affiliation with extraterrestrial influences. I was never this far into the deep end, ever, and I have difficulty imagining the mindset that would take such stuff seriously.

But if I still worked for that Large New York Publisher, I might see an opportunity for a book about all the ways that evidence can be misconstrued, and all the bogus theories that might emerge as a result.

Apparently the press conference has been held, the video has been shown and one image has been released. See the news story and image here. More from the Denver Post.

For my money, it's as impressive as pictures of ghosts, which is to say that something like this would be easy to fake. I'd need to see the video, and I'd want some other corroborative, contemporary evidence: a second witness, physical evidence in the vicinity of the creature's presence, something of that nature.

For those who suggest that this would be enough to convince a courtroom, I say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It ain't enough. I'll be curious to see whether or not the video will be released as promised.

dthon asks:
Have you ever witnessed your own ghost sighting, experienced a haunting, or was involved in an instance of 'paranormal' phenomena?

( Answer beneath the cut )

Here's my TV blogging for the weekend. There may be more TV blogging after tomorrow night's premiere of Ghost Hunters.

The West Wing: Welcome to Wherever You Are: Sunday night's was a fast-moving episode but pretty superficial, very much a John Wells creation. Even as I watched it, I found myself thinking, "He's trying to be Robert Altman: all the chaos of a campaign, all the overlapping dialogue. The editing, though, is pure Wells: cut-cut-cut." And though there was lots of that overlapping, chaotic dialogue, none of it was the witty, snappy, Hepburn/Tracy-like stuff that the show built its reputation on. It's lost its sense of humor, which is especially sad now when it's so most needed.

And this episode didn't really have a storyline, any kind of real plot. It was mostly connective tissue: what's happening with the campaign, what's happening with Toby. The biggest attraction to the general public was Jon Bon Jovi's appearance. He's certainly pretty and natural in front of a camera, but he wasn't necessary in any way (unless you count, you know, the babysitting). I loved Annabeth's singing, almost certainly post-first-night with Leo. How I would have loved to have seen the scene right before that first night; I loved the chemistry between the two of them. The Toby storyline was good to see, if for no other reason than I've been wondering what's going on there. He's being his own pigheaded, holier-than-thou self. I do wonder if the Attorney General is going to acquiesce to Toby's demand to wait until after the election to make his move. We're on the verge of Leo's impending departure. I've seen stills from the event (thanks to dianora2 for the pointer) and it looks like it's going to be devastating. So I guess my take-away from all this is: I'll be back next week.

Oh, and, um, yeah: that bedroom preview scene. I'll be back for that, too.

Doctor Who: The Unquiet Dead: When I first saw this episode, I didn't think much of it. It didn't feel, to me, as emotionally rich as "The End of the World" or as relevant to the Doctor/Rose relationship as either of the two previous episodes. On another couple of viewings (ah, the joy of DVDs), I found its appeal. It's Rose's first journey backward in time, and it's another chance for the Doctor to show off for her. The Gelf-as-spirit-gas is kind of a neat idea and zombies are always fun. The Doctor's apology for bringing Rose into such danger is a wonderful moment. It's also (as I understand it) sort of classic Doctor Who in its Victorian-age setting. I like the character of Gwyneth and I dug Charles Dickens as a character in the story. I'm pissed that in broadcast they cut the Doctor's reaction to seeing Rose all dressed up in Victorian clothes. ("Blimey! You look beautiful . . . considering." "Considering what?!" "That you're human.") But we do get our second "bad wolf" mention. That wolf, she sure do get around, don't she though?

I also like that it's a sort of a ghost story and I enjoyed the fact that Dickens expresses a disdain for spiritualism. At first, geek that I am, I wondered about the historicity of the timing of Dickens' attitude. Then I remembered that spiritualism had two waves of real popularity, one after the Civil War that lingered for several decades(Mary Todd Lincoln was a great believer) which would make the timing of this episode work, and one after World War I when so many bereaved sought ways to connect with their lost soldiers (Harry Houdini launched his crusade against spiritualists in 1922). Logically, Dickens having a disdain for spiritualism makes sense then; he was involved in the theater and probably could see through a lot of spiritualism's theatrics. A little research turns up that he did believe in ghosts, but that he was also a member of London's exclusive Ghost Club, which exposed mediums—interesting, since Arthur Conan Doyle, a great proponent of spiritualism, was later a member. Anyway, this whole thread added a dimension to Dickens for me of which I was previously unaware and I enjoyed that hugely. And too, ghosts and Doctor Who: what's not to like? ::grin::

On to Tuesday's chores and stuff . . .