The Real Da Vinci Code

I completely forgot about this little gem! For all you sceptical historians out there this one does exactly what it says on the tin and shuts up those bloody idiots you end meeting at parties who go on and on about Catholic conspiracies!

Here's a decent review.

http://www.martialedge.net/forum/political,-social,-and-cultural-dimensions-/9%1011%11-what-the-architects-say/

My reply:

Re:9/11- what the architects say 0 Minutes ago
Hi all,

just popped on because Jamie asked me to have a gander.

To be honest I havent had time to read every post and link, sure its nothing I havent heard before.

I also realize everything I say here will be shot down as it normally is by other people but for what its worth.........

1. The online 9/11 conspiracy movies are just that - fake conspirators wanting to be the next Michael Moore and we all know he speaks the truth don't we

2. Tower collapse. The towers collapsed because the steel supports were superheated by the explosion of the fuel on the airplanes that smashed in to them, which caused the supports to twist and buckle just enough for the towers to collapse.
There is a myth conception flying around that the steel melted, not true, the pools of melted metal were from the airplane not the supports, but the supports were heated enough to buckle them, hence collapse!

Then of course the smart alecs say the water fountains were cut off so that the fire would not be extinguished - LIES!

When the planes smashed in to the buildings they alo broke the water mains leading to the fire extinguishers, hence the sprinklers could not extinguish the flames!

3. Pentagon. Purportedly there was no plane wreckage, not true, there was abundant wreckage.

4. Missing people. A plane full of people kept quiet by men in black, do we really need to go in to details of how credulous that is?

5.Bush was behind the attacks. No offence but Bush couldn't organise a piss up in a bar.

6. Government conspiracy - possibly involving Blair. You gotta be kidding me. You need a lobotomy to believe that one.

7. How does a government silence hundreds of cabin crew, pilots, ground staff, military, civilian workers etc, etc.

It only takes one person to slip up then kaboom!

And Osama admitted to the attacks!

Thankyou for your time,

Regards,

Den.

Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable

Nice one Den.

Talk about shoehorning anything you want into a prediction. Absolutely no specifics ever given. Well, a few dodgy claims given post hock (or after the event).

Hah... Well, it's sells I suppose. People want and need more than going to their dreary 9 to 5 jobs, so they fill the void with nonsense.

It's like having a Big Mac, tastes good for a few minutes, but you soon relaize after looking under the bun, that it's totally crap for you.

And that's all before I even ask about some solid prof....

Quote :

because Jamie asked me to have a gander

Okay, take me down with why don't you

I predict the following answer from the the con-theos. See how close get ;-)

1/ You could say that about anyone. Small voice argument, corporate fear etc. Why dismiss someone just because they are amateurs. This one wasn't, the BBC showed an edited version later etc.
2/ That's what you say, but these architects say something else. Surely both opinions are at least valid. Old creationist last port of call.
3/ That was faked by the Government of course!
4/ Yes we do because "They" want you to think it is ridiculous.
5/ Again "They" want you to think that OR he is just a puppet - the real powers are behind him.
6/ Yes, it has been going on for centuries. It is all coordinated western state control etc.
7/ Money, more corporate fear etc.

Quote :

It only takes one person to slip up then kaboom!

I use that one with conspiracy theorists all the time and they never give a decent answer. Money again, corporate control and "'They' are not stupid" arguments.

Quote :

And Osama admitted to the attacks!

As Lee Harvey Oswald said "Patsy!"

Anyone else want to see how close they can get to the usual refutes.

Guys, I just realized the replies on this thread have nothing to do with the original topic!

Aha! I see the problem now. Here is "The Real Da Vinci Code" link:

http://www.zavvi.co.uk/dvd-12.5+to+14.99-Television-Documentary-The-Real-Da-Vinci-Code/694585/cr33cc.r10.1/p.jsf

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Da-Vinci-Code/dp/B000EDWLUA

Of course he upset a fair few believers

http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/decoded.htm

Interesting that a disgruntled Amazon reviewer titled his comments as "One for the Sceptics"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/product/B000F5S250?showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

One for the sceptics - I wonder if he knows what the word means

Den.

The truth is is IS one for the sceptics. It was a great sceptical expose of The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail and the whole Da Vinci Code pseudohistory craze. However, the reviewer in this case clearly wasn't fond of sceptics.

Jesus hairy christ,

I swear im not going to comment on a history topic here ever again,

I keep getting busted

Stick to what you know Den,stick to what you know............

Regards,

Den.

Don't be silly, Den. You will know far more about history than I do about science! We are both willing to learn and I think it is important that sceptics understand both. My reason for this is that these pretty much represent the two disciplines concerned with the establishment of true facts. They both take sceptical processes, neither deal in absolutes and both are concerned with the use of reliable evidence. History differs in that it does take on a certain degree of anecdotal evidence, but it immediately assesses the bias of this primary source information.

Cheers Jamie,

I was half joking when I said that but I finnd since putting myself 'out there' as a sceptic people expect me to have all the answers and im trying but.........

regards,

Den.

Quote :

sceptic people expect me to have all the answers and im trying but.........

As my stepson says "Only the sith speak in absolutes!" - Something they share with the pseudoscientists, creationists etc. Maybe they are responsible for allowing sound in space!

Actually I used your post as a chance to point out the positions of history and science and why they are the two main methods for establishing facts and debunking fantasy.

Interestingly I just listened to Bill Bryson's 'history of nearly everything'. However even though I read it years back I forgot it was more a science history than anything else.

Not what I was looking for, crash course in world history, but veryengaging and refreshing nonetheless and highly recommended to anyone.

Regards,

Den.

Quote :

Interestingly I just listened to Bill Bryson's 'history of nearly everything'. However even though I read it years back I forgot it was more a science history than anything else.

It is definitely on my must read/probably listen to list. Science and history are very different in that they attract different types of people - science people tend to be more inclined to be interested in mathematics, technologies, economics and other number/figure related fields whereas historians are often attracted to English, sociology, archeology, cultural studies and "letter-related" fields. However, both extensively draw upon each other. Somewhere in science education you will touch upon history i.e. how Darwin developed his theory of evolution and somewhere in history you will touch upon science i.e. the history of medicine. Fossils? Are they science or history? I would definitely say both.

Again, I refer to Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". Although the book is largely science driven, topics like Holocaust Denial fall heavily under the title pseudohistory. Shermer explains how similar science and history methods are.

As an interesting side note, subjects such as mathematics and psychology are not sciences!

Its a misconception many people have, now im struggling with the psychology one because Im going for a Bsc Psychology, but technically the physcists, Biologists and chemists etc will state Psychology is not science.

Strange eh

Regards,

Den.

Quote :

As an interesting side note, subjects such as mathematics and psychology are not sciences!

Just in case there was any doubt - which I am sure there wasn't - I don't think of either subject as a science. Mathematics (perhaps my worst ever subject) I see as being a subject you need at least a basic understanding in order to get to grips with science.

Psychology is a real dodgy one. It is a subject I fascinated by, but I think the closest we get to it being seen as a science is under the heading "Behavioural Science". However, this is not an "exact" or a "hard" science as say physics, chemistry and biology. Rather it is approaching the study of human behaviour by using the methods of science. I say it is dodgy as psychoanalysis also falls under the banner of psychology - and this is a particular subject that gets hit hard by sceptics. Sigmund Freud the founder of the first school of psychoanalysis often gets in the neck for his "theories", although he is also praised for drawing attention to the study of the mind. Let's face it, being sceptics we all have an interest in this particular area. Personally I like Viktor Frankl's school of logotherapy, but I see it more as a school of philosophy and Frankl drew this comparison too.

Forensic science requires that you study fascinating subjects like criminology (my amateur pet subject) and criminal psychology. So although they aren't hard sciences they are at least acknowledged by the scientific community, which, by its nature, is sceptical. Incidentally history is also sceptical.

Jamie,

I certainly had no doubt,

I was just curious at the fact Shermer has a BA in psychology, yet here it's a BSc. Add to that my faith in studying psychology to degree level was knocked by a physcist pointing out it's not a 'proper' science put doubts in me whether I should continue my studies in the subject.

My other lo is Theory of Evolution. I was planning a career as evolutionary psychologist but again, evolutionary Biologists knock this rather heavily!

And I just realised I have gone way off topic and hogged the thread talking about myself

Regards,

Den.

Shermer's expertise in psychology is an important point. I believe psychology is part of being a sceptic, just as criminology is part of being involved with forensic science. If you want to be a scientist full stop, then I would say psychology isn't a subject you should be concerned with. However, a big part of being a sceptic is asking "Why do people believe in this stuff?" That question is not going to be properly addressed by hard sciences alone.


Don't worry about tangenting off, but I would highly recommend the Real Da Vinci Code for a decent example of genuine historical investigation vs con-theo fantasy nonsense.

Must check that out...

Hey Den tangents are good!

Don't get me wrong, I love good historical fiction - which the DVC isn't - and I am all for the preservation of myths and the promotion of interest in historical places. However, to turn what can essentially be traced back to a single 1950s scam into a wild goose tourist trap is beneath contempt. Worse still it distorts people's views on history. Leonardo Da Vinci should be remembered for his genius and artistry not for being part of some fictional conspiracy theory.

Yeah, those "troofers" or scammers, seem to do that with whatever myth they want.

Nostradamus was another great example of imaginative BS.

I think the book gets a lot of ill-deserved recognition. For example, the very clever supernatural historical horror "The Historian" has been unfairly labelled "The Dracula Code". There is a very clear difference here. "The Historian" cleverly meshes fact and fiction in much the same vein as Tom Holland's vampire novels. It has never made any pretentions about being factual. The book isn't perfect on its actual historical data, but the mistakes are understandable and not a completely contrived plot that has led gullible people to go down completely non-existant alleyways in history.

I guess my main gripe with Dan Brown's work is that he has said on at least one occassion that his research for the book was based on fact - which is where "The Real Da Vinci Code" investigation takes its lead. On the positive side, it inspired a thoroughly entertaining and re-watchable documentary. Now if I could only get my sceptical paws on Tony Robinson's Richard III one!

Sweeney Todd,

a historian wrote a book on it as historical fact which is BS as I have the book, £2 off Amazon which clearly shows the story is from the penny dreadfuls,

Regards,

Den.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sweeney-String-Wordsworth-Mystery-Supernatural/dp/1840224835/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225292853&sr=8-12


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sweeney-Todd-Story-Barber-Street/dp/1861059892/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225292981&sr=1-3

Glad you mentioned that one, Den. Like Sawney Bean, there is no historical evidence to support he ever existed and yet many report them as if they were fact. I think I mention the Todd story in my article "Myths, Faction and Pulp Non Fiction":


http://jamieclubb.blogspot.com/2008/02/myths-faction-and-pulp-nonfiction.html

Feel free to use it on the blog!

Other more modern examples of serious myth-making can be found in a lot that has been written on the mafia. The bad history here stems from the "pulp non-fiction" produced in the 1950s. However, as I wrote in my article all of this stuff, including Todd and Bean, has a certain charm to it when looked in a fictional context. The mafia stuff at least does attract future historians, like me, who went on to explore the truth. DVC just seems a lot more corrosive in historial terms, mainly because of the con-theo element.