
Kristin Romey is an anthropologist, explorer, former executive editor of Archeology Magazine and, most prestigiously, Asylum's scientific adviser.
Like we've said before, taking potshots at the scientific inaccuracies of Hollywood blockbusters that attempt to incorporate real history is as easy as poking fun at the ShamWow guy. But there are some truly scary realities in "Angels & Demons," the sequel to "The Da Vinci Code." And, of course, some scarily obvious falsehoods.
Antimatter!
Early on in the movie a potentially catastrophic vial of antimatter is stolen from CERN setting the plot in motion. Antimatter sounds like a fantasy sci-fi movie product, but it has been created -- at the cost of about $1,772 trillion per ounce. Why? Because it takes enormous energy to create in particle accelerators like CERN. (Remember CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research. They've got the huge underground particle accelerator that was supposed to create a black hole and swallow the earth last fall, until an accident took everything offline. Cross your fingers for this fall, when they start the accelerator up again.)
The only reassuring news about antimatter besides its prohibitive cost? The fact that, at this point, there's no way to store it, much less broadcast it on the Internet.
After the jump, learn the truth about the Vatican's leadership and the badass-itude of the Swiss Guard.
The Vatican LeadershipOh Vatican, oh Vatican, who's the most murderous of them all? Yep, probably because of the lousy press from the Catholic Church that followed "The Da Vinci Code," this film played nice with Catholicism's major domos. But in real life, popes and cardinals haven't been innocent when it comes to murder, bribery, rape, incest, etc. Around the time that so many of the fantastic churches in the film were built, for instance, there was Pope Alexander VI (d. 1503). Known as the "STD Pope," Alex allegedly committed his first murder at 12, slept with his daughter, and died drinking poison intended for a potential cardinal.
The Illuminati
OK, here's the problem with the secret society chronology in this movie: most of the groups we're familiar with today, like the Freemasons and the Illuminati, were founded during the Age of Enlightenment, which began in the 1700s. In fact, the Illuminati were founded in 1776 -- a good 100-150 years after the characters (Galileo, Bernini) mentioned in "Angels & Demons" existed. (By the way, the original Illuminati preferred to call themselves the "Perfectibilists," and "The Order of the Bees," neither of which is nearly as sexy or intimidating.)
Other, earlier "secret societies" known to pose a threat to the Church, like the Knights Templar, were ruthlessly stamped out by popes in the 1300s. So poor A&D author Dan Brown was essentially left with a secret society "dead zone" from 1400 to 1700 -- the time of Galileo.
The Swiss GuardLet's talk about how badass the Swiss Guard is. Would you mess with a Chechen, a Colombian, or an Afghani? Multiply that by 10 and we have the Swiss. Crazy-ass, take-no-hostages mountain people -- these are the men who have ruthlessly guarded the Vatican for 500 years. And those nasty-looking halberds they carry? Renowned since the 16th century for efficiently piercing human skulls. They also carry assault rifles. So don't make fun of their striped pajamas and funny hats the next time you find yourself in Rome.
Symbology
... is a load of crap. I'd love to teach it at Harvard too, but what our esteemed professor Dr. Robert Langdon does is actually some weird combo of western art history and anthropology.
Why is it impossible to teach "symbology"? Because those two crossed keys that mean "Vatican" in the West may mean something entirely different in say, Vietnam. And the whole elements-of-the-earth spiel that works for Langdon in Rome may mean nothing in the Peruvian desert. To be a symbologist, he'd have to have in-depth knowledge of all of the world's cultures in order to properly interpret symbols, which is impossible unless you're Stephen Hawking. Our dear Harvard professor doesn't even know Italian, for Pete's sake.





























Comments:
Add a comment
Monday 18 May
By Anton
The only thing less accurate then the movie is this article. The Knights Templar were never a secret society. They were founded by the church to protect Jerusalem i.e. Knights of the Temple of Solomon. The existence of the Illuminati has never been proven or significantly linked to any existing society. Most scholars suppose their creation was during the Dark Ages as an attempt to preserve knowledge.
Reply
Tuesday 19 May
By Will
The Knights were VERY secretive, and were most definitely considered a secret society, one reason they were ordered to be killed. An order which just happened to be given the night before it was to take place, and considering the well-connectedness of the Knights, meant that about only one fifth of the Knights in France (the main locale) were actually executed.
Which means the Order could still exist today.
Well, at the very least, I agree with you that this article is grossly mis-researched, if researched at all.
Saturday 16 May
By pope curious the inquisitive
Does Stephen Hawking know Italian?
Reply
Saturday 16 May
By garth
Good read, basically, but CERN won't destroy the world. Honest. Don't believe me, believe science.
Reply
Saturday 16 May
By noah
why 'believe' in science? any belief requires some level of faith which no different from faith? which is no different form a religion. Why do we have to take science as a modern day gospel or something. Eugenics used to be taught in science classrooms once. Einstein wrote a paper in 1937 where he mathematically proved that its impossible for blackholes to exist. today i read a news on modern day lemur being the ancestor of humans. neuton's laws don't hold most of the real world scenario. halking releases 'discoveries' one day, apologises for his idiocy the next. In fact in physicist community he's known more for his wheelchair then his contribution to science.
Saturday 16 May
By Jason
@Noah:
That's why religious folk don't fare well in science; they think that belief is a requisite to faith. Science is only a belief system based on facts. Einstein has been proven wrong; he's not some kind of saint of the science world and neither is Newton. They were making their conclusions based on observable evidence which, in their time, was relatively (no pun intended, but you won't get it anyways) limited. Today, thanks to Newton and Einstein, we are able to make more precise measurements. I could go on and on and tear your naive comments apart but you wouldn't understand anyways. Instead of making assumptions based on your limited knowledge of the world, go learn quantum physics and (since you brought it up) an evolutionary biology text. Until then, stay off the internet. It's for adults only.
Sunday 17 May
By noah
@jason. haha you got a bit emotional there bud. Hope you can hear yourself talk.
aaanyway, Garth said (and he was honest too) "but CERN won't destroy the world. Honest. Don't believe me, believe science". I didn't think i had to come back and be explicit but here goes. My point was what does mere 'Believing in Science' accmplish? it didn't save Challenger spacecraft from exploding midair, it didn't contain the Chernobyl explosion etc etc etc. What is 'Science' today is an utter nonsense tomorrow. So don't get a boner everytime someone tags something as science.
Mountains and mountains of theories on moles of evidence...
Tuesday 26 May
By Marc
He didn't say "believe IN science" he said "believe science" as in "don't take my word for it, trust this mountain of empirical evidence".
It's fun when people try to twist words or phrases to meet their agendas.
Tuesday 26 May
By noah
@Marc
I apologies for that overlook. However, my argument still holds, which is: A fact (any fact scientific, historical etc) is a fact is a fact. Its immutable; if its mutable, it may be a truth for the time being or something else. So, Do Not use words like 'believe' in referring to a scientific fact or in a scientific context period. It is or it is not. Period. Either use different word or coin new word or get your science straight.
P.S. What agenda? I'm not advocating for any devious.
Saturday 16 May
By nick
Angels and Demon came before Da Vinci Code, so it's not a sequel.
Reply
Saturday 16 May
By Brian
I read this article and I'm glad someone has put in the effort to research these topics. I just think that people need to realize that Dan Brown writes fiction. I see interviews and read articles about people who take these stories to heart then they think the Vatican is plotting against the world. Come on people, absorb these stories for their entertainment value, not their factual value. That is why they are called fiction.
Reply
Saturday 16 May
By Scott
Much like the Bible, and other religious texts. The sooner people realize it, the better off the world will be
Sunday 17 May
By Aaron
Uh yeah who wouldn't believe that the Catholic church is plotting against the world, they did that before , it was called the dark ages, pretty terrible time in our earths history.
They have on numerous occasions tried to systematically murder and destroy every other religion but they're own. Jews, German Paganists, Muslims, Protestants, i mean William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the bible into common language! i think its alright for people to no longer trust the catholic church.
Saturday 16 May
By noah
why 'believe' in science? any belief requires some level of faith which no different from religion. Why do we have to take science as a modern day gospel or something. Eugenics used to be taught in science classrooms once. Einstein wrote a paper in 1937 where he mathematically proved that its impossible for blackholes to exist. today i read a news on modern day lemur being the ancestor of humans. neuton's laws don't hold most of the real world scenario. halking releases 'discoveries' one day, apologises for his idiocy the next. In fact in physicist community he's known more for his wheelchair then his contribution to science.
Reply
Saturday 16 May
By Jan
@Brian: that'll be great... except for the fact that Dan Brown always wrote (paraphrased) 'any depicted here is accurate. The did exist' before each book. So it's not really surprising if people chose to think that everything stated in the book is cold, hard facts obtained from extensive research. Most people just arent skeptical enough.
Reply
Sunday 17 May
By TJ
About the comment: why 'believe' in science? any belief requires some level of faith which no different from faith? which is no different form a religion
This is B*llshit I bet Penn and Tell would agree with me. What has faiths given us apart from war , war, death, more death and a book that is sick as hell!!! Make my daughter a sex slave for the god in our mind, stone anyone who does not agree, listen to a talking snake!!! What the hell. Now what has Science given us, apart from some crulty to animals for the sake of medication and drugs so we dont all die from things like the swine flu. The very thing your using now, a computer is built using the great minds of scince. If not for evolution we would not have understood such changes in bacteria that make use sick or ill like the bird flu. ahahahah
Reply
Sunday 17 May
By Eugene
Except of course that science IS a belief system. It requires the acceptance of the assumption that all can, at least in theory be explained by the mechanism of empiric investigation and that our senses can actually perceive external reality accurately. Neither of those two assumptions can actually be proven. Hence, whether science is good at providing repeatable results or not, it is still a belief system.
Reply
Monday 18 May
By BBM
I think the book made a very good point: there has to be a certain balance between science and religion. I don't understand how people can completely dismiss one or the other. Religion is not just taking a God and only listening to his/her "words of wisdom". Religion is a belief, a way of life, an emotional state of mind. Having a religion gives you a sense of self, contentment, and realization. Science on the other hand takes over every materialistic part of life. Everything you do now is because of the advancements in science. Life and the world is the way it is because of science. Someone earlier made a note that religion causes war. That's only partially true ... religion can cause the differences that lead to war, but its the science that builds nuclear weapons that destroy cities and thousands of families. Both religion and science can lead to negative impacts in society but no society can function without the benefits of both. It's not about religion vs. science, its about finding the right balance.
Reply
Monday 18 May
By Kevin
The Knights Templar were not founded by the Church, it was founded by a group of noblemen who OFFERED to protect those traveling to the holy land. Their base in Jerusalem was on the temple mount, they didnt actually get the name 'knights templar' until this time.
As for all this science vs. religeon nonsense, neither of them make sense. Religeon is based off of just believing in some invisible man. And science is based off of energy which can not be created only transfered, so where the hell did it come from?
Reply
Tuesday 19 May
By Will
Really?
How childish can you be?
Oh, symbology is not real because you would have to know a LOT! Not to mention...you might actually have to be smart! Oh no! I cannot fathom this...no one can possibly do this, because it is not something that I could ever do!
And using the fact that he is not a linguist to back up that claim? Really? I mean, if you are a scientist, does that mean you know how to speak Latin? Because, well, most scientific words ARE Latin. And if one is to know ANYTHING about something, one is REQUIRED to know EVERYTHING!
You are supposed to be a scientific adviser, as well as an archaeologist? Well, I guess you HAVE to know Latin then, after all, both of these fields have to do with it in some way.
/rant
Reply