
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.


























Chili's Waitress Fired Over Facebook Post Insulting 'Stupid Cops'
Billboard Music Awards: Worst Dressed (or Most Daring?) From Past Red Carpets
HSBC Plans 14,000 More Job Cuts
Forbidden America: Cold War-Era Map Shows No-Go Zones For Soviet Tourists
Man Takes Dump In Background Of Instructional Workout Video
Tenants: Stench of Death Makes St. Louis Complex 'Unlivable'
Famous Roadside Attractions
Hands-on with the Samsung Galaxy S 4 running stock Android 4.2
Taylor Swift Q and A: What Does She Splurge on in Las Vegas?
Bill Gates regains title of world's richest person as Microsoft stock hits five-year high







Comments:
Add a comment
Tuesday 19 May
By PwdrBl
@noah
And yet, it was science that made it possible for the space shuttle and nuclear power to be created. Science is not infallible, as any true scientist will be the first to admit. You do what you can with the materials given. Calling scientific discoveries "useless nonsense" is gross generalization. Can you blame a researcher without a microscope for missing microscopic clues? Of course not. And as for berating Einstein and Hawking for rescinding previous their previous ideas: sometimes the smartest thing a person can do is admit when they were wrong. Einstein struggled to fit general relativity into the universe he wanted, not the one we have. The messy mathematics and physics of black holes was an affront to his idea of an orderly, beautiful order. They were rejected bases on aesthetical and personal reasons. He was only human, and thus made human mistakes. Hawking is the same: working as best he can with what he has. An idea or theory unwilling to adapt to facts is one that was never true or appropriate in the first place. So before you knock science, remember that at the heart it is a humble and earnest quest for truth, using all the tools that are possible at any given moment.
P.S. -- Science also made computers possible.
Reply
Saturday 23 May
By noah
Understood. So, when a parent's basement dwelling internet guy like Garth say stuff like "but CERN won't destroy the world. Honest. Don't believe me, believe science." aside from Hawkin's radiation being set in stone, and scientists' having the best of intentions in their hearts, should we just see things with a healthy pinch of skepticism? Hey big bang or membrane collision itself are theoretical which have lot of problems. So, which part of this 'CERN science' do we 'Believe in' i.e. have faith (as in a religion) in?
P.S. Science didn't give us computers!! You must be out of your loving mind, girl. I was going to say 'don't get a hardon everytime someone tags something as a science' but heck ;)
Sunday 31 May
By Zakk
The problem with her topic on symbology is it also teaches the meanings in other countries too not just America.... so that one was a load shit xD
Reply