Too Bad I Don't Believe In Ghosts

I received a call from a writer (producer?) at the Travel Channel today. He wanted me to consult on a program (SEE NOTE 1). If I was as credulous or dishonest as much of the human population, I could get myself on TV. That's too high of a price, though.

The program is an episode of Ghost Adventures (or something like that). They are doing an episode on the Execution Rocks Lighthouse. This lighthouse, in the western part of the Long Island Sound, has a mystique related to its name.

There's a tireless story that says the rocks are named for a British practice of chaining revolutionary colonists to the rocks at low tide and allowing the rising tide to claim them (and take them off to Davey Jones' locker, I suppose). This story has also been told as one of local natives killing early colonists this way. In my 2004 book, Long Island's Lighthouses: Past and Present, I quoted two highly respected local historians from about 1800 that showed that the name of the rocks came from their knack for claiming ships bound to or from New York and the Hudson River. Not quite as exciting, right? (SEE NOTE 2)

I suspect that my skeptical historian attitude came through in the phone conversation. Not only is the story of tabloid-quality historicity -- actually, it's pretty safe to say that it is just plain BS -- I also have not yet been persuaded that ghosts exist. I am open to the possibility, as I am with most things, but I have yet to see any serious research that showed anything resembling proof. On the other hand, I have seen lots of respectable research in neuroscience that shows that the brain is not to be trusted too easily; that it plays lots of tricks on us that are easy to demonstrate but tough to control in everyday life.

I was invited to come along for the filming of the episode, but I doubt I will do it. Sure, it'd be nice to take a day off of work, take a boat ride, get on TV again and establish some new contacts in the media, but I value my reputation as a reliable source of information and don't need to be associated with ghost stories. Besides, a guy quoting reliable sources and questioning sensationalist stories is not as marketable to the American-Idolized general public as someone with a "gee whiz, I once heard something go bump in the night and I felt cold and got goose bumps and nearly wet myself" story. I'll probably be listed in the credits and that's about as close as I need to get (unless they want a counter-point, which I doubt).

XXX

NOTE 1: Those of you who don't really know me might be surprised by this, but I have been in a couple of documentaries, been interviewed on TV and radio, consulted on movies, magazine and newspaper articles, books, etc., been the subject of some newspaper articles, blah, blah, blah. It's not as common as it used to be, but every so often I get a message that someone saw me -- or saw me mentioned -- somewhere. Although my wife likes to joke that I am a "media whore," I prefer to remain largely anonymous (what's more anonymous than being a bass player?). If there is a cause that's needs and deserves publicity, I'll step up, but it requires a major gear change for me.

NOTE 2: My experience as a historical researcher is part of the reason I don't read religious scripture as historical texts. Humans are much better at being storytellers than historians. Even very recent events get distorted with sensationalism and various agenda. Expand that over multiple (often anonymous) authors, various translators, and hundreds or thousands of years and you end up with extremely poor resources for history. Think about all the people you know: How many of them are trustworthy historians? Now how many are quite often full of shit? See what I mean?