IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,6/10
1037
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuIn AMERICA UNEARTHED, forensic geologist Scott Wolter, will try to reveal that the history we all learned in school may not always be the whole story.In AMERICA UNEARTHED, forensic geologist Scott Wolter, will try to reveal that the history we all learned in school may not always be the whole story.In AMERICA UNEARTHED, forensic geologist Scott Wolter, will try to reveal that the history we all learned in school may not always be the whole story.
Folgen durchsuchen
Empfohlene Bewertungen
I am a scientist, with degrees in both geology and biology, with some dabbling in marine chemistry. And I am so saddened by this show. It is just awful.
Sorry annaeyes12, he is no Bretz or Wegener. But his name may be considered as damning to science as Schliemann's for the damage he causes with shoddy work like this. And I am not an "angry, white men who think they know everything tell you it's not a good program". It is not a good program because it is not good science. We live and die by our reputations. Just ask Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. Or more recently Hwang Woo-suk.
I'm not saying that there are no curiosities in the worlds, there are. And I do believe in an open mind, I have to as a scientist. We often begin an inquiry (or even just an enquiry) due to some observed phenomenon. But it takes a long time to "prove" something. Lots of digging, searching, and testing. Then having someone, or many people, retest, to validate our own work. To check us. To try to prove us wrong. THAT is the scientific method... TRYING to prove it wrong. Over and over and over and over. We (scientists) have to be EXTREMELY careful to not get too cozy with our own hypothesis. And we can't throw out random thoughts without confusing some people - look at "Global Warming" renamed as "Climate Change" - too many confused people.
This is on the HISTORY channel, which some people will assume to be reputable. Sounds reputable. (Well, until you read their program lineup.) People will believe this crap. And some of it really is crap. But maybe I am too hard on him. I remember a lot of pseudoscience as I grew up, and I enjoyed it, so maybe it will inspire some kid to be into real science someday... Maybe this should be aired with the kids cartoons? Nah, I am really not too hard on him. We live in a world where we are ignored or outright attacked about our warnings of climate change, derided and attacked about endangered species and pollution, and... wait for it... PROSECUTED FOR NOT PREDICTING EARTHQUAKES! No. I am not kidding. It happened. Italy, last year.
As long as ignorance and fantasy are held up as reality and good, things will keep declining. These pseudoscience shows are harming the real thing, and I don't like it.
Sorry annaeyes12, he is no Bretz or Wegener. But his name may be considered as damning to science as Schliemann's for the damage he causes with shoddy work like this. And I am not an "angry, white men who think they know everything tell you it's not a good program". It is not a good program because it is not good science. We live and die by our reputations. Just ask Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. Or more recently Hwang Woo-suk.
I'm not saying that there are no curiosities in the worlds, there are. And I do believe in an open mind, I have to as a scientist. We often begin an inquiry (or even just an enquiry) due to some observed phenomenon. But it takes a long time to "prove" something. Lots of digging, searching, and testing. Then having someone, or many people, retest, to validate our own work. To check us. To try to prove us wrong. THAT is the scientific method... TRYING to prove it wrong. Over and over and over and over. We (scientists) have to be EXTREMELY careful to not get too cozy with our own hypothesis. And we can't throw out random thoughts without confusing some people - look at "Global Warming" renamed as "Climate Change" - too many confused people.
This is on the HISTORY channel, which some people will assume to be reputable. Sounds reputable. (Well, until you read their program lineup.) People will believe this crap. And some of it really is crap. But maybe I am too hard on him. I remember a lot of pseudoscience as I grew up, and I enjoyed it, so maybe it will inspire some kid to be into real science someday... Maybe this should be aired with the kids cartoons? Nah, I am really not too hard on him. We live in a world where we are ignored or outright attacked about our warnings of climate change, derided and attacked about endangered species and pollution, and... wait for it... PROSECUTED FOR NOT PREDICTING EARTHQUAKES! No. I am not kidding. It happened. Italy, last year.
As long as ignorance and fantasy are held up as reality and good, things will keep declining. These pseudoscience shows are harming the real thing, and I don't like it.
While there are a fair amount of people who watch this show who aren't scientists, and accept conjecture and speculation as fact, I argue that there is a larger percentage of those who watch who are educated and understand that what is presented ISN'T fact, and instead theories. I don't think you're garden variety "e-tard" is going to watch a show about archaeology or archaeoastronomy on the History Channel, so most of the people watching will understand that whatever topic is presented is simply another theory to perhaps answer some of those questions that are still out there.
I don't remember Scott Wolter coming out and saying "This is ALL fact, and that I've discovered the holy grail!" He's simply presenting new theories and ideas, and trying to connect them to already existing thoughts on the various topics. I don't think he thinks he knows it all, or that he is discovering these grand items, and that he will be the next Howard Carter.
What he thinks he is, is someone who has a sincere interest and appreciation for the sciences, and that instead of answering some lingering questions, is asking some new ones. With our understanding of the sciences growing at an almost exponential rate, there are questions we didn't even realize we had until some new discovery has been made, leading us to formulate newer and updated ideas.
So in the end, lay off people. Scott Wolter is doing some amazing work, and deserves the accolades he receives - maybe not for the work he's presenting, but for asking more questions than he answers, and bringing history alive. There are a great many people who are now that just little bit more educated about archaeoastronomy, runes, underwater archaeology, history of DC or a great deal of other things.
I don't remember Scott Wolter coming out and saying "This is ALL fact, and that I've discovered the holy grail!" He's simply presenting new theories and ideas, and trying to connect them to already existing thoughts on the various topics. I don't think he thinks he knows it all, or that he is discovering these grand items, and that he will be the next Howard Carter.
What he thinks he is, is someone who has a sincere interest and appreciation for the sciences, and that instead of answering some lingering questions, is asking some new ones. With our understanding of the sciences growing at an almost exponential rate, there are questions we didn't even realize we had until some new discovery has been made, leading us to formulate newer and updated ideas.
So in the end, lay off people. Scott Wolter is doing some amazing work, and deserves the accolades he receives - maybe not for the work he's presenting, but for asking more questions than he answers, and bringing history alive. There are a great many people who are now that just little bit more educated about archaeoastronomy, runes, underwater archaeology, history of DC or a great deal of other things.
I've watched every episode of America unearthed. After reading some of the reviews posted I feel Scott may be correct when he says if certain discoveries do not fit the current paradigm of main stream beliefs that discovery or theory is dismissed as garbage. What I categorize as fringe science has always interested me. I know for a fact our history is flawed to the point I feel history should be taught as theoretical not fact. Let the student research and form their own opinions. My research leads me to believe Christopher Columbus did not discover America and he does not deserve a holiday. That being said, I believe we do not know everything about this world or this country by any means. So how can anyone dismiss one mans theories on his quest to find the truth? Sure he is pushy and on the arrogant side and he does have an agenda - that aside he does raise some very interesting questions and offers what I feel are some very logical theories of the history of this country. My main concern with this show is he does not ask enough questions. As a retired police detective with 32 years experience I tend to look at most situations with a different eye. As an example, when Scott was in Oklahoma I believe looking at cave drawings of what he believed to be a bull as seen in Egyptian petroglyph's - I was curious as to the history and geography of the cave purported to be from the 2nd or 3rd century. That's nearly two thousand years ago. How is it possible the astoarchology (sp) explained in this cave still be present after all this time? Did the cave weather over the years? I would think the answer would be yes but that question was never addressed. My questions regarding Oak Island in Nova Scotia would be how did ancient people dig the hole that deep with simple digging tools? The water table on that island must be very high and I feel the hole would fill with water after about 6-10 feet. So how was it possible for that hole and the purported booby trap holes dug allowing ocean water to fill the cave at approximately the 200' level( I believe) constructed. Those questions need to be addressed in my opinion. It makes sense to me the knights Templar could have passed on their quest to the masons. Why not, is there proof this did not happen? I don't think so - therefore I do not discard hypothesis from anyone without proof it is wrong. Open your minds to the possible until it becomes probable then open your minds it may be true.
I guess Scott Wolper is trying to hang onto his 15 minutes of fame from examining the Kensington Stone. This show is so ridiculous! But then the History Ch., to me, is becoming ridiculous with its programming...what in the world do Swamp People, Pawn Stars and Ice Road Truckers have to do with History!? Wolper wouldn't know real history or archeology if they jumped up and bit him on the face! It took one show for me to realize, no matter what he found, he could and would put his on spin on it. Doesn't matter if it's truth or not. And, oh no, the conspiratorial government won't let him have access, blah, blah to examine this or that site. They probably thought it was all a joke. And, to me it is! Go back to geology, Wolper, or either go to school and study history and archeology since you obviously know nothing about either.
I give this show a 3 just for some entertainment value, but maybe I should give it something lower for being so misleading. History and archaeology are full of mysteries and conflicting theories, as they should be and all of these should be examined openly. I have the most OPEN of open minds and am willing to belief that civilization is FAR older - by thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, than is currently believed.
That said, I watched the show last night about an alleged "Englishman" being buried in the desert with a runic gravestone and all the furor Wolter created around this. Pure codswallop. I know something about runes, not enough to read the inscription itself, but enough to know that these were probably not Anglo Saxon runes, but Nordic runes, and even if they were Anglo Saxon - Englishmen had stopped using runes in favor of the Latin alphabet by the 12th century (after the Norman conquest. No one would have used these. If someone had gone to all the effort of carving out that inscription (his buddy was carrying a chisel around with him?), it would have been in Latin alphabet (as we use now) in Old English or in Latin (Latin most likely as it was the universal tongue).
And then to go to England to allegedly hunt down this Hurech was ridiculous - there was no evidence tying Peter de Hurech to some alleged body in the American desert. While some Englishmen did use surnames at that time (my own family has an ancient surname in Yorkshire), most people did not and just went - as someone said, by Christian names or nicknames.
The episode presented no proof of any of the allegations and was as realistic as Tolkien's hobbits. It is a shame that the HISTORY channel is presenting this bunk under its auspices and giving the merest conjecture and speculation, the lustre of legitimate archaeology. This is especially bad as so many young people watch these shows and don't know any better. We need to re-learn the value of PROOF.
That said, I watched the show last night about an alleged "Englishman" being buried in the desert with a runic gravestone and all the furor Wolter created around this. Pure codswallop. I know something about runes, not enough to read the inscription itself, but enough to know that these were probably not Anglo Saxon runes, but Nordic runes, and even if they were Anglo Saxon - Englishmen had stopped using runes in favor of the Latin alphabet by the 12th century (after the Norman conquest. No one would have used these. If someone had gone to all the effort of carving out that inscription (his buddy was carrying a chisel around with him?), it would have been in Latin alphabet (as we use now) in Old English or in Latin (Latin most likely as it was the universal tongue).
And then to go to England to allegedly hunt down this Hurech was ridiculous - there was no evidence tying Peter de Hurech to some alleged body in the American desert. While some Englishmen did use surnames at that time (my own family has an ancient surname in Yorkshire), most people did not and just went - as someone said, by Christian names or nicknames.
The episode presented no proof of any of the allegations and was as realistic as Tolkien's hobbits. It is a shame that the HISTORY channel is presenting this bunk under its auspices and giving the merest conjecture and speculation, the lustre of legitimate archaeology. This is especially bad as so many young people watch these shows and don't know any better. We need to re-learn the value of PROOF.
Handlung
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How many seasons does America Unearthed have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Laufzeit1 Stunde
- Farbe
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was America Unearthed (2012) officially released in Canada in English?
Antwort