America Unearthed

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.

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 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.

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 have read many historians as well as historical fiction authors (who do loads a research on the time, place and people about which they are writing) who would agree with the show's host, Scott Wolter, that North America was visited by Europeans long before Columbus. I would even go so far as to say that the historical establishment may frown on new theories that contradict prevailing thought, discouraging exploration into new or existing finds with a new viewpoint in mind. Not that long ago two "amateur" archeologists set about looking for a settlement long stated as fact by the establishment as being impossible to have existed in North America. What they found was proof of Vikings living in North America 500 years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the Viking Settlement of L'anse au Meadows. Viking colonization is now the new "fact" that the establishment says can't be disputed.

That being said, this show takes the anti-establishment mantra to a whole new level, inferring that if the establishment is against it, they must be hiding something, and therefore the host's contradictory viewpoint must be true. I would have loved to see a much more thorough (and impartial) synopsis of relevant research in the areas being featured on the show, as well as more hard science to back up the claims being made. I am especially confused by the lack of technical information and hard data coming from the host when delving into his "specialty," forensic geology. I am also disappointed by the lack of background information given on the groups of people being credited with creating much fawned-over artifacts. For instance, a whole lot is known about the Freemasons, if one is willing to look, that could shed a lot of light on the development of our society in its early formation.

Here is the crux of the dilemma. Is the show designed to bring understanding, or is it purely entertainment. I don't think it is really doing either, although I think Wolter would disagree with me. The "me against the establishment" angle gets old pretty fast, and the show is way too fuzzy on hard evidence. History is very interesting, so much so that you don't need to "jazz it up" to make it entertaining. Do good, solid research, and you will have me glued to the set.