aidan-quinn
Avoid this show if you are looking for interesting Historical facts, scientifically tested theory or anything of more substance than children's stories. I would recommend this show if you plan to watch ironically. It seems like somebody watched Jersey Shore and thought 'I could do a history show with this level of substance'It follows in the illustrious vein of shows such as Ancient Aliens or the 'in search of' series. The show is full of self validating speculation and total disregard for the opinions of people who have qualifications the host blatantly does not. One Episode involves some 'Ogham' writing found etched into rock in America, which leads him to Dublin to talk to someone who's studied Ogham extensively. He is physically shown what Ogham looks like, he is told by the expert that the scratches he found would not make sense as Ogham at all and yet for the entire episode continues to refer to the etchings as genuine Ogham created by Irish explorers. If I hear him say 'Archaeo-Astrology' one more time I think my brain will bleed.
hempseeder
I question everything, even the official dogma but I also believe in science and logic. History Channel has been doing a lot of the former with little of the later and this show is no exception. I've only watched the first episode but that was more than enough because it's an area I have some decent knowledge in. There is more cinematic trickery and questions with little evidence and a geologist is heading the search without an understanding of history or archaeology and only asks one archaeologist questions. There is much misinformation. The biggest ones being the main three premises that the government is trying to cover up Mayans being in what is now the United States. First of all there is evidence of trade to parts in the US. It probably wasn't direct but maybe a few wanderers and explorers did some minor trade directly but we know that they Mayans traded heavily with people that traded with people more north of them and them with people north of them, etc (the one archaeologist he talked to could of cleared this up more or might and they cut it). Secondly, the Mayans never died out or disappeared. This is huge! Anyone who gets this basic fact wrong is not to be trusted about anything Mayan. It's also completely disrespectful to those Mayans still alive today. They are persecuted people in some of the areas they live in. A decent amount of their culture and language still survive. It's a big reason we've been able to piece together as much as we have of what we've found in the ruins of their great civilization. Which collapsed but did not disappear. Now some might of wandered off either in the days of overpopulation and in fighting of all the plethora of royals leading up to the collapse or as it was collapsing to get away. How far did they get we don't know. Would you like to know well then contact your representative and tell them we need to direct more money to archaeology in America. Or get your rich friends to contribute. The third issue is the government keeping the place top secret. Anyone can go up there but you can't study it without permits and permissions. This kind of protection is standard and there for good reasons to protect the site for systematic study and to honor any native claims to the area. There is a science to archaeology and it does need to be done right. I want to give people with no archaeological experience a litmus test for anything involved in it: the only way there is a chance of conspiracy is if a team of archaeologists try to go in and then they are prevented for any other reason than a current tribe not giving permission or their findings are marginalized by a good chunk of the established academia. Could a team of an architect and a geologist figured some things out? Definitely, but I saw little actual science and minimal logic even in their fields and they worked from erroneous information. They didn't even bother to understand Archeoastronomy or the Mayans for that matter. Even if they hadn't done this their findings could of only been solidified by actual study of the site because that's what archaeology is, hands on study using the scientific method.
Char Carpenter
I don't want to be overly disparaging about the show because I do think the concept is a good one. I am a PhD student, although in computer science. The scientific principle and research methodology is the same no matter one's major. I am concerned the show strays too far from this principle. The thing is, I get why they stray at all -- I know that PhD research is largely based on other's research -- almost wholly. It is almost impossible to author one's own work outside of already established theories unless one is "well-published and well-known" in their field and fully vetted via years of research based upon the work of others, where one has surreptitiously "inserted" an idea here and there throughout those research papers and had it catch hold as a future topic of research that proves noteworthy. It almost never happens, resulting in theories that are incorrect being carried forward into new research as if they are somehow substantiated and the more that write on these theories, the more substantiated they somehow become. It is like playing a game of telephone, except instead of whispering in someone's ear,each person must write about what each person before them said and then add a little something more of their own before passing it on to the next person. If the beginning statement was not factual, it could be found to all be in vain, and this is the problem I, personally, found with the whole research principle. If one goes up against this paradigm, they run the risk of being ostracized or blacklisted, unable to publish credibly. It's not something most will risk as this can affect whether one receives certain grants, thus funding research, and providing a measure of job security for a time.For this reason, I respect the pretext of the show, in theory. It doesn't follow the rules, and I'm not sure this is bad, however it goes so far to the other side of the spectrum that it calls into question all credibility. Mr. Wolter is a credible geologist who worked at the investigation of the Pentagon after 9/11 and that is respectable, however he seems to have decided he is now on a par with serious researchers who have PhD's and have actually earned their reputations through years of education, hard work, and rigorous research. He has made the entire show into an exercise of proving his OWN theories, and he isn't even fully versed on the predominant research already done, or he refuses to acknowledge it. I watched him in one episode argue with a PhD whose specialization was in that field, which was insulting. I also read his paper on the dubious theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child. The idea that there might be a bloodline of Jesus notwithstanding, the fact that Jesus was purported to have several brothers, and thus have bloodlines that had nothing to do with Jesus marrying or having a child, was largely ignored. Instead, Wolter has insisted the bloodline must be because Jesus married Mary, which is contrary to most all literature compiled on His life for 2000 years. It's one thing to dispute what could be an incorrect ingrained theoretical concept by one theorist and quite another to dispute historical documents from many different authors all corroborating the same thing, especially when many had no affiliation to the other. Theologians must have been apoplectic after watching it. It would be like someone trying to prove Hitler had been a closet Christian who secretly was a kind man benevolent to the Jewish people. To argue against the entirety of the evidence is problematic at best.Lastly, I thought the pretext of the show was to highlight areas of the US where we had pyramids, secret tunnels, strange artifacts, and other interesting items. Instead, I find the show serves primarily as a foundation to Wolter's own private theories, where he can put them forward complete with ready audience who are willing to listen and believe what are largely dubious evidence foundations. It bothers me. After all, what has Mr. Wolter really done to merit having his own personal theoretical sounding board that other, more credible, researchers have not done to a much greater extent? Why are his beliefs so compelling as to warrant the perception that they are rooted in real research? Certainly I can think of several credible researchers who are entertaining that would also respect the science and the work already done by others who had gone there before. Even new theories being presented would be handled better by many already in the field. Instead, we get Wolter, who, with his Bachelor's in geology and purported honorary Master's degree, gets to portray himself as something other than what he is, and do it as if he actually knows what he is doing. It really could have been done much better overall -- and by someone who was more deserving of going outside the boundaries of traditional research to provide a compelling argument for some of the items to be found. Wolter is not a bad guy, and this isn't personal - but my advice for him is to earn his way first and don't go away mad, but do just go away and allow the show to be done by someone who has earned their professional reputation the right way.
chrismariedaniels
This show is some of the most unsupported dreck I've ever had the misfortune to watch. First of all, this is NOT proved history; it is basically one crackpot geologist's theories, completely unsupported by any legitimate scientific evidence. Scott Wolter is NOT an archaeologist, and relies more on conspiracy theories of "what the government doesn't want you to know" than on established field work that produces real artifacts and proof. You never see any interviews with established and renowned academic experts, and my sense is that he couldn't delineate between a real Viking sword and a Clovis point! For a channel which supposedly presents "history," this program, among others (like the Ancient Alien astronaut crowd), is irresponsible presentation of pseudo-history. At least the ancient alien crowd sometimes presents info in a tongue-in-cheek manner, and one can recognize that it's solely "what-if entertainment". This show takes itself so seriously, and Wolter is so desperate to convince us he's an "expert" rather than a rock-hound with no archaeological experience, that I can't even stand to watch his "intro trailers" anymore.
