I wasn’t sure what to expect going into America Unearthed, H2’s new program about the “hidden” history of America airing immediately after Ancient Aliens. The production values on the show are several steps above Ancient Aliens, with almost cinematic cinematography and high-end graphics; but the program relies heavily on obviously reenacted or scripted conversations in which forensic geologist Scott Wolter “investigates” ancient mysteries. Unlike Ancient Aliens, America Unearthed does not provide much by way of description or context since it lacks a narrator, making it very difficult to pinpoint at times exactly what the program is talking about and thus forcing us to simply go along with Wolter, facts be damned.

Wolter, regular readers will remember, is (in)famous for his claims that the Kensington Rune Stone is real evidence of a Viking exploration of Minnesota and that the Bat Creek Stone was a real ancient Hebrew artifact discovered in the United States. Needless to say, his claims hold very little weight, as I discussed before.

The program discusses what it calls the “Track Rock site” in Georgia, a mound site which the program claims is evidence that the Maya came to Georgia. The program asserts that the U.S. federal government prohibits access to the site. At first the show implies through lighting and mood music that this is for conspiratorial reasons, and then Wolter just explicitly says so.

Despite what America Unearthed claims, the Track Rock Gap Archaeological site is open to the public (for free, no less!), and the government offers directions to help you get there and brochures to help you find your way around the site. The only thing prohibited is archaeological excavation without following the formal application process. Since Scott Wolter is no archaeologist and has no interest in conducting real research, this must be the actual reason the “government” blocked him from trampling through the site, if that is what they did at all.

The US Forest Service has a web page (linked above) debunking the claim that the Maya built the mounds and stone walls found at what is properly called the “Track Rock Gap Archaeological Site.” The mounds were constructed by the Creek and Cherokee around 1000 CE, after the Classic Maya had collapsed.

The Creek built mounds like most southeastern tribes during the Mississippian period, so there is no need to postulate Maya influence unless you want all the mounds of the Americas to be Mayan. (Note: The Post-Classic Maya built with stone, not dirt, in the period under discussion.) There is evidence of trade with an influence from Mesoamerica on Mississippian culture, but not the direct movement of large numbers of peoples from Mexico to Georgia, as the show implies. This neatly accounts for similar iconography and the movement of materials between the two cultures. Despite the show’s claim, this is not a “taboo” subject but is widely discussed in archaeological literature. For crying out loud, it was in my college archaeology textbook more than a decade ago!The reason we know that the Maya didn’t personally relocate to Georgia at the end of their civilization is (a) they continued (and continue) to live in Mexico, and (b) no indisputably Maya artifact has ever been found in Georgia. Ocmulgee (Track Rock) was very much part of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex, which is clearly part of a continuum of native cultures that stretched from Mexico to New York. Wolter makes a big deal out of an image of a “Feathered Dancer” found in Georgia and claims it is uniquely related to a Maya image from Chichen Itza. Wolter does not tell you that the feathered dancer is a widespread image found as far afield as the Siouan and Winnebago peoples. The specific image shown in the program, and reproduced below, was found at Etowah, not Ocmulgee.

Picture
"Feathered Dancer" plate found at Etowah.
It uses the common stock of artistic conventions found from Mexico to Minnesota and were diffused across the Americas from at least the time of Poverty Point, the oldest mound-building culture. There is simply no need to postulate the movement of thousands of people when the movement of goods and ideas explains the similarities Wolter found between Mexico and the mound builders of America.

Wolter tries to prove a connection between the Maya and Georgia by creating “Maya blue,” an artistic pigment used in Maya art, with clay from Georgia. (The pigment is also found in other Mesoamerican cultures, like the Aztec, indicating much broader trade than Wolter allows. The Maya, in fact, specifically considered the clay from which the pigment was made a valuable item of trade, a fact known for at least 50 years.) The sample (from a deposit first reported many decades ago) chemically matched that from Chichen Itza under the analysis Wolter had done at a lab, though again details weren't provided to let us judge whether the match excluded all other sources, such as Yucatan deposits. Again, though, trade networks do not require the movement of peoples, only the movement of goods. Amber moved across Europe without people accompanying it, and this clay could very well have followed the same route. Mesoamericans are known to have visited the American southwest for turquoise, and Mississippian artifacts have been found at a Classic Maya site in the Yucatan. Robert Hall, for example, also found clear ritual and mythic diffusion from central Mexico to Mississippian cultures as far away as the Winnebago. That such connections happened is not seriously disputed, though the question of the direction and degree of influence is still debated. 

“There are a whole host of academics who refuse to believe that there were cultures that came to America prior to Columbus,” Wolter states. “And this is bullshit!”

So, congratulations, Scott Wolter: You “proved” a connection that archaeologists have been aware of for ages and you did it while bitching and moaning about how the “establishment” was “suppressing” the very information they are actively investigating and which you used in your own show!

As entertainment, America Unearthed is no Ancient Aliens. Since America Unearthed has to rely heavily on the wooden delivery of Scott Wolter instead of a wide range of pundits and focuses on just a single topic, the show is very, very slow and very repetitive. We have long, lingering shots of Wolter looking plaintively at trees and rocks. We have long, long pauses between sound bytes and repeated shots of nature. The cinematic photography can't mask the paucity of facts and information, or the barely-coherent conspiracy mindset both Wolter and the show's producers irresponsibly promote, a mindset we have previously seen leads to paranoia and violence among some in the audience who believe that television tells the truth.

 

 


Comments

paul h
12/23/2012 11:45am

Will be interesting to see how the show portrays the evidences...and what it omits. What are your thoughts on the Cahokia people ? I've watched the documentary by Kevin Costner entitled "The 500 Nations..The Story of Indian Americans" which is quite good. The Mississipian Cahokia reportedly had a culture which rivaled London or Rome in size in the 1200's and built pyramidal mounds as large as Egyptian or Aztec/Mayan ones, wooden Stonehenge-type astronomical structures, traded on river routes from Canada to Mexico, etc...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dr_Qqja4RY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/march/12/cahokia.htm



.

Reply
12/29/2012 3:30pm

You got it wrong. Behind the scenes has been a whole lot of dirty right-wing politics associated with the Track Rock site. We are not sure why Track Rock became a Republican issue, but it did.

The Track Rock terraces are theoretically open to the public, but access has been blocked by the USFS sawing down over 100 trees over the trail. Also, the USFS vistor's center refuses to tell people where it is. Last spring, after allowing the Travel Channel to film the site, the USFS refused to allow the History Channel or National Geographic Magazine to film the site or even enter the site.

They filmed me for over eight hours. About 98% was left out of the program. Unfortunately, this was the part where I described the research work being done by many Muskogean researchers into the evidence that Mesoamericans and South Americans migrated to the Southeast. It is not "one man's crusade" as some bloggers are saying. It also left out that I studied Mesoamerican Architecture and Urban Planning in Mexico, and have taught that subject at Georgia Tech. None of the archaeologists who have criticized my book have even been in Mexico. They also know diddlysquat about Creek Indian history, genetics or language.

Well, I can't complain though. I merely wrote an article to attract attention to the site from archaeologists. Georgia archaeologists made assholes out of themselves instead. The stink attracted the national media, and I got to be on a national TV show. Life is a box of chocolates.

Reply
Eugene Bridges
02/03/2013 8:35am

Hello My name is Eugene Bridges. My great grandfather Alph Bridges owned approximately 100 acres on Trackrock Gap in the mid 1800's. This land included the petroglyphs that you have made reference to. The property ran from the top of the gap, across to the base of the buzzard roost, down to the terrace walls, which he and his family built. They called the terraces the buzzard roost fields. They grew corn and produce there for many years. My great grandfather also logged all the walnut trees for cross ties. He hauled them to Gainesville, Georgia along with the produce. In 1903, Alph had a son, my grandfather, named Esker Bridges. When he grew up he was given the property and he logged all the acid wood off of it, which they used to make dye. He also hauled this wood to Gainesville, GA by horse and wagon. When my dad, Robert Bridges, was born, his dad Esker turned the property over to his first cousin "Redeye" Barnes, an old moonshiner and logger. Upon payment for the land, once he logged the locust off of it, he sold it to forest service and died owing my grandfather for the property. This is how the forest service owns the property today, even though my grandfather was never paid for the property. I hope this helps you better understand the mystery of the terraces on Track Rock.

Bud Jamison
01/26/2013 4:22am

The show is just plain garbage (both episode 1 AND 2)!

One 'expert' couldn't even pronounce Celt correctly (Kelt, rather than Selt!).

But it is in keeping with so many shows recently, on channels that USED TO BE factual, but are now in it JUST for the money.

<sigh>

Reply
02/05/2013 3:37pm

The earth, definitely, is a time capsule of some sort, 4.5 billion years old, but the clue to peeling apart this mystery of life on Earth is contained in all the rocks, at or below our feet!

Renee
02/16/2013 4:00pm

"Der Kelte" or "die Kelten" as you described originates from the German language and is phonetically spoken as such in those regions. I understand that in proper English it should be pronounced with an "S" as you stated, however some just can't shake off their heritage and pronounce it instead with a "hard k", unlike you.

02/02/2013 10:32am

I've been a professional investigator for 40 years and I can tell you this show is garbage and this guy is full of crap. Especially silly is his backpack which he wears for walking from his vehicle the half block to his "dig," on a farm; his "bush shirt" shirt bears no sign of wear or wrinkle and was clearly just washed using fabric softener. In the recent episode with the "Viking sword," ANYBODY could have seen it was not really old enough and in fact looked like a 19th century military sword used by artillery gunners. This show is not worth watching and just melts the brain, as does ANCIENT ALIENS, which is even sillier. Here's the formula: show interesting real pictures and sites and narrate rationally for 15-20 minutes, then "suppose" something, and then spin off from the supposition as fact, and then rant to confuse and enthrall the low-info audience. Best wishes...I'd rather watch DEXTER re-runs.

Reply
Nick
02/10/2013 11:18pm

You sir are an ass hat. You claim to have been an "investigator" for 40 years but you give no evidence to prove your claim. Here I will be as smart as you. I have been the King of Macedonia for 57.68 years and these shows are interesting because they make you THINK about the what if instead of being a typical douchnozzle scientist and saying "that can't be true because no one has found it yet (insert stuffy, condescending laugh here). Guess what, people once said the earth is round and were treated the same way. Who was right about that again?

Kevin
03/25/2013 1:01am

Jeffrey,

One should always be wary of people who throw their credentials around! Of course you know this, you are an investigator! We have no idea who you are. Your first two sentences are personal attacks, which completely discredits your legitimacy and professionalism. Are you sure he only hiked a block or two, and what would you use to carry your gear in when on an expedition/hike--do you hike?

05/18/2013 1:09pm

I wasted two hours watching this show he doesn't offer any other professional to dispute his claims and he seems obsessed with linking everything to the Holy Grail. I saw the Arizona artifacts show and I am still laughing about the one that someone drew a dinosaur on, he claims it was meant to be a desert lizard but this thing was Barney all the way. History really is reaching here, I won't waste anymore time on it.

Richard
12/23/2012 8:37pm

After watching this show with the family during our holiday vacation I had to inquire further. Before the first commercial break I was already sick of the over-produced feel with "conspiracy-camera angles" lol. More time was spent on creating drama instead of providing concrete facts and you summed it up brilliantly. Thanks for the write-up and debunk!

Reply
12/27/2012 2:12am

Just a few corrections.

1)The Track Rock PETROGLYPH site is open to the public. That is completely separate from the Track Rock archaeological site on the side of the mountain above the petroglyph boulders. History Channel was denied a commercial filming permit to visit the archaeological site not the petroglyphs. (This was done because some Native American tribes objected to filming the site for television after previous permits had already been issued.) Although technically the trails on this mountainside remain open, they discourage visitation and have actively felled trees across some trails to prevent access to the ruins.

2) The structures could not have been constructed by Cherokee in 1000 AD because all research shows the Cherokee did not enter the area until the 1700s. If the Cherokee contributed to this site at all it would have occurred after this date. It's located in known Creek Indian territory thus it is likely 100% Creek. But the argument is that the Creeks were made of multiple ethnic groups some from Mexico including Mayan refugees. There is a growing body of linguistic evidence that supports this contention. Visit my site http://www.MayaInAmerica.com for more details.

3) There were many groups of "post classic Maya." Not all built with stone as you suggest. Some of the smaller villages absolutely built with earth. Furthermore, the site in question is not a mound site. It is a terrace farming site on the side of a mountain. There are many similar terrace farming sites in the Maya areas of Mexico, Guatemala and Belize that look remarkably similar to Track Rock. That doesn't mean Track Rock is Mayan. But there is no historical evidence at all that Cherokees or Creeks practiced terrace farming. All evidence shows they farmed along river valleys. So regardless of who built this site, it is quite unique in the area and deserves more archaeological work.

4) I am the interviewee who said it was a taboo subject. Because it is. Yes, it has been discussed for 150 years in the archaeological literature as I clearly state in my interview. That doesn't mean it's a mainstream topic. In fact, an eminent archaeologist in this area referred to it as a "fringe" topic in a journal article as recently as 2008: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25470477

5) Ocmugee is properly spelled Ocmulgee.

6) Clearly all the Maya didn't relocate to Georgia. None of the researchers involved in this episode ever said so. But there does appear to have been Mayan refugees in the southeast...and even trading outposts. Although I didn't discuss this in the tv show, it seems clear to me there was both a religious and trade component to the interactions much like how the Arabs spread Islam into southeast Asia. Did Arabs relocate en masse to Indonesia? No. Did some Arabs end up there in order to oversee their trade network and convert the locals to Islam. Yep, sure did.

7) It's not Wolter who connects the Eagle Dancer image to the Chichen Itza panel. It is the preeminent archaeologist Alfonso Morales who made that connection. Do you know who he is???? He's not some fringe archaeologist. He's one of the foremost archaeologists in Mexico who oversees both Chichen Itza and Palenque. And as he clearly pointed out, the similarities were not limited to the fact that both locations had an eagle dancer, as you suggest. He clearly pointed out the stylistic similarities between these two specific representations including the fact both were holding a war weapon and a severed head and had an identical style feather cape. Do you think someone of Dr. Morales standing would associate himself with a show like this and risk his professional reputation if he didn't see a connection?

8) I'm patiently awaiting the results of the Maya blue test as well to see what sort of match and where from. It wasn't clear if the match was from chichen itza or some other maya site.

9) "Mississippian artifacts have been found at a Classic Maya site in the Yucatan" This is actually news to me. Do you remember the source of this info? I know mississippian artifacts were found at a Mayan site in northeast Mexico just south of the U.S. border but I know of none from Yucatan. So that would be information I'd be very interested in seeing.

10) "That such connections happened is not seriously disputed, though the question of the direction and degree of influence is still debated." Clearly you aren't very aware of what's going on in Southeastern Archaeology. The official dogma is that there was no contact of any sort and all the similarities are coincidence and the southeastern tribes developed completely independently from Mesoamerica without any borrowing of ideas, etc. You don't seem to agree with this and neither do I but that is what's being taught at southern universities.

Well, that's my two cents for whatever it's worth. :)





Reply
12/27/2012 8:36am

I appreciate your comments, and I will obviously fix the spelling errors.

1. Thank you for the correction about Track Rock site. But, as you note, the trails are technically open to the public and Wolter's crew was denied access for reasons other than the implied academic-government conspiracy.

2. You're very correct about the place being a Creek site; I'm almost certain I meant to write Creek and somehow got it mixed up. I am going to fix this, too.

3. The specific claim Wolter's show made was that the place was a pyramid built by the Maya, and I wasn't aware of any Maya who built pyramids of earth at that date. Obviously, they built smaller structures of dirt (and still do).

4, 10. I guess it depends on how you think of dogma. Yes, there are still many archaeologists who refuse to consider the possibility of contact between regions at any level; but at the same time, we don't have an official academy that defines history. I note that the article you cite about this being a "fringe" topic also states that archaeologists are in wide agreement that such contact did happen!

6. As you noted, I'm not opposed to the idea that the Maya had a trade relationship with the southeast, or that Mesoamericans came on occasion. I don't think, though, that Wolter provided the evidence needed to establish his claim that Ocmulgee was a Maya settlement; this is a criticism of America Unearthed as a TV show, not necessarily the facts on the ground.

7. I never doubted that the eagle dancer has a relationship to Mesoamerica; however, as I said, the figure isn't unique to Georgia and can be found all across the United States. These have long been recognized as related to Mesoamerica (since at least 1930, as far as I know) but don't imply a direct movement of people since they are so widespread. Morales isn't risking a reputation in stating the obvious.

9. Lewis C. Messenger writes on his website for the North American Archaeology course he teaches at the U. of Indiana that "A Middle Mississippian figurine head was found in the cenote at the Classic Maya site of Dzibilchaltún in Yucatán." This is literally all I know about this, but it *is* taught at a university!

One issue that I encounter repeatedly with these TV programs, and which I should do a better job of making clear, is that I do not have the resources to determine the actual facts on the ground. I can only evaluate whether the TV program in question made a good enough case to support its claim. In this case, I felt (and still feel) that Wolter did not make a strong enough case that the Maya were physically present in Georgia and were repsonsible for the site in question. Whether the Maya actually visited Georgia is a separate question from whether Wolter can prove it, and it is a question I simply can't evaluate.

Reply
12/27/2012 5:01pm

Your points are well taken. I'll only quibble over a couple of them ;)

7. I think we may be talking past one another abit here. I'll try again to be clearer. Yes, the bird man is widespread. But this specific depiction of the bird man is not. For instance, I've seen many many different versions of the feather cloak worn by the bird man but the Georgia version is unique from all of these in its details. The Chichen Itza version is identical in these details to the Georgia version. I think this is important. Likewise with the severed head. Most bird man images I've seen do not have this detail. Only the Georgia version and the Chichen Itza version appear to have this detail. Again, I think that's an important point. And it is Dr. Morales who points out these specific details, not Scott. He's not playing it safe and making some general comment on the widespread nature of bird men icons. He's making a specific and detailed comparison between the Chichen Itza bird man and the Georgia bird man.

Personally, I believe these bird men were the religious priests or war chiefs who accompanied the Mayan traders up the rivers into the southeastern u.s. Many tribes in the southeast have legends that foreign priests lived atop the mounds who spoke an unknown language. They also tell how eventually they were so abused by these priests that their own warriors attacked and massacred these foreigners. So these legends suggest that many of these mound sites were foreign trading and religious outposts.

And as far as the "taboo" subject goes I can only attest to my own personal experience. When I created my documentary entitled "Lost Worlds: Georgia" I made a very brief mention of Mexico when discussing the Mississippian cultures. I stated in the documentary, "These mounds represent the arrival of a new people in Georgia, possibly from Mexico." For that one, brief mention of Mexico I was slammed and ripped apart by certain academics. I was told there was no evidence of contact and no legitimate archaeologist ever believed there was any contact and that all the tribes had been living in georgia for 10,000 years and a clear in situ developmental sequence was known by all serious archaeologists in the southeast. That is my experience with academia on this subject. And all of this has been within the past 6 years. So there is a very adamant belief within academics in the southeastern u.s. that there is no mexican contact and the subject isn't even worthy of further study. It's a "case closed" as far as they're concerned. Perhaps attitudes are different elsewhere.

dawooddmon
02/02/2013 11:26pm

I think u have a serious grudge against Wolter.
Your assertions were riddled with inconsistancy and a lack of facts, so who do 8 believe? Wolter has more cred than u on his info. He put it out there and your the armchair quarterback, safely blogging from your media device character assassination.
Get ur own show and show the folks the way YOU know the world.
You are as inconsistant as u claim Wolter is Colavito.
Mark that, homie!

Kevin
03/15/2013 9:23pm

One Correction - If you are referring to Bloomington Indiana - it is IU - Indiana University... Just a Midwestern ( U of I - University of Illinois Graduate!)

Nick
02/10/2013 11:25pm

Burnnnn!!!!!

Reply
Nick
02/10/2013 11:28pm

Burn!!!!

Reply
Joe smith
03/09/2013 2:49am

This show is full of shit. His theories are similar to. If the sun rises in the east then the world is flat.

Reply
jo
03/17/2013 3:16pm

Very nice....I also read about refugees from the Mayan empire. Makes absolute total sense. But the show is akin to Finding Bigfoot. Believe me...if Scott or Moneymaker or Bobo found something, you would have heard it on the news way before the show airs. Because we hear nothing, every single show, although entertaining, has nothing to offer.

Reply
12/28/2012 10:27pm

i just love shows like this. even , i just have high school. but have watched stuff like this for as long as i can remember. im 65 years old. and, i have always believed our history hasnt been told in truth. so i hope this show can help set things right. is there anyway to get news letters and up dates. thank you jon van nortwick 820w. laurel st. sherman texas. 75092

Reply
Coridan Miller
12/28/2012 11:19pm

If you really want more pre-Columbian history pick up 1491 by Charles Mann instrad of watching this drivel.

Reply
Doug
01/15/2013 7:02am

What an amazing book.

caleb
01/20/2013 12:15am

It seem to me every time someone says facts that make the "educated" class upset they get very personal with there response this is not the first time I have seen you cry over scott maybe you should ignore him it is worse than responding if you dont like what he's selling.by the way the average person can tell if something historically is false.I like the show and can tell he stretches for things but I wouldn't become paranoid and act violently if no one believed what I told them scott wolter told me. I still think you dislike him on a personal level sorry it is very apparent

Brian
12/29/2012 2:11am

This show is horrible. I watched two episodes (Arizona Runes / Maya in Georgia). It is all speculation molded into an attempt at factual portrayal. I teach history. Too many students watch these types of shows and think it is all fact and true, including the conspiracies that don't even exist. This show is a major step backwards for history education. I would love to cross examine Scott Wolter. He would fall part if questioned thoroughly about his "evidence." Shows like this contribute to the dumbing down of America.

Reply
jd
12/29/2012 4:01am

I just love how "academics" get their knickers in a twist over these shows. They're all drivel because the info isn't presented as dry, boring statistics and analyses vetted by committees of dry, boring proffessors. I can't tell you how many of these programs have sparked an interest in science in my grandson who hates school. If they inspire him to find out more onhis own,they've done a good thing in my opinion. And who is to say that because the theories are presented as "infotainment" they're totally wrong? I didn't hear anything about massive numbers of Mayans migrating to Georgia or anywhere else, just thst SOME probably came to the SE US. I won't say that I've bought into everything that Wolter has suggested, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And I can say from personal experience that yes, there are places where feds will deny access to the strangest places. Just take a drive up into the mountains around Carrizozo, NM. Don't be shocked at the "Deadly Force Authorized" signs!

Reply
Brian
12/29/2012 9:18pm

I teach 8th grade American history. I am not a boring professor type. My students are definitely not bored in my history classes, for I make it interesting and exciting, including using mysteries in history all of the time. I have no problem at all for the History Channel and others doing these types of topics. I would encourage lesser-known mysteries and topics, and I completely encourage my students to doubt, question, and weigh evidence with an open mind.
The problem with this show (and others like it) produced by corporate America is that they are not based on the scientific method and sound research along with presenting the facts and issues of these topics thoroughly and in-depth, and objectively. These types of shows have the main goal of making money by inventing controversy where none exists combined with ignoring facts that would ruin their phony premises.
If you really want to compare these types of shows with effective ones, watch this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMs9Kd88lIA

produced by a British film company about a related topic of possible ancient cultures in Miami. I use this film with my students every year. Corporate America needs to model their history shows like the Miami Circles mystery, and yes, my students do not find this show boring because the facts themselves are interesting without any need to hype them like a CSI show.

Christopher Randolph
01/05/2013 10:44am

Strawman argument, jd!

No one claimed that the shows were bad because they were boring; in fact just the opposite. Colavito correctly points out in fact that the shows ARE boring because maybe 30 min worth of material is stretched through repetition to fill 60 min worth of programing. The delivery is in fact quite dry.

Our problem here is that the shows are providing inaccurate information. While it's great to get things interested in things, we do a lot more harm filling their heads with nonsense than we do keeping them blank slates. It's pretty hard to get incorrect material out of someone's head when it's drilled in at a young age.

Christopher Randolph
01/05/2013 11:27am

What I meant to post was that no one was claiming that the shows were bad because they WEREN'T boring.

That's the funny thing here; it's also bad TV. We're told the same things 12 times with a lot of time-wasting shots that do nothing to advance the narrative.

sorthious
01/16/2013 9:27pm

Making learning "Entertaining" is always a good idea. It helps people remember things. But, entertaining people with lies and conspiracies without foundation is doing them a disservice. It does nothing but make people stupid.

There are proper ways to go about finding the truth, and "no evidence" is not it.

If you want your grandson to not be respected by his peers and not taken seriously when he investigates things then, by all means,

ray
12/29/2012 2:42pm

""Shows like this contribute to the dumbing down of America.""

Thank you for stating it accurately and clearly.

I see and hear at of Jesse the Body in this show.

Reply
Scott Wolter
01/01/2013 11:23pm

Fire away with your questions Brian; I'll try not to fold under the pressure.

Reply
01/04/2013 11:01pm

Is this the real Wolter and how can we know that? That's Q #1.

I find your (if you are him) show and Ancient Aliens to be massively racist. You string together a huge amount of speculation and partial and non-facts in order to "prove" that absolutely anyone other than the native peoples of this continent could possibly be responsible for architecture and economic activity where they lived for thousands of years.

Prove to us that you are Wolter and I'll have many more specific questions for you.

Pierre
01/14/2013 11:19pm

I've never seen such garbage on TV. It's Scott driving, Scott on the phone, Scott in his hotel room, and a bunch of what if, could it be and perhaps.
But it's entertainment...so are the Simpsons.

Reply
Sorthious
01/16/2013 9:31pm

Yeah Pierre, but it's on "The History Channel" and not Fox. Presenting this show and others like it on this channel is horrible.

dawoodmon
02/02/2013 11:44pm

U did nothing except state that u dont have an open mind.
Do u think people are stupid?
In a world loaded with more b.s. coming from the all knowing academia, people are left to figure out what they find in the "truth" for themselves.
Sounds like u dont like Wolter and thats fine.
I am sure your tenure protects you and your opinion, which is like an asshole. We all have on and they all stink!
Think I'm stupid? That's your opinion, we all know it probably smells.

Reply
Pierrewhy
02/18/2013 7:21pm

Easy on Scott asshole there dawoodmom. Smell something else for a change. Read something else than the phone book for a change.

dawoodmon
02/02/2013 11:44pm

U did nothing except state that u dont have an open mind.
Do u think people are stupid?
In a world loaded with more b.s. coming from the all knowing academia, people are left to figure out what they find in the "truth" for themselves.
Sounds like u dont like Wolter and thats fine.
I am sure your tenure protects you and your opinion, which is like an asshole. We all have on and they all stink!
Think I'm stupid? That's your opinion, we all know it probably smells.

Reply
Jafafa Hots
02/23/2013 1:34pm

I think the word you're looking for is "you."

Christopher
03/04/2013 3:03pm

Brian
You said it yourself, you are a history teacher. I have never meet a teacher who got it right yet. You teach out of your government propaganda handbooks, that you call a history book. It is a sad fact but American education is just about bottom of the barrel. Well that's my two cent's. Enjoy your government job. P.S. tell your union friends I said go back to Russia!

Reply
Elizabeth
12/29/2012 3:33pm

I just have to say whether you like the guy or not, he definitely gets people asking questions. I had never heard of the Mayan Georgia connection before watching this show, and found it fascinating. I am far from an expert, but if the Mayans were as advanced as everyone says they were why is it so hard to believe that they did not travel all over North America. I think the problem with the academic community is that they are so set in their ways they do not bother to dig deeper and look at things with an open mind. Is the show based in fact...I don't know for sure but at least it challenges people to ask questions and explore other alternitives.

Reply
Brian
12/29/2012 9:17pm

I teach 8th grade American history. I am not a boring professor type. My students are definitely not bored in my history classes, for I make it interesting and exciting, including using mysteries in history all of the time. I have no problem at all for the History Channel and others doing these types of topics. I would encourage lesser-known mysteries and topics, and I completely encourage my students to doubt, question, and weigh evidence with an open mind.
The problem with this show (and others like it) produced by corporate America is that they are not based on the scientific method and sound research along with presenting the facts and issues of these topics thoroughly and in-depth, and objectively. These types of shows have the main goal of making money by inventing controversy where none exists combined with ignoring facts that would ruin their phony premises.
If you really want to compare these types of shows with effective ones, watch this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMs9Kd88lIA

produced by a British film company about a related topic of possible ancient cultures in Miami. I use this film with my students every year. Corporate America needs to model their history shows like the Miami Circles mystery, and yes, my students do not find this show boring because the facts themselves are interesting without any need to hype them like a CSI show.

Reply
sorthious
01/16/2013 9:37pm

It's not hard to believe that they "Could have", but that doesn't mean they did. Academics are "set in their ways" for good reason. A doctor doesnt just assume what is wrong with you and start operating. They do tests and observe before doing anything like that.

Fine to have an open mind and ask questions, but it's irresposible to present it as true, probably true, or highly likely with no evidence to support the idea.

Reply
Kat
02/18/2013 5:14pm

Right on Elizabeth! I've been watching the episodes with a grain of sand - after all, they've produced Ancient Aliens, BUT the show makes you aware of archeological questions that exist.

A questioning mind just might discover the truth!

Reply
lillian solis
05/02/2013 5:22pm

Bravo Kat ! my feelings exactly ! I'm an Disaster show "freak" I just love them n surely are not boring n whether factual or not they are fascinating ! I enjoy them n they also encourages us to think "what if" !

Justin
12/30/2012 12:12am

History is not totally accurate like the books that were taught in high school. And everyday history is being rewritten because of new discoveries. To many full glasses in the field. We are learning civilizations were built earlier than ever. Traveling across the sea as well ... to stop asking questions is to stop making progress.

Reply
heath
01/01/2013 11:26am

Professional archaeologists always come across bits and pieces that doen't quite fit the narrative of the rest of the evidence. They would love to be able to resolve all these quirks except they don't want to waste precious resources on what could be dead end, sidetracking them from the main story.
These programs is about 50 years too late as everybody has accepted Revisionist History as a critique. The History Channel tends to take one piece thats different and uses it to discredit everything else, even though that might be accepted narrative.

Reply
Bud
02/02/2013 12:31am

History IS what's true, and what Wolter is pushing IS NOT true, not even CLOSE to the truth.

If you enjoy stupid conspiracies, then watch them, but DON'T try to tell intelligent people that the crap you watch is real.

Reply
Bud
02/02/2013 12:31am

History IS what's true, and what Wolter is pushing IS NOT true, not even CLOSE to the truth.

If you enjoy stupid conspiracies, then watch them, but DON'T try to tell intelligent people that the crap you watch is real.

Reply
Wade Baker
01/01/2013 9:39am

Just the fact that the show enables more people to learn of these things is good news.
Everybody should be in favor of that.

Reply
Sorthious
01/16/2013 9:40pm

So learning things that haven't been proven is a good thing? Then, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you!

Reply
SmartyPants
02/09/2013 5:24pm

So ignoring things that are possible but not proven yet is a good thing.

Scott
01/01/2013 1:08pm

Jason, Paul and Richard. Thanks for your frank and open discourse on this topic, it was far more entertaining and informative than the original show.

Reply
Oscar
01/01/2013 4:46pm

I agree with Wade, Im no history buff or student of these things. But I found the show entertaining and learned about new things I did not know existed. The show got me to look into the subjects further and is why I found this blog and learning there are two sides of the story. If the show makes you want to know and learn more no harm I think.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
01/04/2013 11:36pm

But there AREN'T two sides to the story; there's an objectively true narrative which real scientists work through to figure out and there's a group of people who lie to get TV money thrown at them.

In fact there really aren't two sides to most stories - generally someone is objectively correct and someone is objectively incorrect.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
01/04/2013 11:36pm

But there AREN'T two sides to the story; there's an objectively true narrative which real scientists work through to figure out and there's a group of people who lie to get TV money thrown at them.

In fact there really aren't two sides to most stories - generally someone is objectively correct and someone is objectively incorrect.

Reply
Sorthious
01/16/2013 9:43pm

See, this is the problem!! LOL.... Facts do not have two sides, they may have different interrpretations, but evidence has to exist in order to interrpret it. I can't wait, I'll be hearing about the Mayans living in Georgia for years to come!

Reply
Christopher Randolph
01/04/2013 11:36pm

But there AREN'T two sides to the story; there's an objectively true narrative which real scientists work through to figure out and there's a group of people who lie to get TV money thrown at them.

In fact there really aren't two sides to most stories - generally someone is objectively correct and someone is objectively incorrect.

Reply
Ricardo
01/05/2013 3:03am

I found the show entertaining. The host is not objective. His mind was made up already. He could be right, but that isnt science. I also like shows on the the lost ark of the israelites but i seriously doubt it was actually an alien artifact if it even existed. Reality tv invades academia and posts huge numbers. Dont sweat it. If you want hardcore

Reply
01/05/2013 7:58am

Guys guys if it was all buttoned up it would be on THE HISTORY CHANNEL rather than HISTORY 2. It would be scheduled next to the precisiion pricing and appraisals of ancient texts seen on Pawn Stars or the careful archeological digs revealed on American Pickers or the astonishing---over the edge---photography of Ice Road Truckers. Gents, it's a show. A lot of fun, a show. Now, i must go back and watch the guy with the hair explain that the Great Pyramid was a hydrogen plant emitting world wide microwaves.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
01/05/2013 10:39am

First off let me apologize for the multiple postings on this thread - I got repeated messages that the posts failed and apparently that wasn't the case.

The problem isn't that it's "a show" and entertaining like X-Files, the problem is that is presented as science done by a scientist (a "forensic geologist", whatever that is). This is presented as non-fiction. And it shapes the way more people view the world than any number of worthwhile books on the subject.

For me the overriding damage is the depiction of anything of cultural or technological value in North America having necessarily been imported by non-native cultures. The racism implicit in that is staggering.

Reply
01/05/2013 11:21am

Hey this is Richard Thornton again. Guess I didn't make a detailedg enough statement, when I said that there was not enough time in the show for most of my interview. Most of the remaining 8 hours dealt with genetics, architecture and linguistics.
The Southeast has been an ethnic melting pot for at least 2000 years. We Creeks represent an assimilation of at least 17 ethnic groups, that includes a big chunk of Maya DNA. About 1/3 of the Itstate-Creek language is composed of pure Maya and Totonac words. The infusion of Maya commoner refugees sparked the our advanced town building culture. A recent comprehensive genetic study of the NC Cherokees revealed the shocking news that they are primarily a Middle Eastern population, descended from Spanish Sephardic Jews, who colonized the NC Mountains in the 1600s. That is why they have no cultural memory before around 1700, whereas ours goes back to around 400 BC. The presence of a large city on a high mountain populated by another people, is part of both the Creek and Cherokee oral history. For America Unearthed to cover the topic comprehensively would have required a mini-series! LOL Well, it was fun being part of the show and a lot of good things are coming out of it.

01/05/2013 11:22am

Hey this is Richard Thornton again. Guess I didn't make a detailedg enough statement, when I said that there was not enough time in the show for most of my interview. Most of the remaining 8 hours dealt with genetics, architecture and linguistics.
The Southeast has been an ethnic melting pot for at least 2000 years. We Creeks represent an assimilation of at least 17 ethnic groups, that includes a big chunk of Maya DNA. About 1/3 of the Itstate-Creek language is composed of pure Maya and Totonac words. The infusion of Maya commoner refugees sparked the our advanced town building culture. A recent comprehensive genetic study of the NC Cherokees revealed the shocking news that they are primarily a Middle Eastern population, descended from Spanish Sephardic Jews, who colonized the NC Mountains in the 1600s. That is why they have no cultural memory before around 1700, whereas ours goes back to around 400 BC. The presence of a large city on a high mountain populated by another people, is part of both the Creek and Cherokee oral history.

01/05/2013 11:22am

Hey this is Richard Thornton again. Guess I didn't make a detailed enough statement, when I said that there was not enough time in the show for most of my interview. Most of the remaining 8 hours dealt with genetics, architecture and linguistics.
The Southeast has been an ethnic melting pot for at least 2000 years. We Creeks represent an assimilation of at least 17 ethnic groups, that includes a big chunk of Maya DNA. About 1/3 of the Itstate-Creek language is composed of pure Maya and Totonac words. The infusion of Maya commoner refugees sparked the our advanced town building culture. A recent comprehensive genetic study of the NC Cherokees revealed the shocking news that they are primarily a Middle Eastern population, descended from Spanish Sephardic Jews, who colonized the NC Mountains in the 1600s. That is why they have no cultural memory before around 1700, whereas ours goes back to around 400 BC. The presence of a large city on a high mountain populated by another people, is part of both the Creek and Cherokee oral history.

01/05/2013 11:23am

Hey this is Richard Thornton again. Guess I didn't make a detailed enough statement, when I said that there was not enough time in the show for most of my interview. Most of the remaining 8 hours dealt with genetics, architecture and linguistics.
The Southeast has been an ethnic melting pot for at least 2000 years. We Creeks represent an assimilation of at least 17 ethnic groups, that includes a big chunk of Maya DNA. About 1/3 of the Itstate-Creek language is composed of pure Maya and Totonac words. The infusion of Maya commoner refugees sparked the our advanced town building culture. A recent comprehensive genetic study of the NC Cherokees revealed the shocking news that they are primarily a Middle Eastern population, descended from Spanish Sephardic Jews, who colonized the NC Mountains in the 1600s. That is why they have no cultural memory before around 1700, whereas ours goes back to around 400 BC. The presence of a large city on a high mountain populated by another people, is part of both the Creek and Cherokee oral history.

dawoodmon
02/03/2013 12:06am

Again thinking people are stupid!
And you do think all are stupid when u are looking for validation to your educated opinion.
It is entertainment.
Do u believe everything u see on t.v.?

Sorthious
01/16/2013 9:49pm

LOL....No, it's Rednecks taking over America. Dumb people can't understand REAL history, science,etc., so we need to replace it with things that aren't true, irrelevent material,etc., Oh...you forgot Ax Men, ....oh gotta go, Gates of Hell is on H2, it's about 6 locations believed to be entrances to hell!! I love learning about REAL things!!

Reply
dawoodmon
02/03/2013 12:01am

The guy with the hair is Giorgio.
That hair is something else!
I think he's an ancient alien! Maybe illegal too!
Purely entertaining.

Reply
01/05/2013 11:25am

Hey this is Richard Thornton again. Guess I didn't make a detailed enough statement, when I said that there was not enough time in the show for most of my interview. Most of the remaining 8 hours dealt with genetics, architecture and linguistics.

The Southeast has been an ethnic melting pot for at least 2000 years. We Creeks represent an assimilation of at least 17 ethnic groups, that includes a big chunk of Maya DNA. About 1/3 of the Itstate-Creek language is composed of pure Maya and Totonac words. The infusion of Maya commoner refugees sparked the our advanced town building culture. A recent comprehensive genetic study of the NC Cherokees revealed the shocking news that they are primarily a Middle Eastern population, descended from Spanish Sephardic Jews, who colonized the NC Mountains in the 1600s. That is why they have no cultural memory before around 1700, whereas ours goes back to around 400 BC. The presence of a large city on a high mountain populated by another people, is part of both the Creek and Cherokee oral history.

Well, it was fun being part of the show and a lot of good things are resulting from it.

Reply
Sorthious
01/16/2013 10:14pm

Ok...several issues here. In what journals, or elsewhere, can we read about these DNA tests. I would love hear about the spectrum of people tested. Where can I read about 1/3 of the Itstate-Creek language being composed of pure Mayan words. Where can I find written examples of these words for comparison?

How did you glean the information regarding the "infustion of Maya commoner refugees?" By what methods did you determine them to be commoners and refugees?

How did you become aware that Spanish Sephardic Jews colonized the NC Mountains, and where is are the artifacts that show they had settlements there?

"The presence of a large city on a high mountain populated by another people, is part of both the Creek and Cherokee oral history."- That sounds awfully vague.

It seems to me you've raised more questions than you've answered. It's easy to say "We have all this evidence and stuff...." without ever showing anyone it....thats what shows like yours normally do. Could you please point us to legitimate sources that hold all this evidence?

Reply
Varika
02/16/2013 7:45am

Funny--the only "Cherokee DNA genetic study" I know of was funded by and tested the CENTRAL BAND of Cherokee in Ohio, and it conclusively proved they were NOT of Jewish ancestry.

Also, "the presence of a large city on a high mountain populated by another people," ....hm...were there also circular canals and amazing technology, too? Srsly, EVERY culture has a reference to "others who live somewhere inacccessible." That's really not proof of ANYTHING.

Finally, the NC Cherokee's OWN WEBSITE provides their "cultural memory" as: "The Cherokee believe that they have always lived in Western North Carolina. Indeed, finely crafted stone tools and fluted spear-points confirm that ancient people lived here more than 11,000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age. Ancient Cherokee tales describe hunts of the mastodons that once foraged through the upland spruce and fir. By 8000 B.C., semi-permanent villages dotted this region." (http://visitcherokeenc.com/the-people/history-culture/) 11,000 years ago sounds like a LOT further back than 1700 CE, doesn't it? And, for that matter, further back than 400 BCE.

Are you sure you aren't indulging in ancient predjudices, since you claim to be Creek?

Reply
Christopher Randolph
01/05/2013 11:37am

Richard -

I imagine I have a "big chunk" of Mayan DNA too - and I'm a white guy. We're all humans. we share most DNA. What do you mean by "big chunk"?

Also - are you claiming that the Cherokees speak - what? Judeo-Spanish? They'd better; you claim that Mayan survived in Georgia for 1500 years, so we'd best by the same token have Judeo-Spanish surviving 300-400, should we not?

Incidentally the Sephardim were literate, if not multi-lingual literate, and first contact with the English was in 1657. There should be a huge amount of textual, written accounts from both sides of encountering other Europeans, should there not be?

Or are you claiming that Mayan survived for 1500 years in GA while Judeo-Spanish died out in about 20 years in NC..?

From the Wiki entry on the Cherokee: "Linguistically, they are part of the Iroquoian language family. In the 19th century, historians and ethnographers recorded their oral tradition that told of the tribe having migrated south in ancient times from the Great Lakes region, where other Iroquoian-speaking peoples were located."

Reply
Tracey
01/07/2013 2:08am

I was googling this place within the first fifteen minutes of the show and as soon as I saw that it was, in fact, open to the public, all credibility went right out the window. And that's a shame because this stuff IS really interesting all on its own without the drama they dream up. So I continue to watch and just do my own independent research. :)

Reply
Arthur B. Fox
01/12/2013 2:28pm

I am a retired archaeologist and now teach US and World Geography. I just saw the show last night on the Minoans mining copper in Michigan. This is really a stretch. I was waiting for the facts of how they knew copper was there in the first place, and also how did they get inland by ship. There was no directly route 10,000y years ago. Consider the St. Lawrence route or the Hudson River Route, there would have been many rapids or shoals in the river system. Maybe someone can explain. Thanks

Reply
Sorthious
01/16/2013 9:19pm

"Stretch" is being overly kind. To be fair though, he said that tests of wooden braces or something, found in the mine shafts, dated to 5000 years ago.

There is speculation that other cultures traveled to North America well before Columbus. The Norse had a settlment in Newfoundland at L'Anse aux Meadows around 1000 CE, which is the only widely accepted pre-Columbian trans-oceanic landing in North America to be widely accepted in academia. Unfortunately, at least around my area, this is still not taught.

So, Mr. Wolter never exhibits how it would have even been possible for the Minoans, around 3000BCE, to travel that far. He fails to explain why a civilization would have decided to travel into parts unknown in search of minerals, because this was his premise for them going to Michigan, then, after hitting the coast, they decide to trave nearly half way across the country in search of copper ore and, as Arthur says, there is a transportation problem. They stay that it would have taken 10,000 men 1,000 years to mine all the ore that had been held at that site. If, the Minoans had indeed mined it, where are the minoan artifacts, amphora, midden pits? ANYTHING?!? If what you presented in these shows is all you have it's nothing more than conspiracy, speculation, and psuedo-science. I used to like the History Channel, Science Channel,etc., now most of the information on them is unreliable and has people thinking this sort of crap is legitimate history. *shakes head*

Reply
Eric McChesney
01/17/2013 5:11am

Just as important is the question of how did these tidy copper hungry Minoans manage to travel up the Great Lakes to Michigan without leaving colonies, forts, ports, and huge midden heaps along the way.There certainly are enough turbulent waters along the Great Lakes (the Edmund Fitzgerald tragedy is a case in point) to have made Egyptian derived Minoan ships carrying copper ore on them a fool's errand, not to mention the dangers of the Atlantic. By this logic, the Minoans must've had extra ships to clean up amphora, since none of those have been found along the Great Lakes either. It would've been easier simply to take over Spain and mine them under Minoan supervision than travel to the Americas for copper. Unfortunately for Wolter, no such sites exist anywhere on the routes he mentioned and we are left with alleged Minoan script. Is the writing allegedly Linear A or B?, Wolter doesn't specify and doesn't bring a linguist on the show to translate in case it is the proto-Greek Linear B script. Worse still, the original alleged Minoan texts have (conveniently) disappeared for all practical purposes leaving us to hear Wolter speculate on the the Minoan "W" (a letter that exists neither in Linear A, B, or Greek in any form). Yet if we were to believe Wolter, then we should have expected to find problems such as deforestation to possibly follow the alleged Minoan trash heaps along the Great Lakes for a large scale thousand year long mining operation, but no proof for that is given either. Maybe some of Erich Von Danniken's Ancient Aliens gave the Minoans a helping hand? Not much more far fetched than squaring the real archaeology with the Minoan Michigan theory. Just a few of the questions I wondered about for enquiring minds want to know.

Reply
scott b.
01/12/2013 6:26pm

I have enjoyed watching Wolter's show Unearthed. I think Jason has his panties in bind because he doesn't have his own show.Jason, go back to your horror fiction writing.

Reply
Sorthious
01/15/2013 10:53pm

The sad thing is that people who like to watch about "History" are now being subjected to this and other shows that exhibit next to no scientific method or leads the viewer by way of omission to believe their "theory." I am no scientist but you really don't have to be to smell bullshit. It's kind of like watching a child try to shove a square peg into a round hole. They grasp at straws to make their "evidence" fit the theory. Thats not science. You, and people like you do a disservice to those with a thirst for knowledge.

The History Channel, Science Channel and many other "Educational" channels are being replaced by psuedo-science, Reality Shows, and other non-related programs. Since when are "Aliens" history..other than people wanting them to exist? You make a mockery of science and you muddy the waters of real scientific research. Just another company putting profits before people in my opinion.

Reply
J. Mueller
01/16/2013 1:56am

I'm amazed by some of the comments in here.

It's a TV SHOW!!!! Of course there's going to be controversy. That's the sell... Making you raise an eyebrow. Duh!!

I also find it very interesting that somehow Scott seems to keep ending up at a National Park or some similar area making an incredible new discovery. I wonder why it's already a National Park!?!?!? And isn't it even more curious that at a time when visitation to National Parks is at an all time low, we have a tv show advertising the glorious and mysterious history of America that can be found at National Parks.

It's TV, people. Just buy the products.

Reply
01/16/2013 6:28am

Your cynicism is depressing. In a few lines, you suggested that viewers should treat television as nothing but lies and also suggest a wide-ranging conspiracy between TV producers and the U.S. government to bilk the public because the public takes these programs to be true. Then you add a further conspiracy surrounding its park status. If any of those ideas were true, it would still be important to point out the fakery.

Reply
Jordan Mueller
01/16/2013 1:54pm

Jason, I'm not sure how you've concluded that I suggested anything that supports your comments. I made no mention of "lies" or "conspiracy." You've simply projected your perceptions to do exactly what the television shows do - attach controversy. Perhaps you should do a show about your ridiculous and overblown responses to comment left on your blog.

Regarding what you obviously think is a suggestion of "conspiracy", there is certainly every possibility that there exist a legally binding contractual arrangement between two parties for one to provide what is effectively advertising for the others fee based visitor centers. If you think that the Government has no interest in getting paying visitors out to National Parks, or that someone would identify and exploit and opportunity to promote that effort in exchange for funding, then you're incredibly naive. Regardless, that's not a conspiracy. It's a business arrangement. It's called advertising.

Also, I think using the word "cynical" is just inappropriate. I'm always curious about the people who think those who have a realistic view of things are "cynical." However, I find great irony in the fact that your blog is full - FULL, of criticisms towards this program (America Unearthed) and basically suggests to your readers that Scott's theories shouldn't be taken too seriously, yet when I post commentary on it's entertainment rather than educational value, you immediately shoot back that I'm a cynic. I wonder, do you see the irony?

I'll have to agree with Scott B.

Jordan Mueller
01/16/2013 1:54pm

Jason, I'm not sure how you've concluded that I suggested anything that supports your comments. I made no mention of "lies" or "conspiracy." You've simply projected your perceptions to do exactly what the television shows do - attach controversy. Perhaps you should do a show about your ridiculous and overblown responses to comment left on your blog.

Regarding what you obviously think is a suggestion of "conspiracy", there is certainly every possibility that there exist a legally binding contractual arrangement between two parties for one to provide what is effectively advertising for the others fee based visitor centers. If you think that the Government has no interest in getting paying visitors out to National Parks, or that someone would identify and exploit and opportunity to promote that effort in exchange for funding, then you're incredibly naive. Regardless, that's not a conspiracy. It's a business arrangement. It's called advertising.

Also, I think using the word "cynical" is just inappropriate. I'm always curious about the people who think those who have a realistic view of things are "cynical." However, I find great irony in the fact that your blog is full - FULL, of criticisms towards this program (America Unearthed) and basically suggests to your readers that Scott's theories shouldn't be taken too seriously, yet when I post commentary on it's entertainment rather than educational value, you immediately shoot back that I'm a cynic. I wonder, do you see the irony?

I'll have to agree with Scott B.

Jordan Mueller
01/16/2013 1:54pm

Jason, I'm not sure how you've concluded that I suggested anything that supports your comments. I made no mention of "lies" or "conspiracy." You've simply projected your perceptions to do exactly what the television shows do - attach controversy. Perhaps you should do a show about your ridiculous and overblown responses to comment left on your blog.

Regarding what you obviously think is a suggestion of "conspiracy", there is certainly every possibility that there exist a legally binding contractual arrangement between two parties for one to provide what is effectively advertising for the others fee based visitor centers. If you think that the Government has no interest in getting paying visitors out to National Parks, or that someone would identify and exploit and opportunity to promote that effort in exchange for funding, then you're incredibly naive. Regardless, that's not a conspiracy. It's a business arrangement. It's called advertising.

Also, I think using the word "cynical" is just inappropriate. I'm always curious about the people who think those who have a realistic view of things are "cynical." However, I find great irony in the fact that your blog is full - FULL, of criticisms towards this program (America Unearthed) and basically suggests to your readers that Scott's theories shouldn't be taken too seriously, yet when I post commentary on it's entertainment rather than educational value, you immediately shoot back that I'm a cynic. I wonder, do you see the irony?

I'll have to agree with Scott B.

01/16/2013 4:58pm

You wrote "isn't it even more curious that at a time when visitation to National Parks is at an all time low, we have a tv show advertising the glorious and mysterious history of America that can be found at National Parks." While my tongue was in my cheek when using the word "conspiracy," you did with that wording suggest that there was a behind-the-scenes collusion between the National Park service and the media.

Eric McChesney
03/02/2013 8:51pm

Jason, I'd say that even if those working with Scott Wolter were simply trying to get more visitors to state and national parks, they are doing this cause a disservice when it comes to an educational standpoint. It hurts the intellectual credibility of those who work there in the public mind (many of whom possess advanced degrees in fields like geology, history, public history), and that cannot be considered good.

Sorthious
01/16/2013 10:49am

It's also a "TV SHOW" on a channel who's very name, The History Channel, implies that it's content is history centric. All these fringe 'scientific' groups spend an hour, espousing assumptions, many 'I believe...' comments, playing dramatic music, etc., then end the show with absolutely no evidence, untestable evidence, or, more often, just a plain summary of their ideas on a particular 'theory.' It's find to put shows like that on other channels, but its a shame to present these things as history or science when they are anything but.

The History Channel, Science, Discovery,etc., used to be great channels to learn. Now they are filled with speculation, religion, aliens.,etc. I'm not saying to censor these shows, but damn, do they have to commandeer the very few decent stations to raise ratings?

Pawn Stars is a nice show, sometimes, but is only vaguely historical. I saw Jesus related programs on the 'Science' channel. Everything is becoming 'Reality TV.' I enjoy non-educational tv from time to time; thats what 'Comedy Central' and like stations are for. But, you wouldnt want to turn on Comedy Central and find them playing Romance shows would ya?

Reply
Sharon
02/18/2013 1:30am

I agree with your comment on tv shows not being true to their titles: Travel channel has food shows, History channel has pawn shops and so on. I watch most shows for entertainment or just background noise, but when I turn on a specific channel because of a specific title, it would be nice to actually get it!
As far as the accuracy of the information provided by these shows, I think there always have been people who will believe what they are told, people who think about what they are told, and people who will go out and research what they have been told. I hope that I can keep my wonder and curiosity alive, but be willing to accept proven facts whether they fit my opinions or not. I guess the question is whose research and facts do I chose to believe? I love to read about Atlantis and watch Ancient Aliens and listen to the big hair guy, but that's just entertainment for the most part. I don't seriously believe in all of it.
Of course, Bigfoot is real, though!!!! ( at least I would like to believe it)

Eric McChesney
01/16/2013 1:37pm

I am inclined to side with Sorthious regarding much of the more recent history "educational" programming he mentioned. Scott Wolter's "Unearthing America", specifically the Great Lakes copper heist is a case in point. The idea that the Minoans would have travelled to the Great Lakes for copper is plainly innacurate and the questions Wolter leaves unmentioned make this theory seem even more ludicrous. First, there is no proof that the island based Minoan civilization were such great consumers of copper that they needed to travel far afield ( especially across the Atlantic) to satiate their needs for it. Minoan civilization was based chiefly in the Aegean (Crete), and the southeast Cyclades (Thera) and that was sufficient enough a presence combined with their navy to dominate the Mediterranean trade routes in copper via the Black Sea. Sicily and especially Spain had valuable deposits of copper at the time too, but no evidences of Minoan settlements, forts, or ports are to be found there. Wolter's case becomes even flimsier when applied to some hypothetical Minoan presence in Michigan. Where are the Minoan settlements, forts or ports, (let along areas leading from Crete to the Americas such as island way stations) to be found along the Great Lakes? Not even so much as a shard of amphora or other items in everyday Minoan use have been found along the way, and a mining operation on that alleged scale would have been littered with Minoan midden heaps in several settlements if Wolter's theory was true. None of this has been found either. Wolter largely rests much of his evidence on alleged Minoan writing tablets that have disappeared for all practical purposes in the course of this last century and a grainy photograph of a tablet purported to be evidence of Minoan presence in Michigan. He didn't even distinguish just what type Minoan writing it allegedly was (Linear A or Linear B). If it was Linear B, some excavated examples have been translated for it is a precursor to Greek language proper, yet Wolter doesn't invite any linguistic specialists on his show to attempt to translate the photos of the alleged Minoan texts that he does have. If he could find one, I'm sure they could've given Wolter linguistic pointers such as the fact that the letter W as we know it that Wolter mentions on that episode doesn't exist in Linear A or B, let alone Greek for that matter. In any case, it is the archaeology, knowledge of settlements,trade routes, and linguistic evidence (or lack thereof in all of these cases), that will make or break such hypothetical arguments every time. Just another example of bad scholarship posing as cutting edge knowledge.

Reply
01/16/2013 3:23pm

Scott Wolter is testing speculations, theories and beliefs. Some are going to pan out, others not. For example, a lot of people in Minnesota believe that a Viking sword was plowed up in a farmers field. Scott found it to be a late 19th century stage prop! I imagine that there will be some programs that we don't know any more about the probability of the theory at the end than in the beginning.

I was surprised by the theoretical link to the Minoans, but will keep an open mind. There is a lot more solid evidence linking a Bronze Age Pre-Celtic population to copper mining in eastern North America. Several of the petroglyphic boulders in North Georgia are identical to those in County Kerry, Ireland and southwestern Iberia. Something that SCOTT COMPLETELY LEFT OUT was that the shape of copper ingots in eastern North America was identical to the shape of copper ingots in western and northern Europe. Who knows what was really going on back then? It is not time for the archaeology profession to hang up their tools and become commodities traders! LOL

Reply
Roger
01/25/2013 11:41pm

Sorry, Richard---there is nobody in Minnesota who believes that clearly 20th century sword is a Viking artifact. Wolters made that "analysis" because he tried to pretend that he's applying scientific rigor to his fairy tales. If this is a sample of his scientific credibility, I have to question how he got a PhD...in any subject, much less geology.

Reply
Clyde Woodfin
01/16/2013 8:40pm

I hear talk of evidence that supports your theory, but I don't see any links to media, or text backing up your words. Which petroglyphic boulders are you reffering to in each of these places? Have they been authenticated by other scientists? If you expect people to take you seriously you have to provide details and actual evidence, not dramatic music and camera angles.

Keeping an open mind is fine, however, blindly accepting something as totally probable without precedence, or "real" evidence that warrants further investigation is nothing more than naivety.

No one is suggesting that Arcaelogists "hang up their tools," just that you perform and present your investigation in a logical order. It's like, at least the way it was presented, that Scott skipped several steps in his investigations and ignored things that we'ren't convenient to his theory.

As Eric said, midden pits would be a prime source for showing an extended habitation, of a particular group, in an area. I'm no arcaeologist, but I know that anytime people live in a place for long durations, they accumulate trash. This trash needs to be disposed of. So, if you really want to prove your point, where are the pottery shards, weapons, and other items that would distinctly prove your conjectures about the people you say lived in Georgia, or the miners in Michigan. You cannot use one artifact, supposedly found in Georgia, as proof that a group resided there for any length of time.

I'm open minded to ideas, theories, etc., but I won't blinded accept something as a fact until it has been proved.

Reply
Lynn Brant
01/17/2013 9:13am

Adventure fiction cloaked as science is a new genre. The shame is, there "is" evidence of pre-Columbian European exploration in America. But it is now in the bathwater with all the crypto-archeology. This may be the strategy of those who do NOT want true history made more clear - the best place to hide a bit of truth is often inside a pack of lies.

Reply
chris call
01/17/2013 4:53pm

I'm so sick of these pseudo science / fake docu- dramas.It's ideocrsacy coming true.The History channel and others who show this drivel should be ashamed.

Reply
Kris
01/19/2013 12:57am

I'm sorry - but you're just not thinking fourth-dimentionally... Where Scott Wolter is certainly focused appropriately on America's past, the History2 Producers are currently thinking and planning well into the future, (probably two seasons ahead, even) when the brand new season of "Ancient American Aliens Unearthed" will be unveiled to the pseudo-science-devouring public, and all those apparent "blank spots" and "holes" in Scott Wolter's scientifically proven theories will be filled in with the same Swiss cheese that the Ancient-Alien moon bases were made out of so many millenia ago, and everything will fit nicely into place. ..I can see it now - Scott Wolter and buddy "Hair-guy-with-a-tan" from Ancient Aliens spelunking down a cave together to find the Ancient Pre-Columbian/Meso-American MotherShip hiding from them, with the "smoking-Gun" Swiss cheese inside... (Can't wait)

Reply
Kris
01/19/2013 1:28am

...I know - I spelled "dimensionally" rong...

Reply
01/22/2013 7:11pm

I have watched the first ep and the one with the 12th century Englishman in Arizona and the Copper one in the Great Lakes. The first was conspiracy silly. The second seemed interesting but highly implausible to be able to match the person mentioned on the stone to a single individual in England. The third with the copper, is interesting with the physical evidence of the so called copper culture mining. But if the Minoans had been there and navigated either through the Great Lakes/ St Lawrence or went up the Mississippi, there would have been way points here and there. And likely remains of some settlements on the river/lake fronts. And so far nothing. Highly unlikely given how densely populated and developed they are and how far from the Atlantic is. Even one of those things would be as significant as the Viking settlement in northern Newfoundland. He can't be knocking these out of the park every week and still seem credible.

Reply
Lynn Brant
01/22/2013 7:31pm

The copper thing is bunk as well. Here's a good source on it -
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/copper.html

Reply
Lynn Brant
01/22/2013 7:31pm

The copper thing is bunk as well. Here's a good source on it -
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/copper.html

Reply
Lynn Brant
01/22/2013 7:31pm

The copper thing is bunk as well. Here's a good source on it -
www.ramtops.co.uk/copper.html

Reply
Lynn Brant
01/22/2013 7:31pm

The copper thing is bunk as well. Here's a good source on it -
ramtops.co.uk/copper.html

Reply
Lynn Brant
01/22/2013 7:33pm

The copper thing is bunk as well. Here's a good source on it -
ramtops dot co dot uk/copper dot html
sorry about dot but we apparently can't post html or even urls here

Reply
Lynn Brant
01/22/2013 7:33pm

The copper thing is bunk as well. Here's a good source on it -

Reply
Lynn Brant
01/22/2013 7:34pm

The copper thing is bunk as well. Here's a good source on it -

Reply
Lynn Brant
01/22/2013 7:35pm

The copper thing is bunk as well.
ramtops dot co dot uk/copper dot html
sorry about dot but we apparently can't post html or even urls here

Reply
Lynn Brant
01/23/2013 7:38am

Sorry about the multiple posts. It kept giving me an error try again message. I have asked that the be removed. The links on the great lakes copper is a good read. "Fueled the Bronze Age" LOL!

Reply
cat
01/26/2013 12:05am

I was incredulous at h2s new show called "America Unearthed" tonight and checked online to see if anyone had reviewed the show.? Your review reinforced my original impression and utter disappointment at what I expected to be an intelligent show. It was completely unscientific and i applaude your review.

Reply
Roger
01/29/2013 12:11am

You are to nice.
It's total garbage and crappy fiction.
But there is a lot of idiot out there that believe in that crap.
I'm tying to convince some of them that the Bermuda triangle was in reality a square. They get pissed off and see flying saucer.

Reply
claiborne merritt
01/26/2013 12:50am

America Unearthed is so disrespectful to the mound builders of the Americas and a very racist point of view. It is so arrogant for these European come here and pass this type misinformation as facts.

Reply
cat
01/26/2013 1:00am

Does that "forensic geologist" have a real degree?

Reply
01/26/2013 6:29am

He holds a bachelor's degree and has a license as profession geologist based on his experience examining structural faults in concrete. He claimed an honorary master's degree between 1987 and 2012 but recently admitted it was made of whipped cream. I am not making that up. Check my blog for "whipped cream" and you'll find the posting.

02/02/2013 12:23am

As a Native (Ho Chunk) of WI, this whole episode was extremely maddening! How can you base a theory and show just on one fact and that is of the purity of copper? Minoans...really? Also, not 1 native tribe was interviewed for this episode and yet they acknowledge the "Natives" briefly. It is a documented fact the Ho Chunk minded Iron and Bronze in WI, MN, IA and MI. Minoans, really? This is a growing construct by these types of "people" to try to discredit the actual inhabitants of this continent. This show is pathetic!

Reply
Cat
01/26/2013 2:36am

Just have to SAY I would love to be in BRIANS history class......!
I loved his comments.....and his insight.

Reply
Wm. Van Ness
01/27/2013 2:51pm

So now the Mithra cult that first developed in the middle-east & was later practiced by the Romans turns out to have been an "Ancient Irish Celtic" religion, just because some old guy in a cowboy hat says so? I don't think I'll need to watch this show anymore.

Reply
01/27/2013 2:58pm

Do be sure to check out my review of that episode, posted on 1/19/13; I share all of your concerns.

Reply
02/01/2013 8:58pm

I pretty much agree with most of the comments that say the program is drivel. I find the subject matter interesting, but the program would be much better if it was presented in a documentary format rather than as a reality show. It loses a lot of credibility with such an approach. And Scott Wolter is no actor ... I'm not sure of his academic credentials but the program format certainly does him no favors.

The most recent episode I've seen was "Stonehenge in America", which features a stone arrangement in southern New Hampshire that ultimately is deduced to have been constructed by the Phoenicians. Scott doesn't quite buy into this assertion because the time frames of their existence and the construction of the stone formation don't coincide. And it's interesting, and flabbergasting, to see how the Phoenician conclusion was arrived at.

There is a somewhat nerdy kid that shows Scott around the site because it's on his family's property, and has immersed himself into research into its origin and meaning. He concludes, and Scott concurs, that the site is another one of the sites aligned with the solstices.

The most startling conclusion the kid comes up with, and Scott goes along with, is that if one draws a line from a certain rock, through the position of the sun at the summer solstice, it goes directly to Stonehenge, and even more startling, exactly splits one of the formations at Stonehenge. The accuracy required of such a line would be incredible! I don't really know how far southern NH is from Stonehenge, but let's assume it's 2000 miles. If the alignment by the constructors of the NH formation was off by a mere 0.1 degrees, then by the time the line got to Stonehenge it would be off by +/- 3.5 miles! The construction accuracy of the stone masons in NH would have to have been uncanny ... and certainly nothing we could come close to duplicating today.

The Phoenician conclusion came by further extending this superbly accurate line on further ... and it lands right in the middle of present-day Lebanon, the location of the ancient Phoenicians. They were known for their sailing skills so naturally they could have visited NH and built the formations ... in the mind of the young man who owns the property.

The program could be really good if it was more scientific and less hoopla. I think Scott could present his thesis that there was pre-Columbian activity in the present-day US in a much more believable manner.

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/01/2013 9:09pm

Good review! The goal of this program is not to show that there was pre-Columbian activity in the US. The goal is to entertain the ill-informed, and to make money!

Reply
Gary J.
02/01/2013 9:54pm

I'm 'anxiously' awaiting the program on the lost Roanoke colony. It comes on in about 7 minutes and I'm sure we will be treated to some rather startling conclusions ....

And I have to agree with your statement that the program is to entertain and make money. When it was first promoted, I thought it might be a serious scientific program. At first blush in the promotions, Scott came across as credible, but that vanished in a hurry.

Time to make some popcorn.

walter sabo
02/03/2013 11:07am

Apparently he liked the Dare stones and thinks the colony split. I love how all the other experts say things like..."Uh, that's a helluva story Scott." or "No, that's just not possible. " or "It makes not sense" to almost any inquiry he has. Then he ignores them and takes an expensive trip to England when a phone call would do. I wonder if they shot all the English trips at once? It's a very entertaining show. What we need now is for Scott to believe the only answer to the granite rocks is Alien intervention and then to sell the artifacts on Pawn Stars after they are appraised by the guy with the Amish hat.

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/03/2013 12:18pm

I can't bring myself to watch an entire show, but I watch 15 min, to get the setup, then skip through to the end. I noticed that with the Dare stones he didn't even make a show of comparing them to some gravestone somewhere. Just a pontifical, "Yup, old." So the stones are authentic purely because he says so, then they "must" have moved west because that's where the stones were.

Like Monster Quest, this show jumps from legend to legend, uses cinema and speculation (speculinema?) to create a sense of mystery and the promise of discovery unmatched since Geraldo Rivera's secret tomb. And all those contrived trails the viewer is led down. We have to go to England to breathlessly pull back the patch instead of just commenting in narrative that it covers a sketch of a fort that was never built, and is really not germane at all. But unlike MQ, after a few of those cheap titillations, it doesn't even debunk itself in the end.

Reply
02/03/2013 12:24pm

Agreed. You'll see I made many of these same points in my review of the episode, posted yesterday.

Gary J.
02/04/2013 8:59pm

I suppose all rocks are old .... but to give him a little credit, he did indeed go to the trouble of finding that they types of rock of the Dare stones existed in the area.

But regarding the map ... unless I'm mistaken, when he talked to the woman at the British museum (or perhaps it was a university) she only showed him a copy of the map, not the original. Because it was a copy, the patch could not be literally pulled back, but she claimed that the original had been x-rayed and showed a star-like pattern that Scott immediately likened to a sketch of an area in NC that he had made in a similar pattern. I'm not altogether sure that x-rays would show ink underneath a patch of paper, but maybe it would.

One thing that struck me odd ... apparently the patch was put on the map in an attempt to cover up the existence, or planned existence, of a fort. But if someone were to steal the map, the first thing they would notice would be the patch so it wasn't hiding anything.

I'm not very familiar with the lost colony of Roanoke, so commenting on it is a bit hard to do. But it seems that in every show, Scott has to get argumentative with one of the locals or "experts" ... in this case a guy who had a museum at the Croatoan site where the colony may have gone to. I suppose Scott's denial of the guy's credibility was agreeable to him for the program. But once again, a documentary format instead of a reality format would be much more credible. But I don't suppose that's the purpose of the show.

And right now I'm watching a "Finding Bigfoot" program ... humorous at times, but the drama is amazing and tense ... and of course, unrealistic. At least it's on Animal Planet and not a supposedly serious History or Discovery channel.

02/04/2013 9:06pm

Gary, check my review of this episode (blog entry dated 2/2/13) for more on this topic. The fort symbol is visible under a lightbox, not an x-ray, and it most likely was a correction to the map to fix an error.

LS
02/07/2013 7:47pm

I love the fact that in both of the episodes of this programme that I've seen their claims seem to be primarily supported by one really innocuous piece of 'evidence'. The claim about Maya blue is a perfectly literal illustration of a common fallacious tendency my friend Geth once brilliantly described as "there's blue here and there's blue here!" The episode about 'the American Stonehenge' was dependent on a line on a map!

I think part of the problem is the fact that while some really lucky people are great at both the natural and the human sciences, they do require somewhat different skills and not everybody seems to realise this! Scott Wolder was so keen to get the dye into the lab as he seems to be with whatever chunk of rock he comes across, that he imagines this coupled with one common motif, a spiral design and whatever else is overwhelming evidence!

Interestingly I have a friend who does ethnographic and historical work on conspiracy proponents and he found that many of them are engineers or from similar professional backgrounds. He thinks that it might have something to do with the desire to streamline and make connections, universally human of course but a hallmark of these professions. The problem is that human societies don't work quite as neatly.

I would argue that the study of human communities requires the ability to conceptualise them: how they are structured, how they interact and relate internally and externally and I don't think Scott Wolder can do this. He can't appreciate that some commonalities and contact don't make two disparate groups the same. I think a little like many of the holes in AA however they rely on examples that the audience at least will let them away with, they couldn't do this with European history for example. The Book of Kells, created on the island of Iona in Scotland, if memory serves contains lapis lazuli from Afghanistan and I believe some dyes from China and very far flung places and everybody is quite happy with the idea that this is a diffusion of trade goods not evidence of diffusionism in that sense. .

Reply
LS
02/07/2013 7:50pm

I mean you'd think from the presenter's excitement that he had literally tripped over a buried Mayan pyramid or something!

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/08/2013 6:33am

You make some very good points. The Roanoke episode was entirely based on the specious claim that the Dare stones are authentic. It is really a "what if" speculation: "what if this was the case? Then we could build an interesting fantasy around that."

But Scott knows his analysis is flawed. He presents himself as a geologist, but his real forte is theatrics. Believe me, most of what has been presented in this show so far, he knows is bs. But he also knows it titillates and sells and that's what this show is about. He's a cross between a professional wrestler and a TV evangelist.

Reply
Varika
02/16/2013 8:01am

"what if this was the case? Then we could build an interesting fantasy around that."

Amusingly, I have been using this show to do precisely that in my frequent bouts of insomnia. Though generally I take the premise, "What if this premise were true? What would the world actually be like now? What if Minoans HAD been seafaring int he Atlantic, not just the Med, and mined in North America? How would European history have changed? Asian? African? Would we even have a United States of America?"

...the Dare Stones thing led me in a bit different a direction, more to an interesting "alternative timeline" short story piece about the known politics in the area and what if some of the colonists HAD gotten split off from the group. It ended...rather badly for the character, I have to admit.

I consider these things FAR more entertaining than Counting Sheep.

Jafafa Hots
02/23/2013 1:39pm

It has been noticed that a lot of creationists have engineering backgrounds too.

Reply
Cy
02/09/2013 3:23am

True knowledge begins with asking questions. Does it not? The more discussion stimulated, the better. Try not to be so rigid as to stifle further investigation. :-)

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/09/2013 7:27am

I appreciate the sentiment, but true knowledge begins with "answering" questions. Anyone can ask them. All myths and legends (and hoaxes) have a grain of truth in them. That's what makes them seem compelling to the low information consumer. Debunking what is false is not rigidity. In fact, attempting to disprove the null hypothesis is the cornerstone of the scientific method.

Reply
Crewcheef
02/09/2013 8:24pm

Just watched the episode on the "solar equinox chamber" in Pennsylvania. Total bunk. That was so obviously a root celar to an old home it was ridiculous. You see these all over the Blue Ridge Mts and other places where they take a natural spring and build a structure around it to provide water at the house and store perishables in the area cooled by the ground water. Bunk! Even looked like poured concrete around the "basin"!

Reply
02/09/2013 8:45pm

Be sure to read my review of that episode, posted today (2/9). I agree completely.

Reply
Pierre
02/18/2013 6:58pm

How could Scott miss the fact that the Minoans used all that copper as they were building the great lakes. If you watch the great lakes from space, it is exactly the shape of Minoans symbols.
I want to write more but my spaceship has to leave before sunset, we have no headlights.

Jim Brake
02/10/2013 5:00am

America Unearthed is a complete joke of a program. I wish I could get paid to host a show on a subject I am completely ignorant about. The history channel might better serve its audience with a show outlining the real history of archaeology in the US. American Archaology Decoded or something along those lines. Discover the evolution of scientific archaology in the US. Learn about the key archaologist and the major discoveries and evidence that shape our current view of history and pre-history in the New World.

Reply
William M Smith
02/10/2013 8:54am

Can you believe this Guy has ordained himself as a forensick geoligest and H2 is allowing him to represent the process of research in the United States. Do we hand a compass from Minn. to a person in Penn. to take a scientific reading without adjusting the compass for magnetic declination? Was the magnetic north reading 300 or 308?

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/10/2013 9:02am

This show is to research what Karaoke is to music

Reply
02/10/2013 9:05am

Be sure to check out my review of this episode, S01E08, in my blog post dated 2/9/13.

Reply
03/30/2013 12:43am

You,re all just cruel.These poor people on A. U. and anc alien really dont know.Thats why they ask all those questions"could it be that,,,would they build it if"on and on. I counted and Anci A averages 603 and unearthed,157[slow pace] per episode. Jason,and all you others,please,just start the playback and answer their questions.They;re desperate . . .DESPERATE for answers.Help them.

catie
04/02/2013 1:46am

The History Channel has done it again!!! "The Indiana Jones of Forensic Geology!!!" What is a Forensic Geologist doing on a program that is depicting itself as ancient archeology? The "History" of ancient peoples? A Forensic Geologist studies the soil by which decomposed bodies have layed and this soil used as evidence in the court of law. What credentials does this man have other than that and an apparent "personal" interest in history. I was, of coarse, expecting an acredited proffesional to head this most interesting subject. But.....nooooo! It's the "New and Improved" History Channel!!! "Bozo's Circus is on the air!!!" Come on kiddies!....Let's watch Bozo throw a creme pie and see if it sticks!!! "Let's get someone with moderate success who will take money in exchange for his reputation to sell a load of bull!!!" Scott is missing the hat and whip. Instead he carries a lab-in-a-sack. I was bamboozled into believing this was going to be an educational adventure about our indigenous people (and those who came from abroad) and all the questions to be raised and if not answered with scientific solidity, at least questioned. NOT possibilities presented as facts. This show is a farse when it could have been great. Scott is no more than a plumber calling himself a proctologist!

Reply
catie
04/02/2013 1:54am

R. Grisi
02/13/2013 8:59pm

Am awaiting his investigation of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox.
"Ripping good yarns"!

Reply
mj
02/14/2013 12:12am

This guys leaps of 'logic' are astounding. This show takes supposition, mixes in a few facts, salts it with conspiracy theories and serves it up in a nice mush for the uneducated and easily influenced public. Another case of trying to make money from nothing. It`s crap.

Reply
rich
02/15/2013 12:10am

Well, take it with a ton of skepticism. I just watched the Medieval Desert episode, where "Mike" the "ancient language expert" claims to interpret the rock inscriptions in the Mustang Mountains of Arizona as 12th Century English, which he translates into 29 words.
Yet we can read the inscription, which is only 5 lines and not more than 10 words, max., including a fairly obvious word.. MMMTS, (Mustang Mountains). Also the words MISS RATRTS (or close to this... they never give a clear still shot of the writing on the rock)
Obviously the program is carefully choereographed. Every word is spot on. Not a waver. Well done entertainment.

Reply
Ken Overholt
02/15/2013 7:49pm

If this guy really and truly believes the shit he is slinging, then he should be examined by a professional. I am watching now as he is trying to find "proof" of what he already believes. I thought one was supposed to determine the facts first then create a hypothesis. Last week I saw someone hand him a sword found buried in a field 100 years ago which looked totally pristine. Not a fleck of aging, corrosion or rust. He immediately pronounced it a viking sword.
So many of the things which he purports as fact, such as giants and the Kensington stone, have been proven to be hoaxes.
Now he is saying it is "reasonable" to him that Minoans came over 5,000 years ago to get Great Lakes copper, and "this is a big deal". Reasonable, Wow.
Anyone up for joining me in a petition to make the History channel stand behind their programs. I honestly believe that I would rather watch the ancient alien idiots than this guy.

Reply
Victor M
02/15/2013 11:05pm

Scott Wolter joined my dads club a few years ago (Midwestern Epigraphic Society) and used us to get information he wanted probely for this show. We went down to Kentucky to look at the site the plan was for to spend 4 days. 2 days would be spent at the site we rented rooms and everything scots crew came and left the same day and asked trivia type questions, from what I herd it was bad I didn't get to see the site because I got sick the night before. The trip was bad. He also borrowed my dads car to go get some rocks somewhere near by but didn't come back with any. After the Kentucky trip he didn't keep in contact with the club or my dad.

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/16/2013 7:43am

Scott believes some truly crazy stuff, but most of what we've seen on this show he knows is nonsense. He vowed on multiple occasions that he would never do something like this. He's the ultimate sellout.

Reply
JM IN CA
02/16/2013 4:15am

After reading this thread - I am relieved. Thank goodness so many of the commenters here point out the sheer idiocy and transparent greed of this travesty of a program- America Unearthed. Mr. Wolter - Shame On You. You are producing and promoting absolutely JUNK science. To Wit : The AE program exploring the "Conspiracy" re: Meriwether Lewis' death - was apparently created out of whole cloth by a laughably selective, and willfully ignorant examination of the facts surrounding Lewis' actual death. And it gets worse ... Implicating Thomas Jefferson , as a possible plotter in this fantasy land "murder" of Lewis, with absolutely no evidence -- Even THAT did not exceed The History Channel Execs - nor Mr Wolter's apparently limitless bounds of reason and/or taste. Indeed- Wolter seems to care nothing for actual fact finding - ignoring the tons of documented research on the Lewis death, Corps Of Discovery etc. Never even mentions any fact that might deflate his loony toon theories. Instead - He yammers on breathlessly, laughably propped up with schlocky and "dramatic" **CONSPIRACY MUSIC** and hacky, Hitchcockian camera angles... Awful on every level. There is at no point any actual evidence presented that Lewis and Clark were quote " given a mandate" to seek out Welsh Tribes" . And Wolter sinks to disgusting lows with the "repeated dramatization" of the "conspiratorial" burning of Lewis' missing diary pages -again- with absolutely no credible facts to back this nonsense up - none. In short, the program and Mr. Wolter's work are an intellectual obscenity. This is not just bad, craven, awful TV. It's Snake Oil TV. It's a shameless video con game - disguised (barely), as legit scientific inquiry. The "History" Channel should just quit pretending and change their name already. Maybe The Tall Tales Network would be a better fit. ...or... Tin Foil Hat TV. Mr Wolter and the makers of this corrosive bit of hucksterism should truly be ashamed for dumbing down to an all time TV nadir - in order to make a little (or maybe a lot) of money. And how ? By by preying on people too ill informed or as yet fully educated re: the truth, legit research, and quantifiable scientific inquiry about the historical topics this program pretends to "investigate". Finally: As i suppose is abundantly clear, I will certainly not be watching this drivel anymore. And I sincerely hope this show goes away - but - it probably won't. Mr. Wolter and the History Channel have it seems learned one important fact from American History - "There's A Sucker Born Every Minute" -- At least PT Barnum could put on a good show. Not the case with America Unearthed. May this rubbish TV be figuratively buried, and deep, soon. THE END.

Reply
Protector of History?
02/16/2013 8:06am

There will always be people doing bullshit cable TV programs. What bothers me about this is that Wolter promoted himself as a great protector of history with his work on the runestone and his book etc. Like, oh no.. HE isn't going to let the conspiracy of the lying archeologists keep the TRUTH from us!

Now, he is consciously raping history to make a few bucks. He is the lowest form of poser.

Reply
William Smith
02/16/2013 12:14pm

I feel this H2 movie is the best yet. Their are one million or more researchers that have a new look on histry. They may even cut the apron into one million pieces before the end is near. Why do we go to Canada to test it? Lets look at the facts: The Lewis and Clark expedition took place in 1806 and Meriweather Lewis was drunk, high on dope and in a state of depression when he was shot by himself or a bunch of government people in 1809. (The only fact is he died of gunshot wounds in 1809.) The other fact is The Brandenburg Stone was found in 1912 by Graig Cricelius when he was plowing his field. In my opinion it took the H2 a long time in the show to admit the Brandenburg stone was made by an English fake artist. The real problem is not this stupid show it is the dammage done after these imposters make their visit. When I visited the Falls of The Ohio to view the Brandenburg stone and other artifacts in Dec of 2012, the stone was moved for no reason out of their museum. If the museum allows Scott Wolter to convince them that it has no connection to the Welsh then the hard work of people like the late Jim Michael and President of Ancient Kentucky, Lee Penington who was on the show the real victoms of this murder case. Lee and his active Ancient Kentucky group are to good for this quality of movie.

Reply
Victor M
02/16/2013 3:10pm

Scott has used people to get what he wants to promote himself. Any information he does have he probely just took it from someone else

Reply
Peter F
02/17/2013 8:41am

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but I found a mistake on the copper in Lake Superior episode. About 18 min into the show, they show a map that goes from Rock Harbor to McCargoe Cove. Underneath McCargoe Cove, it says "Traveling to acient copper mines". I'm assuming they meant to say ANCIENT. I would think someone would have noticed this before they aired the show on TV?

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/17/2013 9:09am

This show is a target-rich environment :-), let's not nitpick over a typo.

Reply
jenk
02/19/2013 7:46pm

First off i come from an anceint welsh family and we have two storys that are passed down from father to son the first one is that two brothers once stole a horse and were banished to a secret prison colony becouse there uncle was a duke and did not want them exacuted this same uncle was said to have killed a prince in a dule and was banish to the same place america before the british were here i am welsh and native american my grandfather has grey eyes my uncles are green and his brothers brown you never now what eye colar a person in my family will have but were all born with blonde hair that turns black after about age 12 i alway thought theses storys were made up but now i dont the picture of the welshnative women they showed on unurthed looks just like my sister just like her

Reply
R Gilbert
02/23/2013 2:42pm

I watched a couple of the episodes with some interest and questions. I have no great interest in pre-historic America. Then came the episode with the assertions that Mithras was a Celtic deity. I do have some expertise in 1st -3rd century Roman studies, and certainly, Mithras was a Persian god adopted by the Romans, whose worship was largely taken up and spread by the Roman Army. The cult died quickly in the 4th century after Constantine and the advent of Christianity. The Celtic pantheon was well established prior the Roman conquest. However, after the conquest of western Europe and Gaul, the Celtic religion tended to co-mingle with the Roman religion. There was little cultural contact between Roman Britain and Ireland, where the Celtic beliefs would have remained little changed until Christianity. I would challenge Mr. Wolter to give one single, reputable cite that would confirm Mithras as being a “Celtic god.”

The problem with shows like this is that unquestioning people tend to buy into them “hook, line and sinker” thus perpetuating junk history. Shame on the History Channel for foisting off such trash on the public.

Reply
Pierre
02/23/2013 2:45pm

Well said.
Thanks

Reply
JeffS
02/23/2013 11:58pm

Even more than the show the responses saying "who's to say..." meaning any fool stands on an equal footing to people who have spent their life training and learning in their field. Charlie Pierce has it so right in his book. This is Idiot America!

Reply
Lisa C
02/25/2013 8:10am

I am a 29 year old female, with an IQ of 142 (or so I've been told). I don't know what the demographic for the show is meant to be, but I find it highly interesting. First, it is important to note that many of these comments state they only watched the first or first couple of shows. Then, it must be noted that it is important to take ANYTHING you see/hear with a grain of salt. The show, since the first few shows, has made an effort to improve the quality of the narration.
I am in a doctorate program right now, for which I am doing a concept analysis on denial. Sometimes, when analyzing a concept (or object) it is just as important to determine what a subject is NOT and not just on what it is. It is true that Wolter is not able to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that certain objects are real. However, it is still of import that the objects are not necessarily fake. It leaves open the possibility of something quite fascinating - the potential of learning something new. We are still discovering new species daily. We discover new planets, new treasures, new theories all the time. Is it pretty well accepted that within the medical field, any "cure" that is herbal or alternative in nature is immediately ignored or discounted as false. That is because, regardless of the efficacy of "cure", there is no money to be made from an easily available product. The same type of closed-mindedness may be occurring in academia, perhaps for other reasons.
As to whether there was a true European or Mexican Pre-Columbian presence in America, who knows? BUT - if you want to know how history gets rewritten simply look at a recent event - the attack of the embassy in Benghazi. Even though reports of the attack coming from verified sources at the site were listing it as a strategically planned attack, we were repeatedly being told for quite some time that it was an impromptu riot based on some obscure youtube video. Yeah. Right. So, in this case, with all of the advanced media communication methods, we were able to wade through the lies a bit to determine something wasn't quite right. However, who knows how far the lies went? We will probably never know. So, if you take into consideration that if historical events in today's world can be altered for political reasons, surely that could have happened in a time when things were much less strictly documented. It's feasible. That is my point. It may not be provable, but neither is it disprovable. Why close the case on it now?

Reply
02/25/2013 8:25am

To be honest, I'm not sure how to respond to this. What I want to say is that I am surprised that you are in a doctoral program and are not apparently familiar with the idea of the burden of proof in argumentation or the null hypothesis in science. I have never "closed the case" on any alternative belief, but the burden of proof is on the advocate to prove that it is real. Each week, I evaluate whether the show has done that, and so far it has failed to do so. If the standard is only "could be true," then why aren't we spending tax dollars hunting for unicorns? They could be true, too.

I'm also not quite sure I understand how you can work in academia and also think academia is in on a vast conspiracy to suppress non-profitable discoveries or those that challenge the status quo. Are you now or have you ever been a conspirator?

(Note to the humor impaired: The last sentence is a humorous reference to the McCarthy hearings, not a serious attack.)

Reply
Lynn Brant
02/25/2013 8:29am

On subjects like this (and politics), people tend to polarize. They either embrace everything and anything (Wolter), or they are skeptics and reject everything believing that the "status quo" is the benchmark for truth (Jason). It's hard to find evidence of those who are discriminating.

Speaking of which, your thinly-veiled criticism of the Obama administration will get you labeled racist here.

Reply
02/25/2013 8:33am

I do not use the status quo as the benchmark for truth. You are mistaking my assertion that Wolter has the burden of proof to overcome the status quo for an unconditional acceptance of the same. In my own work, I have put forward arguments that have challenged the status quo and in so doing have had to assume the burden of proof--and take the criticism of skeptics.

Lisa C
02/25/2013 5:46pm

I am, of course, familiar with burden of proof. I also realize that Wolter may have an agenda of his own. He apparently believes something to be true, and looks for ways to prove it. I understand that may not be the best way to investigate. I do believe, however, that there are potentially important details about his findings. I am not a fanatic, conspiracy theorists, or anything else all that interesting. I just think there is a lot we don't know yet.

I am also not a political fanatic. I took one of those silly quizzes where a website determines your political orientation for a class. I took that, too, with a grain of salt. And although I tend to be slightly conservative fiscally, I am solidly in the Centrist column on most other issues. I am only of those weirdies who actually likes to (calmly) discuss both sides of a topic. However, we should NEVER gauge anything's validity on what the government spends tax dollars on. For instance, in the 1980s, Andres Serrano received a grant from The National Endowment of the Arts for the photograph Piss Christ. I'm not even Catholic, but I can't think of one reason why it would be necessary to pay someone for a photograph of a crucifix in a container of the "artist's" urine. I also don't equate tangible archaeological sites, however misinterpreted, with unicorns.
I can appreciate the sentiment behind your comment, but in an effort to disagree with me, you made yourself sound a little bit "out there, maaaaan." Smoke much? Unicorns. lol.

At any rate, I think you made a lot of assumptions about me. Firstly, I work in the medical field, not academia. As you might be aware, there are many reasons to get a doctorate. One specific example of a legitimate medical technique that is not utilized due to its lack of means to generate money would be a fecal matter transplant. It is, granted, quite disgusting. However, it has a 98% success rate in curing clostridium difficile. If we had ANYTHING that had a 98% success rate of curing any disease, don't you think we would embrace it? Absolutely not. Instead, we load up the patients with antibiotics, which were more than likely the cause of the illness in the first place. Another would be inhalation rewarming. You can rewarm a hypothermic patient using the heater on the ventilator (assuming there are already on one), a therapy they are already being charged for. Instead, we break out the Bair Hugger and charge them for that too. There are others, but I don't think it's necessary to list every one.

Lastly, I don't give two hoots about Obama or his administration. I was simply stating the fact that one group of people were attempting to perpetuate a story which was in direct opposition to the story being told by another group of people. I used that example only because it was so recent, not because of the people involved. If you want another example, we could surely discuss GW Bush's interpretation of the meaning of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" - weapons that were supposedly confirmed to be in specific locations and weren't. If you talk to Lincoln experts they will tell you a lot of reasons the Civil War was fought, and it wasn't all about slavery.
Science (and history) is often driven by the political climate surrounding it.

As for being a racist, I have been the minority in my group for my entire life up until a few years ago. I would also like to point out that everyone has biases. It is how you deal with them that makes you a racist or not. Those working in the medical field are required to attempt to acknowledge their biases and overcome them. Granted, this doesn't always happen effectively.

I try to take people for what they say, rather than what they did not say. I would appreciate if you would not try to read so far into my comments. I grew up in New York and do not have a problem with being direct. I either said something or I didn't. Try not to put so many words in my mouth - particularly ones that are so off base.

Finally, when I mentioned not "closing the case" I wasn't speaking directly to you, Jason. I realize this is your website, but I was making a general comment, not a focused one. I apologize if I phrased it in a way that made you take it personally. Frankly, I didn't realize who owned the site, as I followed a link from another link. I read ALL of the comments in this thread, not just yours. I was addressing the public in general - those that have already made comments and those that might in the future.

Reply
02/25/2013 5:57pm

I used unicorns because they have a long and storied tradition. Perhaps you are unaware that they appear in the King James Bible? There is a fascinating story behind unicorns; it was not a random suggestion.

You mention the fecal transplant, which is well-known, frequently reported, and available for those willing to pay. This is not the same as conspiring to prevent anyone from even being aware of its existence, which you accuse academia of doing. I do imagine that getting a doctorate does involve some schooling, or otherwise I have been sadly misinformed.

I have no idea what government funding has to do with evaluating America Unearthed, except for the fact that they take some.

Reply
Lisa C.
02/25/2013 5:51pm

Oh and Lynn - I am still laughing about your karaoke comment. As the oh-so-eloquent Larry the Cable Guy said - "Now that's funny. I don't care who you are." = )

Reply
Lisa C
02/25/2013 5:54pm

Oops, my "Lastly" in the 4th paragraph should be "Secondly"
Apparently I lost track of my seriation somewhere in there.

Reply
Lisa C
02/26/2013 11:29am

Jason,

You were the one who brought up government funding, not me. My comment was in reference to yours. 'If the standard is only "could be true," then why aren't we spending tax dollars hunting for unicorns?' My point was that you can't use government spending to gauge the validity of anything.

I was unaware of the unicorn references in the KJV. However, it would be important to note the context of the use of the word. The earliest known dictionary states unicorn is simply an animal with one horn. Two of the five species of rhinos have only one horn. The Bible references of unicorns mention "strength of a unicorn." I'm no great Biblical scholar, but it hardly seems they would be referencing a white, frilly horse with a horn. Also, the latin text uses unicornis and rinoceros, which are both references to the Asian One-Horned Rhino. Of course, if you have seen the new coloring book called "Unicorns are Jerks" then perhaps you could think that the Bible was mentioning a mythical creature. According to the coloring book, they can be super bitchy.

As for the FMTs. I have worked at 22 hospitals in 3 states. Not one of them has done one. Most of the FMTs performed in the US have been done by a handful of doctors. As for "available to those willing to pay" - you are also incorrect. The Infectious Disease MDs are not on board yet. I suppose a patient could travel to one of the few hospitals doing the procedure (such as the Mayo Clinic and some hospital in Rhode Island), but you would otherwise have to travel out of country. More than 3 million people get C. diff each year. I hardly think that a few doctors who have done about 100 FMTs each over the last five years are going to be able to fill the demand should many patients suddenly decide they want them. Also, there shouldn't be a lot of cost involved. It involves one person pooping in a container and placing that person's poop into the GI tract of another person via a tube. Last time I stooled, it didn't cost me anything. I don't know about you. Obviously the stool has to be tested, but in the scope of things, the tests are minimal. As for placing the stool in the GI tract, it can be done via colonoscopy, which would be the most expensive feature, but it can also be done with a simple enema or nasogastric/nasoduodenal tube. A nurse can have such a tube from the supply room and placed in the patient within a five minute period. Where is the great cost you are referencing? One round of Zosyn and/or Vancomycin costs much more and isn't nearly as effective. The "frequent reporting" you mention has only come about in light of a very recent study that tested the efficacy of the FMTs. They have been being performed for more than 50 years without much reporting at all.

Reply
Ryan
03/01/2013 4:41pm

I am not a scientist but I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the Mayans spread out after they abandon their city the same way the Europeans did after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Where I sta draw the line is the claim that there were Eurpeans roaming the Arizona desert a thousand years ago. That seems to be something that would warrant some serious evidence. Common sense would say that it would be difficult/impossible for someone from Ireland to reach the western half of the North American continent 500 years before Christopher Columbus.

Reply
Larry D
03/02/2013 3:51pm

I do watch this show, but have noticed as have many others that Mr Wolter picks and chooses the evidence he wants to focus on. He ignores what apparently doesn't fit his narrative. Instead of focusing on one particular symbol, or letter why isn't the whole inscription evaluated as a whole ? Why at least isn't it questioned just why any postulated people landing in the new world would trek thousands of miles inland through a wilderness to leave some relatively small trace of their passage ? Could it possibly have occurred ? Perhaps, but how likely ? Why are supposed carved texts seldom if ever deciphered by established accredited scholars who could put the entire message into context, and establish authenticity beyond a shadow of a doubt ? I could go on and on, but my point is that if Mr Wolters objective is to prove the objective authenticity of these various finds, and his assertion for their origins then he needs to do a more comprehensive analysis, and let the chips fall where they may. I am not against investigating such subjects, and indeed am intrigued by the possibility that we do not know all our history in fine detail. I would like to believe I have an open mind, however I want the investigation to be thorough, unbiased, with all aspects of a given find looked at in "total context" via recognized scholars who have no personal dog in the fight. I believe all around the world there are aspects of various archeological sites that just amaze us even today, and which do not receive the kind of recognition they ought to. However whatever site of archeological interest is found, where ever found needs to be investigated with complete integrity. If at the end of the day the find is found to be a fake then so be it. I say go into the investigation neither pro, nor con, and let the facts take you where they may.

Reply
James Nichols
03/12/2013 12:01am

Obviously, Wolter would love for the show to be longer so that he could show us more of what actually goes on during his investigations. But TV is about money and sponsors. Producers don't care anything about the content of the show as long as it's making money.

Wolter is just trying to use what he has available in order to bring certain things to our attention. I believe he's doing his best. Someday you'll all say, "I knew it all along!".

Reply
Pierre
03/12/2013 12:22am

If he only has 40 minutes per show, he should make the best out of it and stop showing him on the phone, driving around or sitting in his hotel room. And most of all he should stop saying stupid things and go to the point. If he had anything he wouldn't never say "what if", "could it be", "is it possible", He is the Homer Simpsons of science.

Reply
03/17/2013 9:41pm

This show is a hoot. He is very sincere and the Newport towers was a challenge. It rained for the whole shoot. (It always rains there.) But the wacky part was that he didn't look at the key stone until he was there a week. Wouldn't he look at the key stone first? And then we go on a helicopter ride around the Statue of Liberty when photos of the statue are in almost every home.

As usual the "expert" who tagged along kept say, "Uh ok Scott but I think you're wrong." The expert is always right and Scott ignores him. I love this show. It's great entertainment.

Reply
03/17/2013 9:41pm

This show is a hoot. He is very sincere and the Newport towers was a challenge. It rained for the whole shoot. (It always rains there.) But the wacky part was that he didn't look at the key stone until he was there a week. Wouldn't he look at the key stone first? And then we go on a helicopter ride around the Statue of Liberty when photos of the statue are in almost every home.

As usual the "expert" who tagged along kept say, "Uh ok Scott but I think you're wrong." The expert is always right and Scott ignores him. I love this show. It's great entertainment.

Reply
03/17/2013 9:41pm

This show is a hoot. He is very sincere and the Newport towers was a challenge. It rained for the whole shoot. (It always rains there.) But the wacky part was that he didn't look at the key stone until he was there a week. Wouldn't he look at the key stone first? And then we go on a helicopter ride around the Statue of Liberty when photos of the statue are in almost every home.

As usual the "expert" who tagged along kept say, "Uh ok Scott but I think you're wrong." The expert is always right and Scott ignores him. I love this show. It's great entertainment.

Reply
03/17/2013 9:41pm

This show is a hoot. He is very sincere and the Newport towers was a challenge. It rained for the whole shoot. (It always rains there.) But the wacky part was that he didn't look at the key stone until he was there a week. Wouldn't he look at the key stone first? And then we go on a helicopter ride around the Statue of Liberty when photos of the statue are in almost every home.

As usual the "expert" who tagged along kept say, "Uh okay Scott but I think you're wrong." The expert is always right and Scott ignores him. I love this show. It's great entertainment.

Reply
Herald
05/01/2013 8:17pm

The History Chanel [s] is just junk now! I'd rather go back and watch the overload of Hitler and WW2 programming than to watch the scripted crap like "America Unearthed" and "Pawn Stars".

I stumbled on to this site by searching for the credentials of Scott Wolter. He is just trying to get paid and someone is willing to do it, so I can't really blame him for that. He knows he is reaching and misleading. Ethics and self morality just does not matter to him or the History Channel and Chaska Herald [the show's production company).

Reply



Leave a Reply