User Reviews

Scott Walter, joins the list of pushy, aggressive "pseudo-experts" with an agenda. This time to prove Columbus was NOT the first! (YAWN)

Mr. Walter, does not want to apply for the permits to dig, or hire a recognized archaeologist to document his "finds". Mr. Walter blames the academic world and red tape, for wanting to do things by the scientific method. Yet he claims he has a valid archaeological discovery to enlighten us.

A red flag goes up, whenever, some con artist says that you do not need proper documentation, or the government will not allow this, as this is secret knowledge that will change the history books. Give us a break, Scott, as your audience is not as stupid as you wish.

Other flaws are his loud background music drowns out whatever nonsense is stated. There is a myopic view to his investigations, as only one point maybe checked.

This is just pure UNentertaining fake-science. As far as we know, all of the artifacts are modern forgeries, created for this show.

I really enjoy this show. It may not be real history but it is closer than many other History Channel programs and since lineups are dictated by ratings we can blame ourselves for that. Even the haters are obviously viewers as well. What if we watch it for what I think the producers intended, entertainment?

I have lived in lots of small towns and rural areas around the eastern parts of the USA and have learned that every community has it's very own interesting history and past full of exciting events. Within so many of those histories lies a layer or section that has questionable conclusions, or parts that have not achieved consensus even after decades. This show has been a wonderful venue for people to learn about interesting legends, histories, and mysteries of places they may never have been to or even heard of otherwise.

I don't believe I have ever heard the show's host claim that he has presented evidence proving anything one way or another. I have heard him say that either the presence or lack of some specific evidence warrants asking more questions or pursuing further investigations. He does that while also telling a story or legend many of us know something about while many more of us may never have had the opportunity to ever know about. Finally, I think we must all honestly admit, even if the program or it's host does have an agenda, it is far more innocent than the manipulative agenda most of America's 24hr news agencies practice. So why are so many being so hostile about a small time cable TV show?

I am a scientist with nearly 50 years of research on many of the subjects covered in this show. I have seen most of the episodes, but not all. I have read all the reviews here as of Feb. 2015. From what I can tell I have done far more work on much of the subject matter than all the other reviewers here put together. Though, I must say many of the reviewers who talk as if they know all about the subject matter don't indicate having done any of their own research whatsoever, so it's difficult to say for sure.

I would urge anyone interested to keep an open mind while watching this show. The host presents his opinions and explains why he has them. That is all. He examines items that would help prove some of his opinions to be correct and declares them to be unrelated or even a hoax if his examination and research indicate such. I have done extensive checking on much of the science he presents, and have found it to be sound. That doesn't mean I come to the same conclusion on all of it, just that the science is sound as best I can tell within the parameters of a TV show.

I find most of the criticisms in the reviews here to be on much shakier factual and scientific ground than most of the information in the show. I find it concerning when people exhibit the level of emotion that those here criticizing the show.

The amount of "scientific facts" that were once accepted by scientists that are now known to be incorrect is staggering, just as the number of current known scientific facts that were once vigorously attacked by many scientists. If you are open minded and willing to do a bit of research yourself, I believe you will most likely enjoy this show as I have.

I can't believe all the bad reviews for this show! I just watched all 3 episodes with my boyfriend last night and they were all great. My boyfriend is more sciency than I am, and I know he had some problems with what they called proof on the show, but I thought that was the point. There isn't scientific documentation for a lot of these sites and that is what the show seems like it's trying to accomplish. To have people look at those sites closer. People who are qualified. I know one of the other reviews I read said they called him an archaeologist but the show says over and over he is a geologist, which is totally different. I feel like people want to be mad at this show because it's making them uncomfortable and they aren't necessarily paying attention so they make mistakes like that. Why are people so angry about Mr. Wolter looking at these places and doing what he can? All this talk of fake science seems like its a question of who is judging that. A lot of things have been called bad science over the ages and then were later proved to be right.

I gave the show a 9 because I don't like how sometimes the show just does things that are staged. I know that sometimes shows need to do this but this made it feel like too much at times. Writing access denied or something on a piece of paper seems like nothing a person would really do. Still, I found myself caring less and less about that as time went on. It feels like a new type of show to me. You have a lot of other shows where things are equally fake, but no one ever complains. At least this show seems to know it's doing that and is okay with it and is maybe even purposeful about it. Maybe this is where reality is going? So I don't care what the other people say, this is a fun show. Mr. Wolter is a good host and seems genuinely interested in the subject matter. There are moments when the proof isn't so great, but that is the fun of it people! The stories are interesting and say some really important stuff about how ancient people weren't stupid and could have come here. Don't let the typical audience of angry, white men who think they know everything tell you it's not a good program. Sometimes you need to stop looking at everything like it's black and white and accept that what you call science isn't the only thing that matters on a TV show! If that's the only thing you judge a show by then I hope you can find something good to watch because none of it will ever live up to that standard unless you're watching the science channel or something. Have a little fun in life.

As an avid reader of actual history and someone who is interested in archaeology, I found this show to be sad and infuriating. The host claims to have credentials that he does not have and uses false experts to support his outlandish claims. He consults actual experts then dismisses their expert advice if they disagree with the hypothesis he is trying to prove. If you have any background in academic history or archaeology, don't waste your time on this show unless you just enjoy shows like Ancient Aliens or Finding Bigfoot for their entertainment values alone. If you are uneducated and BELIEVE in pseudo-science and conspiracy theories then this is a show you will love. Personally I find it to be bunk history and junk science made up to entertain people who believe everything they see on TV. Here is a website with reviews of the shows hosts credentials and a blog with reviews of each show that I found informative and right on the mark. http://www.jasoncolavito.com/apps/search?q=America+Unearthed

The series starts out showing evidence of before unseen(by me) archaeological sites in North America. The evidence is reviewed and a supposition given. Pretty straight forward documentary type stuff. By the end of the season and the culminating Templar Treasure episode, the amount of hype and pure unfounded speculation is off the charts.

So the shows start out with stuff that hasn't been hammered home in oh so many documentaries and movies, then ends up with Scott Wolter giving his opinion about all the stuff we've been seeing for the past couple decades. Templars, the Grail, Freemasons, you name it, this series hits all the high points in the end.

Scientists start with a hypothesis, do the research and then give a report on what they evidence shows. Scott Wolter has an opinion, and looks for only the evidence that supports it. By the end of the last show, with the drill that wouldn't start and the fist pumping and crack-pottering(is that a verb?), my eyes were rolling so much that I thought I would strain my optic nerve. This show is entertaining but I don't think there's a need for another season because they have shot through all the relevant topics a sensationalist show like this feeds on.

I noticed the host of the show was the Minnesota guy who did the Kensington Rune Stone, so I gave it a watch. I love potentially controversial history, and this show was really impressive for being a brand new show!

PRODUCTION VALUE: Off the charts. It looks beautiful. Seems like they spent WAY more money on this than on most new shows. The music is a little over the top dramatic, but I get that it helps to keep people watching.

STORY: Solid, but I thought they tried to pack too much into the first episode - and it seemed like Florida was an even more compelling potential Mayan outlet, but they barely touched on it. I think they tried to go too big for the opener. The second and third eps had a much more manageable plot.

SCIENCE: OK, so it seems like they definitely have taken some leaps so far, and there is a lot of speculation, but that's exactly what a show like this is supposed to have. They don't say anything that is false, they just present possibilities. I also think the host has a point when he talks about supposedly academic people resisting change simply because it might prove them wrong.

CHARACTERS: The "experts" seem a little shaky, but the central host is really strong. He reminds me of an older Jeff Probst, and obviously he's being presented with a twist of Indiana Jones. They say he's a "forensic geologist," which sounds almost too flashy, like they're trying to use a CSI term, but he's great at carrying the show. I actually believe that HE BELIEVES what he's saying.

LONG TERM APPEAL: I am cautiously optimistic... I really want more "alternative history" type shows because I think there's a lot of material there that is not being properly investigated, and this show does a better job of introducing some of those cases than other shows I've seen. I don't expect Scott Wolter to find Big Foot or Atlantis, but this show seems to take itself too seriously to go there. I'll keep watching for now, and it helps that the star is local :)

I am shocked and appalled that a series such as this is shown on the History channel.

The episode concerning a stone tower's origins is just bad science. Critical alignments of stars at given times of the year only align on those critical dates. What ever the event it is it happens on that date and not several days later. We are talking about the earth and the sun or star in alignment and as everything is in motion, 24 hours later won't do it, 96 hours does not work. That is the science.

The gist of this episode claims only a certain group of people could have made the calculations for this event and built the structure, a long time before Columbus. He forgets the Aztec people built far grander structures for exactly the same stellar event a thousand years before his "chosen group". Furthermore there is no further evidence to indicate his people ever made it there or that there is any evidence of who the builders where. Certainly a puzzling structure would draw some interest from archaeologists prior to his startling discovery of this and his remarkable speculation.

All I can say is he loves to drop names and speculate a connection between a wide range of historical events and people with out proposing a shred of evidence to link them.

Pseudo science would be an exaggeration.

This speculation is not worthy of the History Channel.

I would rate it 0 (Drivel), if you scale went lower.

As a geologist this episode gives my profession a bad name.