My girlfriend and I sat after a long day on the couch perusing Netflix, and found America Unearthed looking like a good bet. After all, the subject of un-explored archaeological mysteries right here in our own collective backyard is a great hook. Who wouldn't enjoy that?Enter Scott Wolter.I know absolutely nothing about the guy, but he strikes me as an aging male model who at the height of his career enjoyed success as an A- lister modeling clothes for the men's section of the JC Penny catalog. I could respect a guy for just being that. You know, somebody who's aware of their limitations. That kind of thing. What I don't respect and am annoyed by is anybody in the entertainment business trying (badly) to pass themselves off as a genuine academic. It's akin to Jenna Jameson suddenly disappearing from the world of porn and re-emerging as a powerful party to bare on the subject of, say, Big Pharma or the current State of Israel, speaking to us through botox inflated lips and raccoon eyes. That simply doesn't work. 'America' isn't so much the story of history lost as it is Mr. Wolter desperately trying to convince us he knows what he's talking about. His so-called 'investigations' are shoddy, incoherent, and ego-oriented.In one episode alone, Wolter finds it necessary to verbally disparage and gossip about a colleague to a friend over the phone while sitting in an airport. The colleague simply didn't agree with Wolter's assessments earlier in the episode, and Wolter HAD to be on camera childishly complaining about it to someone else.How could any of that add value to the show's objective? Clearly, it doesn't and detracts from any validity Wolter might have had.I made it through three episodes. That's all I could take.The potential for this show was enormous, but Wolter's lack of any true scientific agenda and bratty personality drags it straight out of the sky and into the ground.

This has to rate in the top 10 most unscientific series in the history of television. It is an absolute crock. There is no confirmation of any of the so called facts. He presents his opinion, the one he is paid for, as fact but answers no questions that arise. For instance, the episode "A Deadly Sacrifice" he asserts that the Celts were in North America near modern day Tulsa OK and points west, proved from a carving of a bull found IN the nearby river (later in the show he states it was found on an island in the river), obviously without typical water erosion, and links it to cave carvings in Oklahoma's panhandle. If you look closely at his map linking the two "on the same waterway" you find they are not.Another episode "Great Lakes Copper Heist" he asserts Europeans came to North America to mine copper in the region of the Great Lakes with out leaving 1 single utensil, tool, or remnant of a dwelling when they vacated. It is inferred that this mining was to fuel the Bronze age. However the copper was not depleted, and always held value even after the Bronze Age. Why would they leave? The episode "Stonehenge In America" depicts a New Hampshire site with a Stonehenge like construction (it's nothing like it) linked, by Google Earth on a line from the New Hampshire site to the UK Stonehenge. The American site has a stone pointing directly at Stonehenge in a north eastern direction then on to Beirut on the Mediterranean Sea… except it is a direct line to thru the Baltic Sea. Several hundred miles north.The only value this has is laughable science and geography. Unfortunately there will be those who believe this "Bull", pun intended.

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 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?