Not only is it a speculative, hyped up and overacted pile of nonsense from would be experts, it is inaccurate and boring. The last episode I watched made reference to an Air New Zealand DC10 that crashed in Antarctica killing all on board. These 'experts' laid the blame squarely on the Pilots who encountered 'whiteout' conditions, which are common in areas with snow and ice. The fact is, most the problem was created by wrong data entry into their flight computer which pointed them directly at Mt Erebus. The pilots were partly to blame for descending below the minimium altitude when they were a little unsure of their surroundings. They did have a guide on the Flightdeck who had been on previous scenic flights and that may have lulled them into a false sense of security. The crash was a direct result of bad data entry, complicated by pilots unfamiliarity with the landscape. However, please 'What on Earth' get your facts right before slating a dead-man! 'Disgusted' NZ

As one user previously wrote the series started great. I was hooked and couldn't wait for the next episode. They probably ran out of the material quickly and it all went downhill. 15 minutes of "what is it?" when you can see after 1 sec "Oh it's a shadow of something". Last time they had a "strange" shadow of an object that looks like a tower...guess what...it was a tower..photo was taken from above so the "tower" was flat (obvious from the 1st sec)...

If the one reviewer here who rated this a 10 can't see the difference between actual science, and the veneer used to drag the audience through impossible hyperbole, then he/she/it is an imbecile (or a paid troll.)Every episode is filled with sketchy evidence of some unique object or occurrence, then built to a crescendo, followed by "Just kidding". The asswipes responsible for this crap should be on the bread line someplace, and the garbage they have already produced belongs on the Comedy Channel.I fear that Discovery is headed down the same path as so many other once-educational channels - pandering to the lowest common denominator in search of ratings (and they found it in Mr.IGaveItA10ToOffsetTheLowScores.)

A science channel show where the premise is to look for bizarre images of objects on earth seen from satellites, and try to explain what they are. 3-4 images are featured per episode. I was wary this show might feature a lot of pseudoscience, but I think it does a pretty good job demonstrating the difference between speculation and science.Authors and journalists are interviewed, some with very outlandish claims, but their ideas are presented critically, with any holes pointed out by the scientists also being interviewed. Googling these scientists, they seem legitimate; their credentials accurately stated, no accusations of unethical research, etc. Unfortunately, who is saying what may not be completely clear to anyone not looking for it, as the show moves through different arguments so fast.You often don't find the real answer, which is to be expected, but either way I think the journey is a real treat. You could hear about an abandoned island which turns out to be a forced labor camp from WWII. Or about intricate designs in the desert, rumored to point to a lost city reported by an 1800s explorer, only to find out that it's a farm coincidentally pointing to an unusual rock formation.Along the way, you learn different facts about history, meteorology, military technology, geology, and most importantly, satellite imaging. The single biggest problem with this show is that so many of the segments are reused, being literally copied and pasted into different episodes. So the actual amount of content is probably only about half of the show's length.The knowledge is pretty esoteric, so I don't recommend it for basic education, but if you're a fan of science and mystery, I'd check it out in spite of its flaws.