What on Earth?

This is a show based on satellite imagery uncovering mysteries. This could have been a wonderful idea, but it was horribly done.

The "science" behind the stories is just ludicrous. Every random mark on the earth is Noah's ark, Garden of Eden, Atlantis,aliens, etc. Then they pretend to use science akin to "all dogs are animals therefore fish ride bicycles ... OBVIOUSLY!" to "prove" their ludicrous hyperbole, ridiculous conjecture, fables and guesses, stir in a bit more sensationalism, eerie music and well-placed commercial breaks for suspense (followed by a 5 minute reminder of the last 5 minutes before the commercial break) ... then eventually state what it REALLY is or claim it's still a mystery *David Copperfield hands*.

This show is an embarrassing travesty of science. This should be on the History Channel.

Not sure if they are filming this in a library or something, but Mike Caps for example, whispers the entire show. Every single statement from him. Whisper. He's not the only one. Nearly every single "expert" does it. Annoying.

Allow me to give you a couple excerpts from a few different episode descriptions: •S4Ep5 - "A Possible sighting of Genghis Khan's tomb" •S3Ep6(Titled "Hidden Tomb of Genghis Khan") •S4Ep3 - "Strange spiral markings in an African desert" •S3Ep3 - "Strange spiral markings in the remote African desert." •S2Ep2 - "Weird barren rings in the Namib Dessert." (If you didn't guess it, The Namib Dessert is a remote African dessert...)

Do you see the pattern? they are just recycling entire episodes or segments from the previous season and calling it new.

Naturally one may think that xfinity has just messed up the descriptions, but nope. I watch them every week, Wednesday morning on my DVR, and it is all stuff they have shown already just called season 4 -_- talk about lazy. It's not even like they are giving the topics another look, or introducing new findings or theories to the story. It is word for word, scene for scene, exactly the same!

I mean the stories are decent, sometimes they really try and play them up to make the incredibly mundane seem interesting until a scientist says it's just some natural phenomenon, but aside from that, and the fact that nothing new has been in any of the episodes in the last few months, I'd still rank it as sub-par compared to some other shows of the same variety, even ones appearing on the science channel.

I think all the "scientists" are hired actors. Used to be 1 of my favourite series in Discovery Science, but at 1 point when I realised that the "experts" are contradicting themselves (1st they present a theory, then another, then eventually the very same "expert" is the 1 who explains the real cause of the said phenomenon) that is when I thought that these are all staged.

Some of the newer series interesting with geographical features seen form space and explained or theorised.

Why is Nick Pope shown as a Military Analyst in the series?

He was not a military analyst. Mr Pope was the most junior grade manager in the MoD/ civil service. For 3 years he ran the MoD so called 'UFO desk' with a clerk. They collected public inquiries/sightings about UFOs. Any sightings requiring complex & thorough investigation would have been referred upwards to military etc. Mr Pope did not retire from the MoD but left to pursue a career as a UFO pundit with having worked at the MoD as a useful connection.