What on Earth? (2015– ) User Reviews

Contributor Pope

[jpjhermes · 5/10 · 12 July 2020]

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.

It's so so

[calebgallagher-10403 · 6/10 · 15 January 2021]

It's a good show for what it is. Does take a long time just to get to the point and loops the same content a lot. Then, they ad some scientist or something taking notes looking at a giant screen of the same thing someone is already talking about? Why this is added, no one knows and it's maybe for a dramatic effect. I laugh every time I see that part.

Calm Down

[becca7931 · 5/10 · 30 August 2021]

The show is just offering mysteries to the viewer to draw their own conclusions about the mysteries, instead of being spoon-fed all the answers. So what there are some conspiracies presented? So what they offer theories that don't pan out? Learn to use your brain instead of needing the Science Channel to tell you everything. Research something you want to know more about. Stop asking everyone else to think for you so you can regurgitate stuff like a child.

Pseudo-science for Bored Conspiracy Buffs

[maxima-36494 · 1/10 · 29 July 2017]

The series started out OK but has since degenerated into Enquirer-level sensationalism. The show has likely run out of ideas and is now willing to present known and already-explained phenomena as unsolved mysteries.

An example: satellite photos and video show an enormous 3,000-mile wide shadow moving across the planet! What on earth could it be?!?

1. Is it secret gov't technology deployed into space to cool a too-warm earth? Evidently, according to our scientists, we don't have the capability to do it or keep it secret.

2. All right, how about a huge insect swarm? The largest swarm ever documented covered about 75 square miles. But this shadow is way bigger and moving at 2,000 miles per hour! Can insects fly that fast? Who knows. Let's check with our scientists!

3. OK, insects are out. So what if the shadow was caused a huge alien ship like the one in Independence Day? And the gov't is covering it up? Let's ask our scientists if its possible to hide an alien spacecraft the size of Australia.

4. Ok, alien ships are out, at least for now 'cuz we ain't entirely convinced. But what else could have caused this shadow?

We're outta ideas so how can we figure this out? Should we consult NASA since they provided the satellite data? They can't be much smarter than our own scientists, but fine, we'll ask 'em during the commercial break ... and, we're back and, OMG, NASA claims the shadow was caused by ... THE MOON? Are they sure? Could this be another cover-up? And NASA "claims" lunar eclipses are 100% predictable? Well, maybe we'll figure all this out someday but for now ... ITS A MYSTERY!

Coming up next: Crop circles!

Horrid

[stephenqr · 27 September 2016]

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.

Great science trivia, info checks out, worst habit of reusing old material I've ever seen

[thenortherncrater · 8/10 · 14 July 2016]

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.

You're all hilarious

[michaeldecker-09230 · 7/10 · 8 April 2018]

Granted, this show isn't GREAT, it makes me laugh reading the rest of the reviews here. I mean, I had no idea there was so many people that knew exactly what this show brings to the table in every episode! I mean, "what a sad excuse" of a show that talks about things that exist on Earth that can be seen from earth!

Same content packed into "new" episodes. Fake scientists. Pathetic.

[jjgsports · 1/10 · 11 May 2016]

At first I was super excited to see the show thinking hey maybe they will have cool top secret things that we don't really know. It turns out they just show really stupid things with increasingly stupid reasons for why its there. Not only that but they have fake scientists that take forever to get to the point and if that weren't bad enough, they jam the EXACT SAME content into "new"episodes. It's abysmal that they can even get away with calling them new episodes. Such a shame that they fail miserably at what could be a good show. Just wiki search weird Google map photos and you will get to the point faster and get better answers than this show will give you.

Interesting and informative

[stnfarris · 10/10 · 8 December 2020]

The show is enjoyable to watch and presents multiple different possibilities of what you may be looking at. You learn a lot about things that are happening and things that have happened in the past. Don't let other peoples negative reviews of the show deter you. You do actually learn quite a bit. Just because there are multiple different scenarios that are presented and debunked does not mean that it makes the show any less interesting. You actually learn about quite a few different phenomena that are associated with satellite imagery from the different possibilities that are presented. Creates a firm understanding of how we survey and monitor our earth with satellite imagery.

The Laziest Science Series Ever...

[mjudyski · 1/10 · 4 May 2016]

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.

Perfect educational and thought-provoking mix of information and mystery, speculation and elucidation

[jrarichards · 9/10 · 6 April 2020]

Bizarrely, this series shown on Discovery Science is not too well-praised round here, yet it seems remarkably blameless and in fact highly virtuous and educational. It is true that there are moments when it seems to be heading into, say, "Ancient Aliens" territory, by emphasising mysteries associated with features to be noted in satellite imagery. And while it may seem a little unfair or even (looking back on it) ridiculous for the series to speculate in various directions about things whose explanations are in fact known, this offers a very nice and interesting and realistic encapsulation of the scientific process.

With the help of a wide range of personable "talking head" experts, we focus in on various images that satellites catch sight of, mostly also with field trips (ultimately) taken to give us resolution on the ground. In the meantime, various possibilities are speculated on by people who seem to be earnest in making their proposals, even if it may perhaps be that they know what the true situation is.

Maybe that seems phoney, but the result is for adults and kids alike to pass through the process scientists do indeed use as they try to elucidate new phenomena, for example applying Occam's Razor to remove the crazier ideas from their list of possibilities. Logic and experience are also deployed to give most likely or "balance of probabilities" answers.

As NOT all the mysteries are resolved fully, the above approach is justified. But even where explanations are known, the simulation of the speculative approach is hugely valuable as it encourages real thinking, as opposed to the mute acceptance of spoon-fed answers. The fact that we take between 5 and 10 minutes to come to a conclusion in each case offers priceless time for viewers to think for themselves - it's a simply inspired formula!!!

What is more, it is typical for us to again and again come up against the beauty of our planet in this series, and cases of its being at one and the same time fragile and resilient. These are again extremely worthwhile messages.

There are therefore huge and genuine insights to be had here, into history, geology, climatology, natural history, the oceans and so on, and the more I watch, the more I enjoy...

It's crap!

[steveheinze-07578 · 1/10 · 10 January 2017]

We have satellites that see down to 5 feet and even though they know what the majority of their find's are, they present it in a Tabloid style format. A good idea gone horribly wrong. To make it worse, it seems as though 9 out of ten of the people going "what are these things?" are pseudo intellectuals who are just there to try to hype it into something that it's not. This show could be condensed into a 10 minute show consisting of "hey! Look what we found and this is pretty much what it is instead of all the stupid insufferable conjecture. To make it worse, in order to leave feedback on this show, you need to have a minimum of 10 lines of written content. Honestly, how many ways can you say a show id crap before running out of adjectives?

Terrible disservice to science

[carlosv72 · 3/10 · 24 July 2017]

Everyone above this comment hit the nail on the head. This is a waste of time to anyone truly interested in science. The ridiculous argument before explaining what is obvious to a lot of learned people is really insulting. I was watching another show called NASA's Unexplained Files and the premise was as ridiculous as the one for What on earth, checked out the production company... guess what?? same guy... When I'm looking on the program guide and see these two programs I feel sad because the channels that are normally watch for science stories and interesting stuff are busy showing this garbage. I guess it's a cheap show and that's why they use it, I don't know. Here's is to missing The Learning Channel 20 years ago when it started (The Operation anyone? that was so cool!!). I guess everything gets lowered to the minimum common denominator or whatever sells to the masses... really sad.

What on earth is going on with "what on earth"?

[huruxhara · 8 March 2017]

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.

Good watch

[adampadum · 10/10 · 24 March 2018]

Interesting show very thought provoking.and not everything can be easily explained

How to contrive extraordinary perceptions out of underwhelming, uninspiring reality

[ranseglorome · 4/10 · 27 December 2016]

Here's the formula for this show:

1. Search high and low for any sort of satellite image that can possibly be presented in an anomalous context.

2. Omit key information / observations / facts, while using the narrator to mislead the viewers / present said "anomaly" as something extraordinary (e.g. aliens, government secrets, the end of the world).

3. Present several (typically idiotic / ludicrous) possibilities (to eat up time), and then proceed to discredit said idiotic / ludicrous possibilities (e.g. Narrator's Voice (hyperbole): "A satellite caught glimpse of a giant pink blob in the sky over the Pacific Ocean, which has experts baffled. Some have suggested it could be a giant herd of pigs. This would certainly explain the pink appearance, but upon further inspection, seems unlikely as pigs aren't known to fly. Further, the blob covers an area of 100,000 square miles. If it is a herd of flying pigs, it would consist of more pigs than are known to exist in the observable universe").

4. Present all the (initially omitted) facts / details, revealing the anomaly's true, (underwhelming) identity (e.g. Narrator's Voice: "When orbiting the earth, a satellite witnesses a sunset and sunrise every 90 minutes. At the time the anomalous satellite image was taken, the sun just so happened to be setting behind the Earth, resulting in a spectacular sunset, which manifests itself as a (wait for it)… pink… blob…").

There might be one legitimate / actually interesting case presented every couple of episodes. Aside from that, it's just a bunch of lazy / manufactured, (often) downright idiotic filler content… Then again, I suppose that's pretty much all television these days

My favorite show, or at least one of them.

[rdoubleoc · 10/10 · 3 February 2019]

This is definitely one of my favorite shows now, but at first I didn't like it much because they can get off-track sometimes, or entertain conspiracy theories somewhat.

My other favorite shows are Mysteries at the Museum, and their other shows which follow the almost-same format (such as Deadly Intelligence, and Outlaw Intelligence -- the two best shows in my opinion). Mysteries of the Abandoned is alright too.

What on Earth and Mysteries of the Abandoned are two shows that they should definitely keep making, in my opinion.

The cast on this show is phenomenal, who do a good job of explaining things, like Mike Baker, Patricia Driscoll, Lindsay Moran, Kathryn Hanson, Andrew Gough, Randy Cerveny, Marc D'Antonio, Brittany Brand, and others. I've never heard of these people before, but they definitely make a good cast (at least for a show like this). They seem really knowledgeable.

Godawful

[gkerr-44454 · 1/10 · 5 July 2017]

Constantly stokes fears by explaining possible worst-case scenarios that cause naturally occurring phenomena. Everything is either caused by ISIS, aliens, or a secret government conspiracy, with simple, real causes usually being weather events (from what I've seen). Completely misleading and utterly terrible.

Extremely Entertaining

[lisabrowntemporary · 10/10 · 21 September 2020]

Fun to binge watch. I may not agree with what I'm seeing but it's presented in an entertaining way.

Television for the gullible

[Bert45 · 1/10 · 18 March 2017]

There are some TV shows that make you want to put your fist through the screen and this is one of them. The Discovery Channel does itself no favours with this wildly over-hyped "science" series and, in fact, probably does its credibility a lot of damage. The concept? Take some normal satellite images of unusual shapes and colours on the face of the Earth, add lots of zoom-swish sound effects, breathlessly amazed commentary by a bunch of "experts" and then imagine every half-baked wild-eyed mystery theory you can think of before you finally reveal the perfectly logical explanation that a whole bunch of locals knew about all along. Only the truly gullible would fall for this kind of tripe. Sadly, it appears that's what the Discovery Channel thinks of its viewers. I would give it a zero out of 10 if I could but the count doesn't go that low. I have to ask: Is this how Americans really view the world outside their own borders?

Mindless drivel

[ozart2002-919-392694 · 1/10 · 29 July 2017]

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.)

The "experts" whisper for some reason

[gusfring-82966 · 22 December 2021]

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.

Thought provoking

[Manannan_MacLir · 10/10 · 12 March 2017]

A fascinating show that presents satellite imagery of unusual looking objects and then posits questions as to what we are looking at. They give you the location that you can look up on Google maps, so you can be interactive with the show. Clever that the answer is not given right away, as it causes the viewer to actually wonder what it is that is being examined. Sometimes they can get a closer look, and determine what it is, but other times the area is simply inaccessible.

I've ended up purchasing all the seasons on Amazon, and I watch the episodes repeatedly. I've always loved looking at maps, and since I find that I look up the locations on google maps and frequently then look up and read more about the locations, I find this show intelligent and thought provoking.

To address some other comments; A scientist wearing an 'Aperture Labs' shirt means only that they may be a sci-fi fan or possibly shop at Thinkgeek. I have an Initech mug. Big deal. That's not a valid criticism. Also, I'm rating this as a 10 as I not only consider this to be among my favorite shows and that is my legit rating, but I need to offset giving a 1, as that reveals more about the lack of intelligence of the reviewer than the show itself. A 1 should be reserved for manufactured garbage like The Bachelor or Keeping up with the Kardashians.

"omg guys therez something weird on Earth, lets make it sound scry!"

[sedativchunk · 4/10 · 22 April 2016]

"What On Earth" is a newer series on the Science Channel about anomalous places on Earth. The show literally revolves around a group of people (or "scientist") finding something on Earth via Google Maps that doesn't make sense, and making a TV episode about discovering with the anomaly is. The show fails miserably at trying to be something serious, making unexplained locations and phenomena of Earth sound like some big, scary conspiracy only to reveal that said phenomenon is something very stupid or practically explained.

"What On Earth" isn't a terrible idea for a TV show. There really are places on Earth that are mysterious and difficult to explain without physical observation. One of the subjects of this TV show was the island "Sandy Island" which really is a mysterious and unexplained phenomenon where an alleged island on the outskirts of Australia literally disappeared. The problem with this show is the very poor execution of subjects and unnecessary build up in trying to explain what some of the phenomena are.

Who they pass for scientist to back up some of their research is a complete joke as well. One of the men on this show that was a supposed scientist/professional was wearing an "Aperture Laboratories" t-shirt. Aperture Laboratories is a fake laboratory in the video game universe of "Portal". Who were they trying to kid? This show is also notorious for over-advertising itself and re-suing old footage in new episodes constantly. They also drag on the subjects of interest far too long. Do we really need to be given a 30-60 minute episode of drama and build up to be told that volcanic sut is making it look like an island appeared out of nowhere in the ocean? You can tell use that in 10~ seconds, we don't need a one-hour long episode on something like that.

This was a good idea for a show, it's just poorly executed. It has some nice visuals of Earth and helicopter views of locations on Earth. But that's about it. The concepts of this show are uninteresting. once you've watched a couple episodes, you've watched them all. Baffled about one of the locations o this show? Type it in on Wikipedia. You'll get a thorough explanation of the phenomenon without watching a boring, one hour episode of fake scientist speculating about what it is.

What on Earth?(2015-) The premiere First Aired: January 12th, 2023

[robfollower · 8/10 · 14 January 2023]

The premiere of (Satellite images from space) 'What on Earth?' is back on the Science Channel looking at the mysteries of the world today.

First Aired: January 12th, 2023 60 minTVPGScience/Nature, Documentary, Series, Drama, ScienceSeries Satellite images capture a bizarre pattern of enormous circular clouds obscuring an island in the eastern Atlantic; experts investigate and uncover evidence of an unfolding natural disaster that could potentially threaten millions of lives.

The fantastic learning series What on Earth? Is back today with more episodes designed to teach you more and more about the mysterious planet you live on.

The various episodes include "Horror of Dead Man's Island," "Stalin's Secret Atlantis," "America's Secret Apocalypse," "Holes of Dead Sea Destruction," Ancient Rome's El Dorado," "Lost City of Kalahari," "Secret of Doomsday Mountain," "Finding Vietnam's Lost POSw," "Bullseye in the Sky," "Who Built Supervillain Island?" and "Curse of the Lost Kingdom."