I found it ridiculous when, in the last 10 minutes or so of the show, one of the "experts" described the possibity of the black hole in the Milky Way "erupting" and "spewing" all kinds of things from gamma rays to who knows what. Is he serious? Evidently he must be, but how does this BS get on TV? Someone had to sign off on this when the show edited.

Clearly there is a market for this kind of stuff. But the History Channel has gone to crap recently. UFOs, Ancient Aliens, History Quest, Monster Quest and other such shows are not history. They should be on the National Inquirer channel, if there was one.

I think all the above comments cover the problems with this piece of crap, but I do have one question: who funded this trip and how can I contact them? Many years ago, I saw a pile of rubble on Maui that looked like Queen Victoria. It was near the Hyatt, where I'll need to stay, and I'm pretty sure I can bllshit my way through a two hour show, especially if I repeat the same "facts" a half dozen times.

I don't think the so-called monument is anything except a natural formation, but I could be completely off-base on that issue and still be closer to the truth than this awful production was.

I live in Mexico, and believe me, the "monument" described resembles nothing to any sculpture made by any culture in Mexico or Central America. I'm no expert, but I've seen in person Aztec, Mayan, Olmec and Toltec art and ruins, and there is no resemblance at all. After two hours of unrelated nonsense, a few clear angles were shown briefly of the "jaguar" (the only intrguing thing). It looks polynesian, or related to nearby Easter Island's Moais… but that was something this guy Turner never thought about, and did not explain why he did not think about the TRUE seafaring Polynesian or South American cultures.

Probably a nice discovery (I mean the "jaguar") in the middle of the Pacific, will be buried by a doomsday wooho hoax.

Well, I'm commenting here because I felt cheated for two hours last sunday. Shame on the Histery Channel.

Please do see our website with its many links: http://apocalypseisland.webs.com/

If so, I'd love to include your comments in the page.

The stuff falling off of the sides of the spire is called 'scree', and the fact that it is still there yet again argues for the 'natural formation' theory.

And yes, climbing on the suspected archeological treasure should be an indication of the level of professionalism.

Through an attempt to find more pics of the "monument", I came across J. Turner's own website. I saw there that when asked, he blamed the "misinformation" in the movie on the History Channel & their editing. And when I asked about the differences between the computer mock-up and the monument, he claimed they must not have looked at his pictures. (It's how he explained away the fact that there were no gaps under the actual "jaguar's" legs, whereas the computer mock-up had them. I was confused because if the mock-up was correct & erosion was the issue, all we would be seeing of the "jaguar" would be its feet! I just did not understand how he saw what he claims to have seen.)

He also claimed that he argued against the boat trip.

His site has better pics that explain what he claims to see. But I still think this was a case of someone seeing what they wanted — pareidolia — as was suggested on the site by a different poster on the site.

He is now claiming that he has found the face of the "sun god" below the "monument" as if it fell off & then slid down the mountain, loose stone left over from the carving of the "monument" & other things. (I thought that stuff was usually removed from such sites after a carving was done, not left behind.) This is all supposed to be part of his movie sequel. I don’t like what seems to be another case of a lie being perpetrated. Some do believe in such things.

P.S.

Isn’t “don’t climb on the finds” like one of the first thing you learn in archeology 101?

You may be interested in the new apocalypse island page. Let me know if you have any suggestions for it.

PS. I love this site. Keep up the good work!

science go into actually looking at these formations “monuments”-why not? If there was an ounce of credibility here why wasn’t there any looking at the sides for signs of cut stone, rubble, or glyphs?

The show seemed to be trying to setup the precedent that the weathering and erosion had destroyed, so the History Channel seemed to have been trying to loop around it. However, this poses a few issues.
1). Even if the supposed monument had been carved out of limestone and vulnerable to acidic rain (The calcite in limestone reacts to acidic rain/HCI), the expedition team should have taken a sample back with them for dating and other tests. Especially since, the island was made out to be incredibly difficult to access.
2). The show setup a precedent that there was a huge possibility; the structure may lack the ability to supply footholds. Yet, the guide or accompanying member to Turner was willing to climb up the structure under the claim that he didn't want to disappoint "Turner".
Since I do some ameature climbing, there's noway the guy who climbed the unstable "monument" would do so.

For the record I write fiction I do want to make a living at it but I am not going to take your money and tell you that it is 100% true.

Holy moly. Does Mr. West believe in punctuation? How could a guy who writes unreadable sentences make a living as a writer?

Having said that, I do agree that the History Channel program was much ado about nothing.

I used to grimmace when people referred to the History Channel as the "Hitler" Channel but now its the Hysteria channel and its definetly not an improvement. But at least Hitler was a real threat back in the day.