Just some comments, I cant bother to watch all of it.
They all returned? There is no proof of any of these ships? Why would they return? Would they not have to spread Islam? This other Indian that came from another tribe, he spoke Arabic but you assume he would speak the same language of the other tribe? Why is there no information from these tribes about these settlers? Why is there no archaeological proof? Yet there is of a pre-Columbus Norse voyage.
Where did they get the means to travel? Where are the ship/travel logs? How come there are no other objective, external proofs of this? How come this was a mostly unknown fact until recent? How can one travel all that way and then not explore the entire western hemisphere. Where is the proof of the gold found? Of the treasures? How come they didn?t bring any vegetables, fruits with them? How come the distance travelled and returned is so short? How come there are no maps corroborating this?
This man is neither a historian nor an archaeologist. Its as if I would debate about psychology, my major is in IT. Would he accept that as scholarly?
Dr. Abdullah Hakim Quick is not an archaeologist either he has degrees in African history but not American history nor European history. He says "has a phd in history, by the way" but he does not mention what history.
"anybody who is a sincere historian...." SINCERE? You mean to use words such as academic, scholarly, critical, objective. What the fuck is a sincere historian? Shouldn?t all historians be sincere historians? But it doesn?t automatically make you a good historian, no matter how sincere you are.