Wonderful video and worthy of your own tv series!!
Cheers John, appreciate the great feedback 
Very much enjoyed that … look forward to more 
Only thing that bothers me about the canal theory is all the elevation change along the route - parts of the video clearly show you walking uphill, which is something water has difficulty doing
Correct. I thought the same until I read the evidence. He states, the groundwater level is not constant, and varies by circa 80m throughout Wansdyke, which would naturally feed the dyke. At ‘Red Shore’ (one of the highest sections of Wansdyke), it is totally waterlogged - even days after rain. I guess we’ll never know 
Cheers mate! There’ll definitely be more
Hi Chris -
One word says it all.
‘Thanks’.
An absolute tour-de-force. A very professional production which simply did not feel over 20 minutes long (always a good sign!). A very thought-provoking subject presented factually and entertainingly. As you say, the jury will always be out on this one. Whilst I do find your canal theory intriguing, some of the profile shots of the dyke do seem to be defensive in nature (with one bank considerably higher than the other. In addition, unless the post ice-age terraforming was significant, there seem to be a number of hills and undulations in the dyke sections, which makes me wonder how it could have remained full of water and navigable without significant reservoirs. Just my thoughts but, in any event, well done! Whilst I appreciate the time and effort that went into this I hope for more! (who needs a home life anyway!) 
:
Cheers Barries, you’re more thank welcome
Thanks Les! Great feedback, thank you.
I cannot take credit for any of these theories Wansdyke is a great site, regardless of what it is and when it was built. I just wanted to film it, and tell folks about all the theories. I do like the canal option, but even I have questions which will no doubt go unanswered 
But equally, there are holes in the other ‘more accepted’ theories too
Thanks Mark! Glad you enjoyed it mate