I see you really aren’t familiar with the historiography wars. Consequently, you won’t understand why the new “high count” Pre-Columbian revisionism is intellectually on fit for programs like Coast to Coast.
I have no idea what “Coast to Coast” is. And what possible difference could a 500+ year old population estimate have on anything relevant to today?
I think anyone who fights culture wars based on what happened 500 years ago really needs to get a grip. History is fascinating, and we know a fraction of what we think we know. Each piece of information should be reviewed, and logical conclusions drawn from the evidence, not per-conceived notions.
At the end of the day, there are lots of things (mounds, walls) that suggest their were some odd things going on here 500-1000 years ago, and there were probably a lot of people required to construct them. Why is that conclusion bad? How does it threaten you if the population was much higher than originally thought?