Is There a Sword Report Somewhere Out There in the Woods?

3/17/2016

I've seen some recent chatter about Hutton Pulitzer's much-anticipated "FREE - Oak Island Roman Sword Scientific Method Report" that we've been promised, but I have yet to actually see a copy. Apparently at least one version of the report was made available for download a couple of days ago but the document couldn't be opened. Has anyone been able to download and open the report?

I signed up to get a copy of the sword report months ago but have yet to get an email about it. I'm curious as to what's in it, but that curiosity hasn't been strong enough to budge "look for sword report" from its position beneath about twenty other more important things on my to-do list. If anyone has successfully viewed the report or knows where I can get a copy please let me know.

Holly McFadyen

3/17/2016 08:30:36 am

LMAO...I also wondered what happened to the history changing piece of "white paper" report. Personally, I wouldn't trust any kind of D/L that he has to offer, his other cuecat sights was ridden with lots of tracking sites and viruses. Pretty bad when you have to wrap your computer up in a trojan just to read an article. LOL.

Mumfort

3/17/2016 08:31:35 am

If his spelling errors in the headline alone are any indication, it's going to be an aweful piece of garbage.

Thomas

3/17/2016 11:20:04 am

I had the same beef when I first saw the error in the title. But now, on second thought, I think poor quality will give it that authentic charm necessary to demonstrate that it is his own work.

Gina Torresso

3/17/2016 08:31:52 am

Probably is a FAKE... so at least he can say he put one out, its not his fault if no one can open it.

James

3/17/2016 09:04:33 am

I heard a copy can be found at the bottom of the Oak Island money pit.

Mike Morgan

3/17/2016 02:18:12 pm

Ssssslap! A virtual high 5 to you, James.

Eric

3/17/2016 10:35:06 am

I'm just imagining by the title a giant Fake Hercules Sword, Godzilla stomping a cardboard St. Mary's U while Pulitzer jumps around in his Soldier of Fortune getup shouting "I TOLD you it was real-feel the wrath of Commodus, unbelievers!", while Canadian hosers flee the carnage.

And he does it to ska
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEHvpU-Nps

Pablo

3/17/2016 11:10:37 am

"Errors were encountered in this item" LOL! Of course it's full of errors!

Randal Taylor

3/17/2016 01:06:54 pm

How else to buy more time than to make something available for download and not have it work at all? This will be the standard wrote until the AAPS releases their load of crap and the Jovan will have his fingers crossed in hopes that everyone forgets about his Junior High last minute write up.

Mike Morgan

3/17/2016 01:32:45 pm

Scrolling through the comments under Hutton's post "Download Now" pinned to the top of the page in his group "Curse of Oak Island (New -NO Drama - Official)", some from yesterday and today are stating they have successfully downloaded and are able to open and view it. The successful ones seem to using Mac's, those using Window's are still having problems.

A possible solution for rest of us???

Steven B Halls: The adobe and the readium, didn't work for me on win10.
4 hrs
Hutton Pulitzer - Steven B Halls: may be publishing online for read through browser
3 hrs

Peter Geuzen

3/17/2016 02:26:54 pm

I'm not seeing what Mike M posted about there being a 'Download Now' posting in the No Drama Group ???? Has it been deleted as well.

He tweeted something 20 minutes ago about 'uploading a new file....' with an FB link that lead me to the 'Sorry this page isn't available' graphic (and I was logged in).

Mike Morgan

3/17/2016 03:27:20 pm

No Peter, it has not been deleted, but it is no longer "pinned" to the top of the page. Scroll down the page, look for "Hutton Pulitzer shared his note.
March 15 at 2:55pm" with a yellow graphic banner showing "Download Now". As I write this, it is the 6th post from the top.

Peter Geuzen

3/17/2016 03:47:55 pm

Nothing. I'm just viewing it as public, I'm not a member, so maybe that's it. Are you a member?

Mike Morgan

3/17/2016 03:59:01 pm

Oh God, NO! Just viewing as public also. The post moves around a bit as comments are added to other posts. Right now it is in the 5th position. This is the page I am viewing: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CurseofOakIslandOfficial/

Peter Geuzen

3/17/2016 05:02:57 pm

Well that's the exact url I'm looking at. Oddly, your post below with HPs comments of March 15, I recall seeing yesterday or the day before and it was under the gold rectangle Download Now thing, but clearly I can't see it now. I even tried another browser, refresh, and clean out of temp files. Maybe its some sort of partial block. It's not like I care too much or want to spend time there, I just want a working copy of this report sooner or later.

Andy White

3/18/2016 07:38:38 am

I haven't seen a "download" post either. I think Pulitzer has me blocked on Facebook (and Twitter, and probably other social media I don't even know exist) so maybe that's why I can't see it (i.e., he posted it).

Peter Geuzen

3/17/2016 03:07:27 pm

To clarify - There have been two versions so far. The first was an obvious mistake because it downloaded at only 6mb. The follow-up, several hours later is 3.8GB, yep it's big. I have a copy but to confirm what Mike M says was posted (but I don't see) it will not open with Adobe Digital Editions or the Chrome App or the Firefox App, using Windows. I have scanned the raw file for both viruses and malware and it comes out clean.

If there are enough versions and types of this thing as time goes on, I might have to make a poster. :-)

Mike Morgan

3/17/2016 04:07:54 pm

Might be worth waiting for the promised PDF version with all the trouble people are having with the full version containing print, audio, & video, or the print and audio only version he is attempting to upload now.

Promised PDF found in comment under: "Hutton Pulitzer
March 15 at 1:58pm

NOTICE: The Oak Island Roman Sword Report is UPLOADING to the server at this moment." @ https://www.facebook.com/groups/CurseofOakIslandOfficial/

Mike Morgan

3/17/2016 04:18:12 pm

Oops, forgot to show the comment:

Hutton Pulitzer - Brian Tyndall: we are making various versions available, with audio and video (largest file), file with audio only (smaller) and pdf (no video or audio)
Yesterday at 1:37pm

Mike Morgan

3/17/2016 04:57:49 pm

At this point, I am not sure I, or many others, will find much of anything of value in this "report", it seems it is only a feeble attempt to offer a rebuttal to Dr. Brosseau's findings.

In the screen shots of the preview of Huttons "report", found here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=468468310023164&set=pcb.537884936379474&type=3&theater , he states, "This report dissects the report issued regarding the "Oak Island Roman Sword" by St. Mary's University ...." and ""... NOT to decide if Romans came to America or if Romans visited Oak Island, but to make one simple judgement call. "Was the Oak Island Roman Sword tested utilizing the scientific method or was the evidence tainted by predetermined bias, thus effecting the final ruling of the University?""

Given the above stated purpose of his "report" above, and listings in the table of contents, I see nothing that might address or provide answers to many of the questions that I, and I'm sure many others as well, have been waiting upon.

To list a few points not yet addressed:

1) Pulitzer's detailed findings from his XRF testing/examination.
2) Details about where the "original" Hercules sword is in "the Naples" museum.
3) Identification of the sword used for comparison tests and the comparative results.
4) Identification of the expert(s) and their qualifications to render a finding of "100% confirmed" ancient Roman sword.

Gina Torresso

3/17/2016 06:26:07 pm

Thank you Mike ... what is he talking about in the report if not the items you listed?

Mike Morgan

3/17/2016 08:13:32 pm

Gina, I am only hazarding an educated guess based on the screen shots Pulitzer posted as a preview. I have not seen the "report" and, unless someone else does get the download to work properly and reports that it does cover more than just trying finding fault with Dr. Brosseau's testing methods and findings, I doubt that I will ever bother with it.

Pull up the link I referenced above and see if you see anything in the table of contents that looks like it may cover anything not relating to discrediting her findings. You will be able to scroll through the several pages of pictures and if you click on the 2 opposing arrows in the upper right of each picture, they will be enlarged making the easier to read.

Peter Geuzen

3/17/2016 09:10:18 pm

The audio only version is now available. It opens but is basically unresponsive. With an average quality PC it randomly plays some of the audio and I could only get the cover and the first page to show, waiting about ten minutes. I'll try it on a very high end computer tomorrow. It will be useless on a tablet.

Peter Geuzen

3/18/2016 07:05:30 am

OK so using a high end PC (6700K cpu R9 380 gpu, for you nerds) it is slightly more responsive but it is....s....l....o....w. Open it then go make coffee, do the dishes, come back and read the first 2 pages, then vacuum the house and run errands, come back and read the next 2 pages, etc. Not worth it really. I'm going to leave it loaded and keep checking but I do have a real job. It's not like it's causing the cpu or the memory to go flaky, I think it's just bloated and buggy, and thus pretty dysfunctional. The audio is random and it's the same soundcloud operatic music with voice over stuff he does, so annoying and unbearable at the same time. I bet the audio is a big part of the problem. Ironically however, the contents are reading pretty dry and boring (no offence to all the scientists out there) so the audio is probably all that his followers will understand and key on.

Andy White

3/18/2016 07:40:19 am

If he really wanted to provide his "results," he could have done that with a pdf document the day after the show aired. I think the reasons he chose not do that are pretty self-evident at this point. A 3.8 GB document? Give me a break. It's all monkey business.

Peter Geuzen

3/18/2016 08:33:11 am

The 'video removed just audio' (and text) version is 563 MB, but yes it's still bizarrely big. Over the last couple hours I've made a few screen grabs of his picture gallery section that I can post later after trying to get the whole section, unless you don't want me to - i.e. Cue the copyright ranting. BTW the file name for this smaller version still uses NN in University.

Peter Geuzen

3/18/2016 10:47:29 am

I'm almost speechless. The last 102 pages of the 205 page report are a cut and paste (and reformat) PhD dissertation that Jovan does not give credit for to the original author, as best as I can tell given how flaky the report mechanics are. He vaguely refers to it near the start as the Durham University report. He colourizes the charts for the sake of his report. In other words, half of his page count vanity is ripped off. If you want a copy of the dissertation, here it is (this may have even been linked/noted before in the blog):

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1024/1/1024.pdf (19 MB)

Here's a side by side of the conclusions:

http://imgur.com/a5M6qbU (copy to it and click to enlarge)

If you've been following along, you know the significance of the 28% zinc rule. The Nova Scotia sword has 35%. Like I said, ....speechless....many other adjectives also come to mind; what is he thinking? - he basically just destroyed himself....somebody tell me I'm seeing this wrong, haha, am I losing it or what?

Gina

3/18/2016 11:05:01 am

Peter G., do you mind if I quote you on one of our Oak Island facebook pages? If it is a problem no worries, just wanted to ask you personally first. Thank you

Peter Geuzen

3/18/2016 11:16:00 am

As long as you're not selling it for profit. I have royalties to consider, LOL.

Please go ahead; I don't think anyone can really stop anyone from copying. What FB page? There seem to be a couple dozen OI pages/groups, of which only a few I ever check.

Gina Torresso

3/18/2016 11:35:35 am

Hi Peter G.,
you are funny, I was going to post to Oak Island RAW , but I have decided to just post the article Andy wrote, with the comments.. so I just wouldn't be referencing your comment. But thank you so much ! I appreciate your analysis.

Glen

3/18/2016 02:21:35 pm

There is some small good to come out of this...to copy and paste the info he wanted means he HAD to read ALL of it first..LOL

Glad it wasn't me...my brain was turning to dust after 4 pages..

Mike Morgan

3/18/2016 05:00:29 pm

I'm not too sure that he actually reads/read much of the material he uses/used, after all, he is the "Commander" of TreasureForce and as such he often passes tasks to his underlings. I also recall that over the course of this "SwordGate" run, some of his Facebook followers would find and post articles they found. Judging by the entries in his table of contents, he incorporated some of them to fluff up this "report"

Peter Geuzen

3/18/2016 06:23:10 pm

I take back my assertion that 100 pages are copy-paste. It actually looks like about 80 because there are other pages of references after the Bibliography copied from the Dungworth dissertation. There are nonetheless lots of pages wasted in the main body it looks like, a few with big font quotes or whatever, one totally blank, pictures of the Nova Scotia sword that we've all already seen, etc. Given the bugginess it's just too hard to read however. The main spin seems to be that he suggests the testing was not scientific and it was pre biased and pre determined to outcome (not that anything he says or does is pre biased, no never). Given that as far as I think any of us know, that he has never done an accredited scientific study of any kind ever, has never specifically studied (or even held) true Roman artifacts, has no accredited collaborators that I see noted here, has never published in a scientific journal, etc. not to mention of course that he calls himself a historian, not a scientist, well what else is there to say really. I'm going to try to get through some more tomorrow. On a final note - there is no presentation of his results on the sword, unless I've missed it given the issues with functionality.

mike mcfall

3/18/2016 06:41:52 pm

Peter Geuzen

3/19/2016 05:40:53 pm

I’ve had time to play with both the big file of 3.68 GB and the smaller 563 MB ‘no video just audio’ version and as you likely know from reading here and elsewhere both are essentially useless as functional epub reader files. If you’re having the same issues or if you’ve downloaded and just won’t bother trying to open them given all the news of how bad they are, well there is a basic hack that you can do to be able to read this thing relatively smoothly, and if you can stomach the audio and video well you can do that to. Basically you convert to a zip file archive and then extract all the files into the component parts and then you open the folder within that has an xhtml file for every page. You can read pages one file at a time by opening in your browser. I had no luck trying to recompile it in an epub reader after the extraction from zip, which was suggested elsewhere, so I’m not recommending that at this point, but maybe someone else has more tips on that method.

Here’s the process using Windows, right click the file > Rename > change the file extension from epub to zip > Enter > a balloon pops up warning the file might be unstable, do you want to change it?, click Yes and the file icon will change to a zippered folder > right click > Extract All and choose a destination folder or just accept the default which is the same folder you are already in and click Extract and give it time to do its thing. When done, open the folder it extracted to and then open the folder OEBPS. In that folder are a couple other folders and all 200 plus xhtml files, one for each page and luckily numbered properly, that you can then open individually to read the report. Depending which version you chose, the audio or the video will also be available as embedded things but fortunately the player has a pause button so you turn them off basically. If you want, you can actually delete all the audio and video files from the folder called ‘video’ and not worry about them at all. So basically it will take a little time to extract files, especially for the bigger version which might be a few minutes, but then reading the pages one at a time is like opening any other basic file and works decently even with an average quality PC, at least by my trial and error experience.

If you have Adobe Acrobat installed and want to try to compile or print all pages to pdf, well that didn’t work too good for me. Numerous formatting problems resulted and it was useless. With AA the tedious way to make a pdf would however be to 'print screen' each page, paste into just Paint, and then print to pdf one at a time, then add all the pages together so you just have one file to read.

Good luck. The more eyes we can get on this the better. I’m going to try to post some specific comments on at least part of the report later. I think it best to let the academics respond to the academic components so I’ll steer clear of those specific parts but after reading the whole thing now I’m pretty sure they will have much to say.

ghettohillbilly1

3/20/2016 04:16:07 am

Well I had to read it and it was pretty much the crap i expected, no new facts, no findings, nothing really scientific, just babbling ,shit slinging and opinion, and of course copy and paste plagerism, it is very repetitive repeating pictures and statements, removing citations, pictures, videos, quotes and the repeats of each, it might MIGHT be 20 pages of pure opinion,he also again mentions of accredited people who share the same view but has yet to name any of them, oh and almost every page has spelling and grammatical errors, spaces not used are on every page, by the look of it spell check was used to get the big words right but not the main body of the message. This report looks like jr/high school science project quality

Peter Geuzen

3/20/2016 01:31:20 pm

First detailed section review!

Before reading you might want to scroll to the bottom and find the link to the imgur picture used in this review.

The section ‘Historical Snapshot’ (p31-p43) is basically a ‘guilt by association’ bit with 6 pages of pictures - If it has green patina and looks Roman, it must be Roman. Page 32 says “The best answers to these questions is to review known and documented 1st and 2nd Century Bronze Artifacts and Votives (specifically those of Hercules) and see if they seem to be the same style, look, feel and manufacture.” So the implication is that the picture gallery is of completely authentic and verified pieces. It’s firstly not clear if he’s personally seen or worked with any of the pieces, but it’s not hard to figure out. I would give a pass to any piece clearly associated with a good museum collection and maybe a prestigious auction house. I wouldn’t necessarily give a pass to anything else, i.e. dealer, collector, online auction, without clear chain of provenance and other supporting details/facts, which of course should be the same attitude that a serious dealer or collector takes. So the primary question is, how many of the pieces shown are absolutely the real deal, with the hopeful secondary question being, how many have had in depth analysis that could be used for more than visual comparison, meaning specifically, metallurgy work that can be reviewed and compared?

There are absolutely no annotations to describe any of the pieces or where they come from and no citations to the source of the pictures (web, book, catalog, journal etc.). Every page of course has his own “all rights reserved” statement in the footer. The other void is that there is no attempt to document or describe how any of the details of any of the artifacts are related to any of the details of the Nova Scotia sword - visual, physical, or the important metallurgy stuff. There is no text at all with this section. Basically, the gallery is just superficial.

Many folks here will remember Googling away at the height of Swordgate to see if there is a mothership souvenir sword or any other clincher piece of the puzzle. Looking at the gallery I was immediately struck with the ‘I know I’ve seen that before’ feeling, so with very little trying I quickly found the sources of a couple of the images. One thing lead to another and after a while, I had several figured out, almost half of the total by the time I gave up because a pattern was becoming clear.

Here are the results.

Firstly, he puts a partial picture of the Nova Scotia sword in the gallery to enhance the guilt by association thing. Secondly, there are two pieces that have been pictured twice, so the editor missed that faux pas. I found the sources for 25 of the pics online (before I quit). I assume all the sources of the remaining pics are also all online, i.e. none from hard copy literature or anything he personally shot (other than the Nova Scotia pic). The breakdown goes: 6 from museums, 17 from sellers (dealers or auctions), and 2 others. I’ll give Christies auction house a pass, so that would be 7 of 25 or 28% are likely totally legitimate Roman artifacts. Some of the seller pieces might be legit, some not so, but because there is no in depth analysis presented of these in the report, it’s best to just say that a low percentage of the total have been absolutely confirmed. It was curious to see several seller pieces from one source, Ancient Resource, so a little more Googling produced a couple interesting things. The seller is an ex writer from the History channel and at least a couple related hits have thrown up red flags about the business. At one of the hits, a blog site, I also found another red flag regarding one of the other sellers, Timeline. I don’t want to create a big list of links here but a simple search and you will find them. Judge for yourself. I have personally found through all the searching done, that there seems to be an endless supply of high quality pieces for sale, representing multiple ancient cultures and multiple periods, in good, clean, crisp condition with stories to match. It seems too good to be true, in my opinion.

So there you have it. On one hand, who cares because we all realize that pictures don’t mean much, but on the other hand, if he is seriously trying to scientifically connect the Nova Scotia sword to ancient times, the ‘Historical Snapshot’ fluff gallery can be deemed less than convincing. It fundamentally lacks any analytical detail that would actually prove something.

Below is the imgur link to a composite of all the pages in the section, with mark up and annotations. I have only listed the parent url for the respective pictures. If you check some of the sites you might not easily find the pic because it is archived in an unconnected folder (past sales or something like that

Peter Geuzen

3/20/2016 01:33:18 pm

Hey I got cut off!

Here's the last bit:

Below is the imgur link to a composite of all the pages in the section, with mark up and annotations. I have only listed the parent url for the respective pictures. If you check some of the sites you might not easily find the pic because it is archived in an unconnected folder (past sales or something like that, maybe) but I have the proper string saved from the cached version, plus I have urls for a few that are seen on cross-referenced sites, so everything is saved in detail. I didn’t feel it necessary to clutter things up here with a huge list.

As always with imgur, after copying and opening the url click the pic to see a bigger version.

http://imgur.com/TNNJizL

Comments are closed.

Is There a Sword Report Somewhere Out There in the Woods?

Archives

Categories