Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

"Roman Sword" Advocate Wants Me to Debate Data I'm Not Allowed to See

8/7/2016

87 Comments

 
The comments on my post from the other day about the Wolter-Pulitzer "plan" for excavating what they claim are giant human remains have largely shifted to a discussion about Pulitzer's "Roman sword" claim. The only substantive statement that Pulitzer made about their purported giant was this: 

"we can assure you the individuals involved are ALL at the University Level, very well respected, far and wide published and heralded within their field. Even more exciting than the discovery is all the incredible academic talent attracted to the find. The way this works, is there are countless experts, scientists, academics, archaeologists and anthropologists who have seen our work on TV and Books."

You can add that promise to his tab, I guess: many incredible, respected academics all clamoring to work with him on giant bones. We'll see how that goes. 

But on to the "Roman sword." 

The subject of Pulitzer's sword claims naturally comes up whenever he makes an evidence-free assertion, as it speaks directly to his credibility when he says "trust me." You're welcome to wade though the comments in the previous post, but I thought I'd pull from the weeds and reiterate my response (moderately edited but substantively the same) to his goading attempt to get me to debate him about the sword.

I'm open to the idea of having a debate (or some kind of structured conversation) with Pulitzer about the "Roman sword" and the other Hercules-hilted swords. It would probably be a more effective and less problematic way to communicate my thoughts to a different audience than my proposal to publish a piece in Ancient American magazine.  I have two main concerns that would have to be addressed in order to move forward with the idea of a "debate, both having to do with transparency. 

1) First, there is no way I would collaborate with Pulitzer on something that he controls and that would be part of his "brand." Why? Because he has repeatedly shown himself to be untrustworthy. He has shown that using distortion, misrepresentation, and outright lies is part of his standard operating procedure: his silly behavior has no place in an honest discussion. I've been in a lot of disagreements with colleagues, but none of those professional colleagues has ever questioned my credentials, my expertise, and my intentions. That sort of thing is just not a normal part of a professional discussion about facts, evidence, and interpretation. But Pulitzer does it frequently (including in the comments on the last post, where he implied that I was an anti-Semite). In short, Pulitzer has not provided any reason for me to take his word on anything and plenty of reasons to be skeptical. It would be stupid to trust him with producing content that is unbiased, and it would be wrong to give him control over how that content is made available.  

2) Second: data! When professionals have a debate, they refer to data. I have been open with mine, but Pulitzer has never provided his. You cannot have a debate where one side says "I have that data but I'm not going to show it to you, so you'll just have to believe me" (there's that credibility issue again). It may work that way in "forbidden truth" circus, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. Pulitzer has made reference to his XRF data numerous times to support his claim(s), but has not provided it. How could I fairly evaluate claims about his data when I don't actually have access to the data? That would be like agreeing to a poker game where I show my hand at the end but Pulitzer just gets to state what's in his without actually revealing it. Why would anyone agree to those rules? In order for me to have a real discussion about the sword with Pulitzer, he'll need to provide his data ahead of time so that we both have access to the same information. And I'll need a copy of Commodus's Secret so I can refer to Pulitzer's argument about the sword there. If he wants to have a discussion about evidence, he needs to stop being so slippery and put his cards down so we can see them.

If Pulitzer really wants a sword discussion, it will have to be something that isn't controlled by him and he'll have to (finally) let us all see the fabled XRF data that he's been hanging his claims on. And he needs to provide his interpretation(s) of the sword in a stable format (i.e., in his book, which he says is now complete) where the claims are in black and white and can be evaluated on their merits. Those are reasonable, fair, and logical conditions. Without transparency in the medium and data, a "debate" would be nothing but an empty exercise. Without transparency, I'll pass.
87 Comments
Joe Scales
8/7/2016 07:48:54 am

I'm certain my rationale for not engaging "Hutton" got lost in the fray of the prior blog comments. But to reiterate, I find it akin to pig wrestling. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.

Don't wrestle a pig.

Reply
Peter geuzen
8/7/2016 08:20:38 am

Even in a process that he has been completely removed from, i.e. the Oak Island show, he runs his PR machine constantly, so I don't think there would be any way to stop him from turning the build up to a debate (plus the period after) into a complete circus show for himself. Ignore and marginalize while continuing to debunk, is the strategy I would recommend. Start deleting his comments because they just embolden him and perpetuate his circus, and unfortunately sucker a lot of people into his game. His participation here is turning this blog into something it shouldn't be.

Reply
GEE GINA
8/7/2016 08:26:19 am

A "Debate" does not decide a scientific issue.

If Hutton truly beleives the sword is Ancient Roman, and he wants to claim to know this information, it's totally within everyone's right to correct him where he fails to present the proper argument. This debate is to get an honest understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Huttons claims. If hutton just wants us to take "his word for it" Ive got a couple "Words" for him. I stand by Andy in his decision to not debate.

Reply
Kathleen
8/7/2016 10:15:00 am

Poor JHP, bless his heart, he just doesn't get it.

(nod to AW)

Reply
Andy White
8/7/2016 12:36:44 pm

Hutton, aa long you refuse to address my conditions, we have nothing to discuss. I'll remove the next few comments that don't address the issues of transparency (see the two points in the post), then I'll just ban you if you till don't get it.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/7/2016 02:04:28 pm

Andy, Since you wont let people read the facts of the debate proposed, then exercise the only control you have over me.... ban me.

Reply
Andy White
8/7/2016 02:34:49 pm

Show me the data you want to discuss or else just go away. Your XRF data (those data that you cla😞im prove your claim) are not in your "report." There's nothing to discuss without them, is there, since that's your whole case?

Pablo
8/7/2016 04:41:23 pm

Could you show your data regarding the sword? Also you claim that you video tape everything as part of your procedures; did you take a video of the process of analyzing the sword? can we see it?

nomuse
8/7/2016 01:40:08 pm

"...the individuals involved are ALL at the University Level, very well respected..."

Illustrating the level of transparency perfectly.

"Top men."

"Who are they? What are their names?"

"Top. Men."

Reply
McFadyen
8/7/2016 02:55:45 pm

Andy, I have been reading the comments left on this blog and other blogs by non other than hutoon himself. I respect that yo have laid out logical rules to a healthy debate. I would like to see hutoon take you up on this, just so results can be looked at. If hutoon's smoking gun is a world changer as claimed to have been. Then simply showing one's hard work to have it debated over, would be no problem. He has written a 200 page "report", "white paper" and study guide. But yet we are to see the actual XRF readings. As usual hutoon loves to insult readers. I just do not think that hutoon is capably of producing any kind of hard facts that he has done to make the "Roman sword" a world changer. hutoon you claim to be a "warrior for truth" when yet all you write back to readers in the comments are insults, threats to sue and untruth. WAY TO GO! warrior of BS!

Reply
Jim
8/7/2016 03:01:04 pm

It would be interesting if one could have the sword XRF tested by an independent and PROFESSIONALLY qualified party. I fear however the results would simply concur with Dr Brosseau's results. It would at least put to bed the notion of the magic navigating device and the gold plated handle.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/7/2016 03:33:10 pm

Andy the results are in the report. You just don't want an open debate. All you are doing is finding a way not to. I posted but you deleted. We open live unedited debate. No over talking. Suggest, rebuttal, respond. In an alternating fashion. It's that simple. But you won't. You are afraid of the end result. All is in the report. Each item, each element and in each level. We did the Xrf in the curse of oak island production trailer and Dan Blankenship house. With. ALL PRESENT. And photo documented as tests were conducted in front of all. The brothers history channel and producers have had the sames Xrf results all along. Now man up and stand behind your sword gate and let's see what happens. Just like a presidential debate.

Reply
Pablo
8/7/2016 04:43:28 pm

on which page of the report can we see the results of your xrf test?

Reply
GEE GINA
8/7/2016 04:47:52 pm

Hutton would you agree it is ready to perform a test I front of a crowd that couldn't possibly know or understand the results? Therefore your "tests" with the laginas or blakenships are seriously NUL IN VOID. Any scientists that were present? I'd be willing to listen to.

Reply
John (the other one)
8/7/2016 05:41:53 pm

I'm not sure Hutton knows what a result is. Maybe that is the real issue.

Hutton Pulitzer
8/7/2016 07:54:45 pm

Gina for someone so smart you sure just don't get it sometime. The XRF test do themselves and are digital and instant and no way to fake. Educate yourself www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/industrial/spectroscopy-elemental-isotope-analysis/oes-xrd-xrf-analysis/x-ray-fluorescence-xrf.html

ghettohillbilly1
8/8/2016 03:22:56 am

he messed up the test because he did the test wrong, he cant even barely use a mac or organise a live show, i highly doubt he knows how to properly use the xrf, most likely the gold he thought he saw was whoevers ring that was holding the sword when he scanned it thats why he wont release his data, heknows its flawed, tech genius my ass he couldnt even program a vcr

Pablo
8/8/2016 04:23:21 am

Since the tes is digital and instant why don't you just make a pdf or your test of the sword online? It shouldn't be that difficult

Andy White
8/7/2016 07:54:19 pm

Hutton, the download link isn't working for me (and apparently others are having the same issue). And apparently no-one here has been able to find the XRF data in the report. Could you tell us the page(s) where we can find it? And if someone could email me a copy of the report I'd appreciate it: aawhite@mailbox.sc.edu.

Reply
Mike Morgan
8/7/2016 10:33:07 pm

Sent you a copy I downloaded last week.

Ken Lentz
8/7/2016 04:00:46 pm

Andy - I wouldn't agree to a "debate" with JHP under ANY circumstances, data or not. He has one and only one goal in mind - revenge. Clearly he would not recognize "truth" if it whacked him upside the head. Just tell him to take his con game somewhere else.

In fact here are some conclusions based on some "facts" I have. My facts and data are from sources similar to his:

1. The JHP copy of that cheap tourist souvenir was "discovered" nowhere within a 500 mile radius of Oak Island. [Source: I heard it somewhere)
2. JHP has himself shelled out $0 for tests and analysis, so no surprising new data even exists. [Source: JHP has never been truthful in his life - why would he be now?]
3. JHP is withholding his non-existent data until he figures out some way to make a buck off it. Maybe another bogus advance book offer. Maybe a pay-for-view fake debate. [Source: This is what the 'experts' are saying.]
4. JHP doesn't even know 10 people with accredited college degrees. [Source: Common knowledge.]

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/7/2016 08:03:22 pm

Ken I paid for the test by virtue of owning all the testing equipment and bringing it on site. You might want to price out the equipment. It's in the 10'stands of thousands and I provided that not history channel, not brothers not island.

Reply
ghettohillbilly1
8/8/2016 03:28:04 am

but do you actually know HOW to properly use the xrf? considering you can barely use a mac i doubt it, and do you know if your xrf is even calibrated?, I would bet your findings are flawed due to improper testing methods

Andy White
8/7/2016 05:02:43 pm

Hutton, you're in the penalty box for attempted taunting. Let's stick to the subject of the data. I'm driving to try to get home to see my kids before they go to bed, so I'm not going to respond further until I'm able.

Reply
Carl Feagans link
8/7/2016 05:59:21 pm

The results are definitely *not* in the report that JHP linked to a couple days ago on this blog (which became unavailable after I posted a review). If he insists they are, he's a liar. The export function of the XRF provides an easy to publish data set for a reason, but he doesn't even give the results in any form. I have the "report" right in front of me. Give me the page and paragraph of I'm mistaken.

Reply
Jim
8/7/2016 06:06:55 pm

I just tried the link he provided to get a copy and it's a no go, probably doing a rewrite due to his comments the last couple of days.
Either way, I call shenanigans !

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/7/2016 07:58:02 pm

Jim link is in curse of oak island FB group always have been and works unless you are banned

Jim
8/7/2016 08:10:06 pm

Well, the link doesn't work. As far as being banned I have never made a post there or anywhere else on facebook for that matter, soooooo why would I be banned ?

Jim
8/7/2016 06:11:52 pm

Wait a minute Carl, did you just "Peer Review" Huttons report ?

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/7/2016 07:56:44 pm

Carl the has been the same and has not changed unless somehow you are blocked from the curse of oak island FB group. Still works now and has never stopped working.

Reply
Jim
8/7/2016 08:20:35 pm

Link doesn't work !!!!! "Sorry, this content isn't available right now"

Mike Morgan
8/7/2016 10:31:30 pm

Sigh.

Mr. "Facts Matter" Pulitzer,

You yourself provided the link to download the "report" just 3 days ago on Andy's blog "So What ARE Wolter and Pulitzer Planning On Doing to Search for Giants?":

Hutton Pulitzer 8/5/2016 09:23:41 am

Pablum, the facts, science and peer reviewed cross confirmed reports proving the mineral and metal facts of the sword are in this 200 page report you and anyone can download here: https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Final%20Oak%20Island%20Sword%20Report.%20%20Non%20Multi%20Media-min.pdf?token=AWwJSp0I8r0HoXC4K528fgCKZqt1QGDrE23psT0oWvnvdm4fmkxbgkkny8eXrVyCoY3BHOZ4o2owYYhAJ3aadcTvF4dcjZL4KQ5a89IxX036SCnGTITykYkw2uOSrK5c0QDJhdmlYAp0fBKBPJ_9SdnW_4IwOFAE9KJfMvpMXdIN9g

It gives "Sorry, this content isn't available right now"

Mike Morgan
8/7/2016 11:36:17 pm

Pulitzer is correct, the link in the "Curse" group is functional. My "friend" who is not on his banned list just went there and downloaded it.

Hutton, I was wrong, you were right and I can attest from first hand experience that by admitting I was wrong, nothing bad has happened to me. I am not harmed in any way, I am still alive, the world did not stop turning, and all life still goes on. You can now stop worrying about what may befall you if you admit you are wrong once in a while. Take baby steps if necessary.

PS. Those of you not banned and want to download the "report". If you click his "download" button or his "preview" button and then the "download" icon on the PDF, you will receive the 12mb version in which the pictures and some of the graphics are distorted, but the text is fine. If you wish to have non-distorted pictures and graphics, hit "preview" button, once the PDF opens, hit the "print" icon and select "Microsoft to PDF" in the dialogue box. It will be a 37mb file with no active links on the pictures.

Jim
8/8/2016 12:17:03 am

The link in History Heretic does not work
The link he provided here does not work

Hutton Pulitzer 8/5/2016 09:23:41 am

Pablum, the facts, science and peer reviewed cross confirmed reports proving the mineral and metal facts of the sword are in this 200 page report you and anyone can download here: https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Final%20Oak%20Island%20Sword%20Report.%20%20Non%20Multi%20Media-min.pdf?token=AWwJSp0I8r0HoXC4K528fgCKZqt1QGDrE23psT0oWvnvdm4fmkxbgkkny8eXrVyCoY3BHOZ4o2owYYhAJ3aadcTvF4dcjZL4KQ5a89IxX036SCnGTITykYkw2uOSrK5c0QDJhdmlYAp0fBKBPJ_9SdnW_4IwOFAE9KJfMvpMXdIN9g

However you can get it from the curse group.
Sorry about that Hutton
Perhaps you could fix the link in your History Heretic site

DPBROKAW
8/10/2016 09:51:17 am

I know I've never posted, and the website for this "report" says "Sorry, this content isn't available right now". I did however follow Mr Feagans posted review. I think it's fair to say that you have misrepresented yourself in this matter. If and when you wish to be acknowledged as the "great man" you obviously think you are, then you should play by the accepted rules. Otherwise, go on conning the unknowing with your brand of BS.

Jim
8/7/2016 06:46:20 pm

Oh my,,, things are a changing,,,,,, I just got this from

https://historyheretic.org/

You have to scroll down quite a ways to find it.

"OAK ISLAND SWORD SCIENTIFIC REPORT- For those of you who were not able to down the gigantic 3g version with the video and audio files and more, here is a slimmed down 12mb version of our Oak Island Roman Sword Report. The multimedia has been removed thus those play links will not work and you will not have the benefit of all the experts, but you can read the report here and see all the supporting studies curated into the report. This is open for share and your comments are welcome as well as your questions. This takes the research work which was shown on Curse of Oak Island and the History Channel from the local St. Mary’s University and share with you the real facts and the real science and the supporting studies of 1000’s of artifacts with the same metal composition and formula. Over 100 pages. Enjoy #FightForTruth #OakIslandRomanSword"

and this

"WARNING- THIS AUDIO COMPANION TO THE 100 PAGE REPORT IS CONTROVERSIAL AND THERE IS NO TURING BACK IF YOU LISTEN TO THE FACTS."

!00 pages ??????,, and the link doesn't work !,,, 1000’s of artifacts with the same metal composition and formula.
My my my ,,,, ouch my ears !!!,, sorry my BS alarm is set way too loud !

Reply
GEE GINA
8/7/2016 07:38:06 pm

I saved it to a word document, if any one wants it let me know I'll send it Via email.

Reply
Jim
8/7/2016 07:43:01 pm

What did you save Gina ?

Reply
GEE GINA
8/7/2016 08:31:14 pm

Jim, The 200 page report, that is actually about 30 pages total.

Jim
8/7/2016 09:20:26 pm

Cool, Okay so that would be report number 2, not the bulky report number 1, nor the new 100 page report number 3. Gotcha !
Does anyone know if there are anymore versions out there ?
I'm thinking Andy may have to do a comparative report to find which if any are genuine,,,,,Could be called,,, "ReportGate"

Andy White
8/7/2016 08:13:09 pm

Hutton, why don't you put the report somewhere where availability is not linked to being banned from one of your Facebook groups? If you want people to read it they need to be able to get to it.

Reply
McFadyen
8/7/2016 08:49:55 pm

So am I understanding this correctly that you can only D/L the "sword report" and read it if you are a member of your Oak Island facebook group that you control hutoon? Well, I suppose there is no bias in that release of information.
"OAK ISLAND SWORD SCIENTIFIC REPORT- For those of you who were not able to down the gigantic 3g version with the video and audio files and more, here is a slimmed down 12mb version of our Oak Island Roman Sword Report. The multimedia has been removed thus those play links will not work and you will not have the benefit of all the experts, but you can read the report here and see all the supporting studies curated into the report. This is open for share and your comments are welcome as well as your questions. This takes the research work which was shown on Curse of Oak Island and the History Channel from the local St. Mary’s University and share with you the real facts and the real science and the supporting studies of 1000’s of artifacts with the same metal composition and formula. Over 100 pages. Enjoy #FightForTruth #OakIslandRomanSword"
It would seem to me that you would allow open discussion on the "scientific report" that you allowed to be shared and comment on. The more I see your #fight for truth, I only see #hide the truth.

Reply
ghettohillbilly1
8/8/2016 03:14:33 am

for someone whos always saying they are hiding the truth and that facts matter he seems to be doing some hiding of his findings, if his data is so concrete why not release it? I would guess because his data is flawed due to him improperly conducting the test, he can barely use a mac, do you really think he knows how to properly use an xrf?

Reply
Jim
8/8/2016 10:17:28 am

At this point, even if he released the data, would it now have been altered to support his claims ? Who could believe it ?

Carl Feagans link
8/7/2016 09:01:45 pm

I have the report. I downloaded it Friday. Going back to the link, it now doesn't work. If I've been banned from the Oak Island site, it's a pre-preemptive ban that was put in place sometime Friday or Saturday as I've never actually been to the FB group.

I've been through the report several times and not a trace of XRF data. Interesting how JHP responded to me about the link but not the missing XRF data.

Reply
ghettohillbilly1
8/8/2016 02:52:36 am

So I'm confused is the 200 page report now the white paper? if so why does it contain no new information, no data, Andy cant argue the "200" page report because its mis-intertpreted opinion not a scientific paper, and before you ask yes i read it, i made the report easily viewable to everyone the first time you tried releasing it, noone knows what an epub file is ever here of a pdf?

Reply
Jim
8/8/2016 10:53:59 am

Well,,,,,,,,,The new 200 page report is 100 pages long. On each page there are 2 pages printed. Would you expect anything less from Hutton ? The white paper is kind of like y2k when the paper was to be released, nothing happened ! It"s been rumored That Hutton was behind the y2k non event fiasco.

Reply
Andy White
8/8/2016 03:52:17 am

Hutton, I finally have a copy of the report (thanks Mike). I eagerly searched the text using "XRF" but I still unable to find the raw data that you claim are present. On page 52 you state:

"The XRF Tests of the Oak Island Roman Sword not
only show and verify the presence of such metals [gold, silver, copper, tin, lead, zinc, iron, mercury, arsenic, antimony], but the percentages of such metals can actually be tracked to the very mine operating in ancient times the Roman used to manufacture the Oak Island Roman Sword (more on this later)."

I could not find the percentages or your counts per second (or information on your calibration standard). Could you please give me the page(s) where this information appears? What I'm asking for are your XRF results for the Oak Island sword in a percentage and/or cps format like those from the section of "Chronological Variations in Roman Alloys" (that you copy-pasted but didn't properly attribute) on pages 142-143.

If you can't describe your methods and provide your own data in a standard, simple format, you're wasting everyone's time.

Reply
Andy White
8/8/2016 04:22:30 am

Also, Hutton, could you point me to where you describe how you prepared the sword for your XRF analysis? As stated on page 142 of your report (again, a section taken from "Chronological Variations in Roman Alloys" that you copy-pasted but didn't properly attribute), XRF is a surface technique:

"The effective penetration of X-rays used in EDXRF is very shallow (typically 10-30 microns) and yet surface corrosion products are regularly in excess of 100 microns thick. Therefore the analysis of an uncleaned archaeological object is essentially an analysis of that object’s corrosion products."

Presumably, since you are an expert on XRF, you would have somehow prepared the surface of the sword so that you would be sure you were analyzing the base metal and not just the patina. In order to evaluate your data (and your claim), I'll need to know how you prepared the surface.

Reply
Andy White
8/8/2016 04:32:36 am

FYI, Hutton: I won't be sitting at my computer all day waiting for responses or engaging in discussion. I'll delete your taunting comments if they don't address in some substantive way the issues about the availability of the the data and methods upon which you are basing your claims about the sword.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/8/2016 05:08:16 am

Andy this is more deflection. Preparation does not change the percentages. Thus you keep putting forth road blocks. You either want to have berate or not. You put forth your sword gate and eBay sword work and I put forth our work. So let's cut the junk you either have what it takes to debate or you do not. Save us both time. We can either do it live or I can recreate from all your postsupport and posters comments and questions since you think this a debate forum even though I am offering you a professional forum.

Reply
Andy White
8/8/2016 05:19:56 am

So what are your percentages?

Your statement that "preparation does not change the percentages" directly contradicts Figure 12 of ""Chronological Variations in Roman Alloys" that you pasted into your report (page 146). See how the percentage of zinc is positively related to the depth of corrosion revealed?

Only Me
8/8/2016 05:20:23 am

"Preparation does not change the percentages."

Oh my God! Are you being serious? Andy just said, and I quote:

"I could not find the percentages or your counts per second (or information on your calibration standard). Could you please give me the page(s) where this information appears?"

This is more avoidance. Why do you insist on a debate when you refuse to answer a simple question pertaining to your report? Are you purposely blocking all attempts to gain access to the very data you wish to use in the debate?

Andy White
8/8/2016 05:21:45 am

"Revealed" should have been "removed" (autocorrect error).

Mike Morgan
8/8/2016 06:37:58 am

Sigh, again.

Mr. "Facts Matter" Pulitzer, you stated "Preparation does not change the percentages." Go back and read Dungworth's sections 3.4 - 3.7 pages 142 -144, or 73 & 74 in the shortened version which completely contradicts your statement.

BTW Citing Dr. Dungworth's work as the "Durham University Study" or "Durham Report" is in violation of the terms of use for his paper "Iron Age and Roman Copper Alloys From Northern Britain" which you attribute it in your bibliography on page 164, or page 84 in the short version, as "Dungworth, D. B. 1995 Iron Age and Roman Copper Alloys From Northern Britain, University of Durham PhD thesis, unpublished" INCORRECT! What you copied and pasted was not his 1995 unpublished thesis, which did/does not have colored graphics, but a later published paper with colored graphics and different wording and phraseology in various sections throughout the paper. There was very specific criteria laid out that must be met in order to use this paper at the time of your publishing.

You, who were so quick to holler "copyright infringement" and got Steve involved on both Jason and Andy for using "your" picture of the "Roman Sword", are yourself clearly in violation of Copyright/ Better get $800 an hour Steve involved on this to straighten this mess up.

Jim
8/8/2016 11:29:09 am

Oh look ! Hutton is trying to squirm his way out of the debate and be able to say Andy backed out !!!
Wow, Hutton, Andy made it crystal clear what it would take from you to make this debate happen. Part of that was your XRF data. You claimed it was in the report. That was a lie.
Provide the required information to Andy so that a fair debate can occur on an even playing field. You have his evidence, give him yours.
This pathetic attempt to weasel out of the debate is completely transparent !

Ally
8/9/2016 07:30:43 am

You have to be kidding me ! Deflection seems like a skill, that YOU HUTTON have mastered well. YOU are the one IN FACT putting forth road blocks. It is a VERY SIMPLE question in which Andy has asked ! You can NOT answer, copy , paste or even DEBATE it. I have seen a 8 year old act better then you when hes denied an ice cream at the parlor and that is a FACT. The the carp that has come out of you master bulitzer keyboard does little for your case, besides prove that you are nothing but a tool that wishes to rule the box, no matter the price. Koodos to you for living up to the ass-oholic in which you have called yourself in the past!

AutumnalScholar
8/8/2016 08:36:43 pm

Just FYI, percentages can't be used to trace a metal back to its mine source. Only LIA can be used for that, and only in very exceptional circumstances.

Bloody hell, I did NOT study archaeometallurgy for 8 years to see it bastardized like that to promote a piece of tourist junk.

Reply
Ph
8/8/2016 03:53:36 am

https://medium.com/@InvestigatingHistory.org/how-can-a-sword-cut-history-2b7cca649a49

"However most incredibly, all the swords shares a very similar special feature, let’s say a magical quality built into the sword.
What is this special quality? The sword has an ancient ocean navigational device built into it which causes the sword to point true north. Such magnetic qualities are only found in authentic items of antiquity, not cast iron or manufactured stone replicas."

"Our upcoming white paper, not only contains the full story and scientific details of the Oak Island Roman sword, but also DNA, botanical, linguistic, stone symbols, archaeoastronomy, structure and architecture evidence plus other artifacts including coins, but what may be the two most important discoveries — burial mounds and a Roman shipwreck — where the Oak Island sword was found."

I think i need some more pagenumbers, my version seems to be missing large parts of what it should have.

Reply
Mike Morgan
8/8/2016 05:25:47 am

PH,

The "Sword Report" and the "White Paper" referenced above, are 2 different items. The "Sword Report" is only a ploy to try to discredit and belittle Dr. Brosseau and her findings.

The "White Paper" or the “Multi-Discipline Forensic History Research Group Rewriting History of Pre-Columbian Contact in the Americas” is to contain information on all the other items and "fact". It is long overdue, was to have been released "spring of 2016", in fact Pulitzer even stated in answer to a query about the release date in his "curse" group, that it was to be "March cover story". Kind'a missed the mark, eh.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/8/2016 05:54:37 am

Mike actually we held the second report, ie white paper to present at two different conferences first to gain Thier input. Thus that is in process and it is normal procedure to present at conferences when you can as I am doing.

Mike Morgan
8/8/2016 07:07:13 am

Mr. Pulitzer,

Thank you for the update, so that means published after AAPS conference in October?

Obviously we only had past published information to go by:

In the original "Boston Standard" article on 12/16/15, it was said to be "early 2016".

In the 1/20/16 "Epoch Times" article @ http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1946376-exclusive-new-evidence-ancient-romans-may-have-made-it-to-oak-island-canada/?photo=5
they said "spring" and had previewed it - "...Scherz said in a comprehensive white paper about the evidence that suggests Romans made it to Nova Scotia. The paper is authored by Pulitzer and several other scientists and is to be published in the spring; Epoch Times previewed it."

From your Facebook group, "Curse of Oak Island (New -NO Drama - Official)", in comments under your post: Hutton Pulitzer January 20
IMPORTANT OAK ISLAND INSIDER INFORMATION ON THE OAK ISLAND ROMAN SWORD, you answered someone "everyone knows the white paper gets published late spring and is a magazine cover story March."

And the last update was your post: Hutton Pulitzer March 20 at 2:18pm
Mike Walkovich - just about ever week we post an update on the white paper. It is still in progress and being expanded. When ready we will post for down load. Are you new to the group?

And we still see on the AAPS website front page "...the white papers estimated release late in spring of 2016 ...." @ http://www.aaapf.org/scripts/openExtra.asp?extra=1

Ph
8/8/2016 08:04:07 am

Thanks for that clarification Mike.

Jim
8/8/2016 10:00:01 am

PH ; The ancient ocean navigational device built into it is a claim Hutton made about the sword. I don't know if it is in any version of the report. I suspect Hutton just wishes it would go away !

Reply
Jim
8/8/2016 09:30:10 am

Well, I skimmed through the "report" and I gotta say, I've never seen it piled quite so high !
Hutton seems to base the majority of his argument on this quote from the Jefferson Lab

"Zinc is used to make many useful alloys. Brass,
an alloy of zinc that contains between 55% and
95% copper, is probably the best-known zinc
alloy. Brass was first used about 2,500 years ago
and was widely used by the ancient Romans, who
used it to make such things as coins, kettles and
decorative items."

Hutton ; You do understand that this does not state that 2500 years ago brass was made with 55% copper ? I think you have misinterpreted !

"This means, according to the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility -
Office of Science Education, then:

“The Oak Island Roman Sword could be nearing DOUBLE
THE ZINC content and still be an authentic 2500 year old Roman Artifact”

Holy crap on a cracker Batman,,, you're claiming they made brass 2500 years ago with nearly 70% zinc ? Really ? is this what you are saying ?

And this follows:
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility - Office of Science Education shoots down the zinc assertions of the Oak Island Sword, but what about other prestigious organizations? What is their take on Romans and the use of Zinc in
their copper alloys?

Lets check Wikipedia and see what they have to say:"

There is then an irrelevant quote from Wikipedia, and end of chapter.
.
Really Hutton ? other prestigious organizations consist of "Wikipedia" ??? You do understand what the use of an s at the end of a word is for, do you ?

So ; Where the heck is the XRF data ?
You claimed hundreds of items with similar zinc content,,,, bullcrap, not one to be seen!
What happened to the magical navigating device ?,,,,,, just trying to sweep that embarrassment under the carpet huh ? Don't blame you !

Good luck debating that pile of garbage, you will need it ! Although I don't see why Andy would bother now, you do a very credible job of discrediting yourself. Not to mention your total lack of transparency.

Reply
Jin
8/8/2016 09:39:17 am

A small error,,, this
"Hutton ; You do understand that this does not state that 2500 years ago brass was made with 55% copper ? I think you have misinterpreted !"
was meant to say 45% zinc

Reply
McFadyen
8/8/2016 12:03:50 pm

hutoon, I'm just curious, if you were to have a debate with Andy White, what would your terms be to an open discussion on the facts of the Oak Island "Roman Sword" that you have detailed facts on. What would make a fair debating grounds for you? How would you want this conducted? Radio? Live? or a forum? I just want to know what your terms to a debate is and what are the ground rules.

Reply
Andy White
8/8/2016 01:24:42 pm

Until the data (and description of the samples and methods) show up, there's not much point in discussing the details of something I haven't agreed to do. The proposed debate could be on the moon for all I care -- without consideration of the data upon which the claim is based there is no point.

Reply
Mcfadyen
8/8/2016 03:34:10 pm

I absolutely agree Andy. hutoon claims to have supplied the data necessary but I have yet to see it. It's going to be a complete waste of time.

Reply
Andy White
8/8/2016 04:10:34 pm

I wonder if he's finally given up trying to convince us the data are actually in that report.

Reply
Pablo
8/8/2016 04:14:34 pm

I agree, why is it so difficult to produce the real information? Why go through the work of showing 200 pages of not what people really want to see?

Reply
Andy White
8/8/2016 04:51:38 pm

It certainly doesn't suggest to me a high level of confidence in his data or his ability to explain all the contradictions.

Jim
8/8/2016 05:07:52 pm

His report is all someone else's work. His research is simply poking around the net for quotes that can be made to fit his argument.
Any hands on work would be open to, dare I quote him, "peer review".
This hasn't been kind to him. People keep bringing up past statements like the magical navigating device that points to true north, which I can't find in the report.

Andy White
8/8/2016 05:16:17 pm

I believe he probably got the "compass" idea from the owner of the Florida sword (Sword 2).

http://romanofficer.com/PermcolC.html

Jim
8/8/2016 05:35:32 pm

Most likely, I had read that before but forgot about parts of it. What an easy thing to test, set it on a chunk of 2 by 6 and put it in the water.

John (the other one)
8/8/2016 06:33:06 pm

I really think there might not be data. Like the laginas didn't let him test it or something or Hutton doesn't know where to point the XRF. why else be aggressive about saying it's already there in the report? Same thing with the giant bones they probably just aren't anywhere.

If there is one thing we relearn every day it's that Hutton is full of crap.

Pablo
8/10/2016 03:57:50 pm

He claims that when he does his field work, everything is recorded even with a video camera (which is why he wears his vest) so if that is true, there should be a video; I don't know that XRF technology, but if it is modern, I'm sure you can download the data to some computer and produce a PDF. That could have been done last December. Instead, now we have 200 pages of "not that" information. Oh well.

GEE GINA
8/9/2016 06:22:14 am

While I was out "educating" myself, Hutton, notice no response from you in two days... NO go on the data, huh ?

What do you have to hide?
I guarantee if you have something legitimate to bring to the table concerning the sword, we will all admit we were wrong...

Reply
ghettohillbilly1
8/9/2016 10:17:16 am

I think he took his ball and went home... again

Reply
Jim
8/9/2016 02:51:44 pm

It was put up, or shut up time. He did something totally unexpected, and chose wisely.

Jim
8/9/2016 03:47:37 pm

Well, it looks like Hutton couldn't pay the rent, so he did a midnight move to Minoa.
Just as well, the whole debate idea was unfair from the get go.
Andy would have been having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Reply
Jim
8/9/2016 09:49:58 pm

Just one more post I want to share. Bear with me if it repeats some previous material.
The Irony is delicious.

When Dr Brosseau included a quick history of electrowinning including the date it was patented, Hutton claimed the patent date was the basis for her report. This of course is false, Hutton complete MISINTERPRETED the information.

What seems to be Huttons main basis for his argument is the information from the Jefferson Lab,specifically, one quote, which also has a short history, this time about brass.

"Zinc is used to make many useful alloys. Brass,
an alloy of zinc that contains between 55% and
95% copper, is probably the best-known zinc
alloy.
Brass was first used about 2,500 years ago
and was widely used by the ancient Romans, who
used it to make such things as coins, kettles and
decorative items."

Hutton MISINTERPRETS this modern definition of, and short history of brass to read 2,500 year old brass has the same paramiters as modern brass. Hence old brass could be 55% copper and 45% zinc.
It seems these short history lessons are his unduing!

Reply
Jim
8/9/2016 09:57:14 pm

And by the way, that is the spelling of unduing using the scientific method.

Reply
Peter Geuzen
8/10/2016 06:40:10 am

His twisting of the Jefferson Lab info was spotted instantly back when he first Googled it up and used it in one of his periscope videos (Dec or Jan whenever this started, I can't even remember), and then again when the first botched attempt at releasing the sword report happened in March. Check the comments here:

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/friday-digest-fringe-utopia-memory-leaks-the-sword-and-an-open-invitation-to-the-walking-dead#comments

Reply
Peter Geuzen
8/10/2016 06:53:32 am

...also where he attempted to write about it:

https://medium.com/@InvestigatingHistory.org/oak-island-roman-sword-test-buggered-in-favor-of-big-buck-advertisers-78d49c3c6ad7#.1kt75nees

..and the blog follow-up from Andy:

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/a-note-on-roman-brass-and-pulitzers-problems-telling-the-truth

Jim
8/10/2016 07:33:11 am

Right you are,,,, oops, a day late and dollar short ! I'm sure I read those blogs as well. Maybe that's why it jumped right out at me when I scanned his "report". And yet he persists, wow.

Abraxas
8/13/2016 06:22:51 am

This is just speculation, but I think the reason he always fades away when confronted is because a lot of J. Hutton Pulitzer's claims are half-truths. (The claims of testing and data, that is; we all know his grand claims aren't even quarter-truths.)

When I consider some of the things he's admitted to — in the context those rare occasions he's admitted why X doesn't equal Y — I get the impression of the following, for example (again, all speculation):

1) The AAPS agreed to let him publish a report and present it at its conference. I don't really believe anyone else but Hutton is "working" on this study. Maybe a few fringe theorists told him they'd help, but so far JHP has yet to name a single contributor.

2) Hutton's XRF data (if it exists) isn't really his, which is why he won't present it. If exists at all, it probably doesn't support the claims he's making. Or the test was funded by Prometheus Ent., and Hutton never had rights or access to it. Or he ran a quick-and-dirty handheld scan in the field, dictated some observations to whatever video or audio was recording at the time, and that's it. Hence, he can't release what he doesn't have, or the data is just his dictations.

3) Hutton never intended to publish anything at all. In a hectic bid to satiate his audience, he put together the "preview report" linked in these comments because the issue garnered more critical scrutiny than he was prepared for. This was a rare thing for him to do, because he's not used to having to defend his claims (or at least, not in a way other than social media rants).

Now I could be completely wrong, but when people are trying to understand JHP's continued refusal to produce evidence... Well, I don't buy the whole "embargo" narrative. However, if I'm wrong, so be it. Of course, I won't know it's wrong just because Hutton SAYS I'm wrong, but if evidence to the contrary were produced, I'd happily admit his claims.

That's the thing about your "detractors," Hutton. The majority of them don't just believe things at face value, but they will also admit to being wrong. They "believe" in what's testable and provable. I strongly dislike JHP as a person, but that doesn't mean I'll blindly oppose everything he claims. I'll just oppose it until he proves it, or demonstrates sufficient evidence.

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly