"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.