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

So What ARE Wolter and Pulitzer Planning On Doing to Search for Giants?

8/3/2016

160 Comments

 
Many of the readers of this blog are no doubt aware of the debacle that unfolded on Jason Colavito's blog regarding the plans of Scott Wolter and Hutton Pulitzer to investigate a site that they claim contains the remains of giant humans. I recommend reading through Colavito's post and the comments (388 as of this writing, a large number of which are by Pulitzer) for the background and some insight into how the Wolter-Pulitzer show handles criticism. I'm not qualified to speculate on what might be underlying Pulitzer's inconsistencies, insults, incoherence, puffery, threats, and evasiveness, but I'm pretty sure it's not an over-abundance of professionalism and competence. It's a bizarre display, to say the least.

Generally, I'm not of the opinion that Pulitzer is worth paying a whole lot of attention to anymore. Any credibility he might have had was flushed away along with the decisive demonstration that his "100 percent confirmed Roman sword," which he claimed would change the history of the world, was simply a 19th or 20th century piece of tourist junk. He was easily fooled by it and continues to stick with his original claim to this day, despite a mountain of evidence that clearly shows his claim is wrong. His inability to accept (or perhaps even understand) contrary facts is fundamentally incompatible with the most basic tenets of science. I have yet to see any evidence that he even understands what "science" is, let alone that he is capable of practicing it.

Pulitzer's well-established silliness is not what is important to me in this case: it's that his silliness leaves us with a a lack of clarity about what the pair are actually planning on doing. To me the significant issue is what appears to be a plan by the pair to go beyond rhetoric and start messing with the actual archaeological record. Their latest audio discussion of a past episode of America Unearthed, the subject of Colavito's blog post, features them discussing what sounds like an excavation they plan to undertake with the intent of finding and unearthing what they believe to be gigantic human remains but without involving the authorities in the traditional way (listen between about 16:00 and 24:00). Pulitzer and Wolter first discuss an image, sent to them by a third party, of what they have determined to their satisfaction is a very large human bone. They say the following, among other things:

16:30 Pulitzer: "With any researcher or explorer, the only thing that confirms it is when you, yourself, your team, your documentation team can physically take them out of the ground yourself, and can document it themselves. And that's what's been missing is a lot of these have been found by people, but when they feel they're doing the right thing and calling the local authorities and state archaeologist and some of these others get involved, literally everything disappears."

18:15 Wolter: "This is not in your typical situation, where archaeologists have control of the site. There is, this is a site that is completely unknown, it has not been studied in any specific detail. [... ]This opportunity is once in a lifetime, we are going to seize that opportunity."

23:00 Wolter: "Believe me, if that bone turns out to be as big as it was, and the rest of the bones turn out to be as big, if they match this then we'll have something big to report."

The original brouhaha about Colivito's blog post concerned his use of the phrase "announce plans to rob presumed Native American grave" in his headline describing what Wolter and Pulitzer planned to do. Pulitzer accused Colavito of libel for using the term "rob" (which he argued implied a criminal act) and Colavito subsequently changed the language to read "dig up." Objectively, "rob" was a poor choice of word and I think Colavito did the correct thing by making a change. His quick word change amicably resolved the issue and we all rode off on on our rainbow-colored unicorns, satisfied that the world was populated by reasonable people. The end.

Oh no, wait, that didn't happen. My bad.

What did happen was that Pulitzer commented many, many more times after the word change, responding to challenges and questions about their plans by creating the crazy quilt of conflicting questions and explanations which you just have to read for yourself to fully appreciate. Nothing squares with anything else -- it's just a big mess that leaves the impression that there really is no plan. In their audio presentation, Wolter and Pulitzer clearly stated they think they're dealing with giant human remains (or else what would be the point of excavating them?), and I think any reasonable person would conclude, based on what they said, that they intend to dig up those remains. In the audio, they told us that professional archaeologists and "local authorities" are the problem, and they are going to "seize the opportunity" of a situation where they can "physically take [the bones] out of the ground" themselves. In his comments, however, Pulitzer appeared to walk that position backward several steps (albeit in a confusing zig-zag), disingenuously asking many others who commented where they possibly could have gotten the idea that he and Wolter were going to dig up human remains themselves. I'll tell you where: from what you said! I fail to see how a reasonable person would draw any other conclusion from the audio.

But maybe all of us somehow got it wrong? Fine -- then tell us what the plan is. I (and others) repeatedly asked Pulitzer to clarify what exactly he was talking about in terms of what he and Wolter intended to do.  Eventually we got this response:
Picture
Pulitzer also stated that the local sheriff indeed had been notified and shown the bone (or the images, it's not clear which):

"Andy, for your information. The photos show what could easily be a human bone, but the size of it caused the local sheriff to poo poo it. Was too big. Thus case closed. Path open, thus why we are bringing in our own research and medical team. Cant force the locals to deal with now can you. All bases covered."

I responded:

"Ah . . . So now we have learned something. You and Wolter satisfied yourselves (based on a photo) that it is a human bone, but the local authorities satisfied themselves that it isn't. Therefore you argue that you have a green light to do whatever you want? Is that accurate? Perhaps if this photo is so convincing you should let the world see it. I would be willing to bet you were not looking at a genuine photo of a giant human bone. You did, after all, identify brass on your "Roman sword" as gold."

And that is where the conversation effectively ended. I am left still not knowing exactly what Pulitzer and Wolter intend to do. The cowboy tone of their audio conversation and Pulitzer's unwillingness to provide a simple answer to the "what exactly are you planning on doing" question is troubling to those of us who care about stewardship of archaeological remains. We don't know where this "site" is, and we haven't been shown the images of the object that Wolter and Pulitzer have decided is a human bone. We do know, however, that they think they are dealing with human remains and they apparently suppose they are working within the letter of the law but somehow in a way that will allow them to act  as "warriors for truth" outside of customary or established procedures. Yes, I'm using the word "act" intentionally. I'm concerned that Wolter and Pulitzer's cavalier conspiracy-theory-laden discussion will encourage others to go out and become "warriors for truth" armed, this time, with shovels to accompany the sense of outraged entitlement that Pulitzer attempts to instill in them.

My bet (and my hope) is that these guys give up on this idea, whatever the hell it actually is, and leave the physical archaeological record to professionals. This is not because we want to suppress the truth about anything, but because doing good archaeology in the field requires a skill set that takes years to develop and hone. It requires much more than TreasureForce costumes and empty rants about "forbidden history." As it turns out, technology patents, lawyers, and authorship of copy-paste treasure hunting books are of little utility when trying to read and interpret subtle variations in sediments and deciding how to pick apart overlapping features so you understand what you're looking at. In short: you guys don't know what you're doing. You can talk all you want, but when it comes to archaeological fieldwork you haven't demonstrated that you're qualified to stick a single shovel in the ground. You may have been on TV, you may have a lot of fancy toys, and you may have an A-Team van and an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock, but I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't out-perform a single one of my field school students in your knowledge of basic excavation methods.

Rant all you want about your "Roman swords" and your "fight for truth," but please leave the excavating to those of us who understand where show business stops and scientific work begins. And please leave human remains alone. These are the remains of people, not props to be used to try to build an audience for your tragicomic attempt at "rewriting history."


One simple step here would be to show the photo of the alleged "giant human bone" to someone who is qualified to make a credible, indpendent judgement about whether or not it could be human. You're completely wrong if you think it's always a simple task to determine what's human and what's not --  there are numerous examples of highly educated people making mistakes in the past, and well-meaning people in law enforcement and medicine continue to make mistakes today because they are not trained in comparative anatomy. What you need is someone who understands both human and animal anatomy and is familiar with archaeological materials. I suggest you send the image to me. If I can't figure out what I'm looking at, I'll find someone who can. That's a sincere offer. I'll give you an honest opinion, and I won't publish the image without your permission. If I think what I'm looking at is human, I will advise you to revisit the issue with the local law enforcement officials that you claim to have already dealt with. This is the point at which the responsible thing to do is to check the bravado and offer some transparency.

I have more to say about this, but I'm on the road again and my time is limited. I'll just say that my sincere hope is that what sounds like a "let's go dig something up" plan, in whatever form we're now supposed to think it will be operationalized, is piled on the scrap heap with Pulitzer's other unfulfilled promises (remember the "smoking gun" Minoan artifacts of Tennessee? remember the "Indiana mummy"? remember the "white paper" that was promised in spring 2016?).

Finally, I'd like to close by saying something positive about Scott Wolter. Despite our recent issues connected to his withdraw from participation in my class and my disappointment that Pulitzer is apparently now speaking for Wolter, I continue to believe that Wolter and Pulitzer are fundamentally different. The contrast comes through clearly in the audio conversation that is the subject of this post (the only one of their America Unearthed reviews that I've listened to so far). Wolter is articulate and has a command of the issues that easily exceeds anything I've ever heard from Pulitzer. Their partnership is none of my business, of course, but  I continue to wonder why Wolter would choose to make his equal someone who so clearly is not. I remain puzzled by the mismatch. 

I welcome any comments by Pulitzer or Wolter that will help clarify what is going on here: I'm genuinely unsure. I'll delete any comments that I deem unconstructive. 
160 Comments
Carl Feagans link
8/4/2016 07:06:26 am

I have to admit, it took several trips to the bathroom (where all good Internet reading is done) and, finally, a half-hour sitting at my desktop at home to wade through the comments at Colavito's blog to finally reach the spot just above where you posted a link to this post. I think you summed up the issue and the comments quite well. Hopefully, no one gets an eye put out by Pulitzer's Red Ryder.

Reply
Kathy
8/4/2016 07:42:36 am

The over-educated grunt had me in stitches !!!!! Id marry that guy ! lol

Reply
Denise
8/5/2016 10:07:14 am

Agreed....Grunt is an interesting guy. :-)

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:17:16 am

So ANDY here I am and lets see if I can do for YOU what I did for Jason. He started at 8 comments and is pushing 400, and you are at 20 and lets see if truth gets your sheeple in arms and I drive your traffic and worth for a few days. Ready set go and NOTE I will only post facts and lets see the comments your groups come up with. YEeehaawww

Reply
Andy White
8/5/2016 09:31:54 am

Hutton-- please either address the questions about what you're planning on doing (the subject of the post) or don't bother commenting. Save your baloney for your fake history programming.

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 12:25:03 pm

Yea Andy, we doubled your readers today! Look 44 now! Awesome, and so happy to contribute

Reply
GEE
8/4/2016 07:30:07 am

Andy ,

On Jason's blog when Hutton stated that they would have the appropriate staff out there at the dig , I instantly thought of the Treasure Force , the group that he leads as " Commander " . I could never believe anything that comes from the mouths of his own team. They need an outside perspective . Hutton and Scott would do better by sending you the photos . #AndyWhiteWarriorfortruth

Reply
RW Taylor
8/4/2016 11:16:06 am

Gee,

If you think his team has any respect for him, I dare you to go to 12:00 in this link and listen closely ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkfcd0uGUHE

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:20:11 am

Yes, very true. I manage my team with very high standards and protocol. But, where are they? Part of the team and on mission with the team. So now lets compare your body of work. What time period in your teams, history, books, video, audio, body of work - should we tune into to see how you are revered?

Peter Geuzen
8/4/2016 03:06:55 pm

Please don't believe or even pretend there ever was "the group he leads as Commander". This was a collection of bad actors doing bad acting for a bad idea of a bad pilot for a bad show. There is no team, there is no group, he leads nothing.

Reply
RW Taylor
8/4/2016 04:01:42 pm

Hey....his 2 divers were on that team. You know, the ones he brought into Canada while they were being investigated for a road incident where they admitted to shooting at another driver. And more!

Killer team

Peter Geuzen
8/4/2016 05:09:30 pm

True enough. They are real divers with I think it was the Dallas police. They were not part of the TreasureForce pilot cartoon however and were seemingly just borrowed from their real job for the sake of OI. They did not appear to be the best picks for the extreme type of dive.

RW Taylor
8/4/2016 05:43:37 pm

They were one of the teams, Echo. Most of the things have been removed from the internet pertaining to the SnackForce teams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRH6KAiFzUo

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:21:55 am

Peter, do me a favor. Since I have seemed to misplace them, please send me the acting resume, head shots, demo reels or other on air work of the "actors" here so we can verify YOUR facts? Yes you can find our military records, books, explorations and more, but actors? So, since facts matter and you act as if you have them. Lets take a close look.

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 10:49:55 am

Andy, writing a thesis makes you a writer of a paper, not an expert in fact. You simply do not posses the ability to look at a photo and tell origins of fact. Your career, white papers and actual degrees do not qualify you for this high level or pressure and exposure work. No offense, but just on facts there are a vast group of academics more qualified than you in this specific area. Nor, would we qualify someone based on they wrote their thesis on the topic in a round about way. Just qualifications facts and nothing at all personal. Now IF I am wrong and you are an expert in bone identification by photos and being able to tell origins, then post of the stuff I missed and the accolades for such.

Andy White
8/5/2016 11:17:53 am

Hutton, every time you type something you further validate my critique of you. It would be nice if you'd actually address a question, but, regardless, it's worthwhile up to a point to have you on record again revealing to us the imaginary world you live in. Good job!

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:15:05 am

Gina Toresso, this one I will answer. Andy is not qualified to look at the pictures and offer an opinion- since not his field of study or expertise however, 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. The path they took was to reach out to us and say "When you need someone of my expertise to check, verify and attend your work, please contact me". There are those within the system who know there needs to be upgrades and changes need to come. Those individuals chose "partnering over polluting". You see, just like you have learned personally, it is ok to question, but when vulgar words and attacks come one gets banned from our work. Thus look at it this way. YOU personally could be the worlds top expert in looking a photographs of bones and verifying origins, but in the past you attacked and spoke vulgarities of us and our work. But, there was the SECOND best person who could look at photos and verify bones origins. That individual (just a story hypothetical here) did not attack us and felt "Maybe these guys are or could be soon on to something big and I want to be part of that". Well, even though YOU are the best , they were the reasonable. So, when we made our discovery since they reached out to us and did not attack, they were offered to be part of the team, went to the site, offered their expertise and lets say all is real and solid. Well THEM as academics got the story, in the headlines and on TV and their book and was published, they became the academic heroes of the find. In their circles, they did speaking engagement and were forever tied to the historic find, they make tenure and live on in history. Of course the find needs to be solid. Thus Scott and I brought it to the world and got our work out and proven, the complementary academics got their accolades and we all won/won. But the blog attackers who are academics get left behind, still struggle to be significant and did not participate and detractors like you (who stalk from site to site) never get to see the info and work first hand since you got banned from all our sites, lists and such, thus you too by default ONLY get second had info and are relegated to the hate groups and thus live in hate on and on and on as we and academics who know the score (you need the find to make the news) all live on in history. Thats the rule of the academic and historic jungle. Attack and there is a price to pay, be polite and accept the "what if" and when the historic finds are made, we come to you and you share in the prize of history.

Reply
Andy White
8/5/2016 09:29:25 am

I wrote my MA thesis with a concentration in physical anthropology, Hutton, and I've worked with actual human skeletal material for my entire career. Wrong again!

Jim
8/5/2016 11:02:21 am

" 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. "

If this is true, you should have no trouble naming them ! Please do so. At this point only yourself and Scott are known to be involved and neither of you are qualified in the least.
The rest of your post consists of delusional ramblings !

Bob Jase
8/5/2016 11:10:33 am

"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."

Yeah, all the well respected, widely published, heralded experts do their best work anonymously.

John (the other one)
8/5/2016 12:01:40 pm

Pardon me if I don't believe someone who falsifies data and credentials when they say that their group is all at "university level". Is this 100% verified and published in a white paper or law school text book also?

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:19:54 pm

Jim, you are correct. Each participate is being named in the credits, on air and in the book and research files being made available at the end of the project with release of the work and research report. That's standard operating procedure and everyone knows that. UNLESS, you are talking about the likes where Scotts old professors were listed and people like you then attacked them after the facts. Maybe that is what you see? If its true Jim then surely you should post your real name and contact info. Correct?

Jim
8/5/2016 04:40:04 pm

Sorry Hutton, no soup for you ! I need no contact from you or your lawyer.
Is this project to be released before or after the white paper?
No answers from Hutton once again, more deflections, more useless ramblings, more unfounded accusations but certainly no answers !!

Nicole C Catlin
11/12/2021 01:00:17 am

I say dig it up in private take a ton of pictures with measurements and put them in a lock box until you are dead and then have them all released to the public to prove Giants exist. But when you are done bury it all back up cover it with some sod so that you can't tell the ground has been disturbed. End of story!!!!!

Pablo
8/4/2016 08:14:05 am

It's interesting how in all these cases there's always an unknown aspect that we all have to "believe" just because. Nobody knows where the famous sword came from, it was found "somewhere" near the ship that its "clearly roman" but it cannot be studied. The results of Hutton's tests of the sword, where are they? Now we have photos of some "giant" that we cannot see and are found in an unknown place.

Reply
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

Reply
Jim
8/5/2016 11:14:59 am

Speaking of facts in your report, you claimed this,,,,
"Jim, download the Oak Island Roman Sword report and behold 372 items with MORE THAN 35% zinc in national museums and collections certified and peer reviewed. "

Do you stand by this assertion ?

John (the other one)
8/6/2016 09:50:16 am

Jim - Hutton can't answer that, none exist.

Ken Lentz
8/4/2016 08:44:16 am

I think you are over-complicating a venture the purpose of which is to simply promote interest in an upcoming "episode". In truth, the show, should it ever happen, will be another "Mystery of Al Capone's Vault". A big build up, lots of stories about giants, suppressed archaeology, etc. culminating with (in decreasing order of probability) 1. No bones, 2. Animal bones, 3. Relatively recent human bones.

The show will end with "well, we were unlucky this time, but next time we will prove that these damn giants exist...".

Cynical? When you wasted 2+ hours of your life watching Geraldo Rivera get excited about finding Al Capone's dead bodies only to find a pile of dirt, I can no longer watch such nonsense. At best I record it and fast forward to the end.

Reply
Andy White
8/4/2016 10:00:08 am

I remember the Al Capone's Vault fiasco. I watched it live as well.

The problem here, in my view, is that the archaeological record shouldn't be fodder for the baloney cannon. You might say it's "no harm, no foul" in the case of wasting time opening a 'vault,' but you can't put back what you damage by excavating.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:26:57 am

Andy, if we catch the on site archaeologists on this project doing something wrong on illegal we will have it on camera and will share it far and wide and expose them for poor practices. So never fear we document all. Just think, you think there is a possibility of giants and it could of been YOU as part of the team!

Andy White
8/5/2016 05:12:39 pm

Wait . . . so the archaeologists will be in control of the excavation? And you'll just be standing around with a camera? Just like anyone else who goes to an excavation to watch professionals do their jobs?

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:25:11 am

Yes, both Scott and I do TV, but TV is an adjunct of our work, not the basis of our work. Unfortunately and fortunately the "giant bones" are not a TV special as you suggest, but camera crews will be attending and it could result in some amazing TV.

Reply
Bob Jase
8/5/2016 11:13:18 am

Aw, I watched that Al Capone thing too and enjoyed its overview of gangster movies and how the public perceived gangsters. And it wasn't just a pile of dirt they found - if I remember right they also found an empty beer bottle.

Reply
Joe Scales
8/4/2016 09:08:01 am

It's no mismatch Professor. Wolter and Pulitzer are both poisoners of the well of knowledge for pure profit and notoriety. That is their common bond. That Wolter may have had a more viable and seemingly honorable pre-fringe career than Pulitzer, since he made it his life's work to authenticate the KRS, he has shown nothing but disdain for the academic pursuit of knowledge through its traditional means of sound logic, openness to contrary evidence, proper scientific methodology and staying within the field of your expertise. His television show stands as a testament to that very point, poisoning that well in documentary format.

Proof by assertion is not proof. Confirmation bias is no way to conduct inquiry. Above you plead with Wolter and Pulitzer to leave it to the experts. That will never happen, as they both pose as experts, as seen on TV; and again you have another commonality for the two of them. At this point, I have to wonder if they're actually convincing people of their fantastic claims, or have de-bunkers become their target audience.

Reply
Andy White
8/4/2016 04:36:49 pm

In my opinion, there is daylight between Wolter and Pulitzer. I'm sure others will disagree with me on that, but that's my judgement at this point.

Reply
Clint Knapp
8/5/2016 04:51:46 am

I'd agree with that assessment, if only on the basis that Wolter can write a coherent sentence and speak without frothing at the mouth. He's definitely got better people skills than Pulitzer, and while they're both generally intolerable nuisances to all things scientific at least Wolter actually knows how science is done - even if he's chosen to willfully ignore it in his current line of work.

Joe Scales
8/5/2016 08:36:05 am

Fair enough Professor. I however, have had the distinct displeasure of openly debating Wolter on his blog in countering his fallacious logic and cherry picking of evidence in relation to the KRS. Whether it was pointing out Winchell's clearly stated deference to the Swedish linguists in his committee report, or the improbability for runes to remain legible when partly carved in calcite hundreds of years ago, he resorted to pure ad hominem in response. Whereas I was able to keep it civil within the terms of his own truce in inviting me back to his blog, he clearly couldn't frame any sort of rebuttal without pure insult directed back at me. He even lied to the readers of his blog alerting them that he had outed me as "Dick Nielsen". This of course was not the only lie told by him in my regard, so on that level, he and Pulitzer are birds of a feather in my view.

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:34:09 am

Andy, amazingly you are correct. You see Scott and I are not sheeple and do not need sycophantic ass kissers to approve. And as such Scott and I are distinctly different in many many ways, but it takes all kinds of expertise. Thus Scott and I did not partner to pat each other on the back as your posters here. He many times and in many ways does not agree with me nor I him, but we know it takes all to do real meaningful work. So its a marriage of talents not ideals and complimentary skill sets. Unlike academics, they are all birds of a feather and cannot stand others who feel different, that is why peer review is NOT based on differing opinions to get truths, but common core beliefs in order to perpetuate a false belief. Birds of a feather and to think you sculpt birds! HUMMMMMmmmmm

MikeS
8/5/2016 12:13:19 pm

"Unlike academics, they are all birds of a feather and cannot stand others who feel different, that is why peer review is NOT based on differing opinions to get truths, but common core beliefs in order to perpetuate a false belief." - Hutton Pulitzer

To me it seems that these words were written by someone who has never experienced a CRUSHING peer-review of a scholarly article that they devoted YEARS to put together. Even the NICEST peer-reviews recommend changes and revisions.
Those words, it seems, were written by someone who throws written works together haphazardly, publishes them without peer-review, and moves on to the next project.
It's been my experience that the academic world is anything by "birds of a feather."

John (the other one)
8/5/2016 12:22:10 pm

You have a lack of understanding about peer review and academia. Most academics have different and often extremely varied backgrounds, beliefs, and personalities. Peer review is often a contentious process where work is submitted to several referees through a blind process and they may totally disagree not just with your outcomes but also your methodology and your premise.

In short birds of a feather academics are not. The mere fact that you try to describe it that way touts either your disdain or complete lack of understanding.

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:30:49 am

Scales, your long records never support Scott, but here you state support. No need to plead with us to use academics, they are already on board. The best in their fields and opened minded enough to go on the mission and do their tests work and validation, thus in reality- one could most likely take 100% of the combined academic credits of those who post here for Andy and including Andy, and it still would not match the vitae of one member of our archaeological, science, forensic, anthropologic ore medical team. So, no need to worry- the OUTSIDE experts NOT SCOTT AND I- are in, included and NONE were found here among this set. That is one solid fact.

Reply
Jim
8/5/2016 05:30:47 pm

Question : What is an " anthropologic ore medical team" , excuse my ignorance but is this giant metallic ?

Jim
8/5/2016 05:44:00 pm

And if it is indeed metal, could I recommend adding Dr. Christa Brosseau to your team. She is spot on identifying and dating metals.

Your welcome.

Joe Scales
8/5/2016 07:58:10 pm

"Hutton",
Bantering online with you is akin to wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it. Therefore I will disengage accordingly.

Harold Edwards
8/4/2016 11:11:04 am

The “giant” in question was 5'3" tall. See page 69 in “Dealing with Electric Pandas: Why It’s Worth Trying to Explain the Difference between Archaeology & Pseudoarchaeology,” in Field Notes: A Journal of Collegiate Anthropology, vol 5 at

http://www4.uwm.edu/StudentOrg/asu/Field_Notes.htm

Also in Minnesota the State Archaeologist has authority over burial sites including cemeteries. For the rules on this see:

https://mn.gov/admin/archaeologist/government/burial-sites/

Quoting from this webpage:

“According to the Private Cemeteries Act, it is a felony to willfully disturb a burial ground. This requires that the state archaeologist define burial ground limits during the authentication process and that all land within those limits be treated properly (i.e., not disturbed). Thus, human remains within burial grounds do not have to be directly disturbed to represent a violation of the law.”

Caveat Excavator!

Reply
Andy White
8/4/2016 04:34:51 pm

The paper you cited (the 5'3" "giant") refers to the remains from the Saker farm that were the subject of the America Unearthed episode. Wolter and Pulitzer were discussing plans for investigating a different site -- we don't know where or what it is.

Reply
Harold Edwards
8/4/2016 05:01:19 pm

Thanks for the correction. Sorry for any confusion.

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:35:39 am

Andy, thank you for stating facts and correcting the incorrect assumption posted. Always great to stay on topic and on the actual facts. Better sharing, learning and vetting that way.

RW Taylor
8/4/2016 11:25:23 am

Andy, again your comments hit the nail on the head. Between you and Jason you seem to find the root of the problems that are persisting with people who just don't know when to give up trying to gain fame by any means possible.

I called this whole debacle last winter, that when the sword was found to be fake that a move to monster hunting (giants / bigfoot in particular) would happen. It's a shame that I was correct, and it's even more sad that Wolter, someone I've always liked, has been pulled into the vortex of idiocy.

If people used their mediocre fame and prosperity to engage in legitimate research then maybe there would be a modicum of respect to revisit in these trying times...unfortunately the mass amount of threats cast out seems to point to an ego that just isn't capable of any form of criticism.

Scott seems to want to find the truth, and he's educated and articulate enough to find a competent team to do so. It's sad that he keeps the company that he does, but I can bet the arrangement is mutual. I'll assume that one needs funding, and the other needs a reputation to feed off of. Sadly, the reputation is quickly sliding downhill.

What I do smell a mile off is another attempt at a show. Mark my words, if we don't see something in this aspect I'll be absolutely surprised.

"2 forces combine in an attempt to find the truth. From the star of the hit show Oak Island, and the host of America Unearthed come a new show to find the truth..."

Wait for it. I smell it.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:40:32 am

Randal Taylor my misguided Nova Scotia who I gave a single minded purpose in life for his life unfulfilled. Help me out. Scott many years back on America Unearthed covered both Giants and Bigfoot, so HOW DID YOU in your personal delusions call it last year? Did you watch his episodes 4 years ago and then think later you had an original idea? Really? About the only thing in your life -which is in the dead end where you are and reside- is how to go from group to group and page to page and troll. Personally, I do not see that as a great skill set or calling card. I feel sorry for you. At least you among your blood relatives seemed both reasonable and studious, but in the end you ended up being the same trailer park boy as the rest. Shameful indeed. You are not even by any remote standard qualified to comment on history nor research. But in trolling you are indeed an expert. Your mother and you must be proud. It is truly a calling in life to be proud of.

Reply
RW Taylor
8/5/2016 11:18:39 am

Oh Hutton my Texan Turd Burglar, you're so misguided and deluded on so much.

Scott covered them but again, he covered a lot of subjects which the main focus was the Templar angle. My comments were made well before it was made public of your change of venue from Oak Island to Wolters partner searching for giants. Much much before...Matter of fact it was when the sword you claimed to be all origin was being debunked.

As for my 'dead end life' it is known that I am career military, have been for a long time and have been around the world in service to my country, as well as receiving awards at home for bravery. Real medals, real patches and a real rank. Imagine that! When people say my rank it's something I earned though hard work and dedication.

If you think I am following you to troll then you can remove that idea. I have many interests that span many concepts, from history to antique vehicles to hiking, caving swimming, to theories on life on other planets as well as my education where I'm several credits away from having a real degree in electrical engineering. Imagine that...something I earned and worked hard to get and didn't create to give myself!

A fake name, Steampunk dress up and qualifications invented from the air make you as qualified as I to judge history. Unless Cacheology and Mythochronology are being taught now.

And speaking of family, how is your father who you claimed to be the banjo player from Deliverance? Oddly enough when we all checked on that last he was 10 years old when he had you. What a crazy family you have!

Again, you don't quite qualify for me to troll. All I do is put facts together and let them lay where they will.

I'm glad you feel sorry for me, someone who has a loving wife, 2 amazing children, a dedicated career I can be proud of, and am well liked and respected among my peers. My life is such a shambles!

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 12:24:21 pm

Randal, LOL leave it for a Nova Scotian to not know the "Deliverance BANJO" was a JOKE about Hillbillies and Movies. Next ALL disciplines, even like archaeo-petrography start with the innovator of the idea and perfecting the discipline. Yes, you have even heard of archeo-petrography and it started with?....... wait for it Scott Wolter, THUS the start of the discipline and study of Cache recovery as a discipline with rule sets and methods and Study of the Chronological aspects and facts or social treasure myths...started right here. Now, grated people have to talk about it, publish on it (as I have) and get the words out into the use (As you have here and thank you) but, I venture to say, my innovation of Cacheology and MythoChronology will far out reach and grow what you achieve with your trollogy, or bitchnmoanology or even your brothers liveofthesystemology (oh wait, a whole class of people have perfected that one). Keep trying Randal, but I am for one proud I gave you are reason to live and troll. You NEED me to get attention, be heard and to matter to other people. Happy to of had made a difference in your life! That - wonderful meaningful life!

RW Taylor
8/5/2016 12:51:17 pm

Nope, you made an insult on your podcast then said you had the right to insult because your father was the banjo player off of Deliverance. It wasn't a joke because nobody found it funny, especially the people you sat there repeatedly insulting for several minutes.

You don't give me a reason to live, matter of fact all you do give is indigestion. I've been following Jason and Andy for a long time, used to post under a different name as a matter of fact. If I were trolling you I'd make fake accounts to go onto your Facebook pages, or troll your YouTube pages, and more. I come to Andy's site because his articles are excellent, and he writes what he knows and is well educated on. Same for Jason, although his stuff is a bit different I still enjoy it and have for some time.

I will admit for a month or 2 I did troll, after you angered me when you CC'd me on that first email from your lawyer. Others also angered me with whom I trolled, and I did so happily. It allowed my focus to move from my PTSD which resulted from the recovery of bodies from an airplane wreck off the coast of Nova Scotia in 1998 when I was 19. I trolled everything and everywhere, you were but a facet. Hence my using my real name now and not a gamut of false names.

I lay no claim to trying to create a name or a legacy by attempting to push the things I've created onto others. I do right by those whom I know, I serve my country on a daily basis, and on more than 1 occasion I have sacrificed my personal freedom for what I believe. There are 2 families out there right now who know my name because of the lives I've saved...that is a big enough impact for anyone to live with.

Again, my legacy will be with my family, those who remember what I did, my sacrifices and my service to my country. When I die I won't have to have my tombstone already inscribed with what I think I did, others will have done it for me out of love and respect.

And what Scott Wolter does has education and experience behind it. Please, attempt to be professional like he appears to be. Referencing a smash hit like the Trailer Park Boys trying to degrade me, or insulting my family not long after you called the ICE RCMP about a perceived insult you thought was to your son which landed squarely on my shoulders...how shameful.

P.S. : if you hit ENTER when you decide to change a subject during a response it'll create a new paragraph. I'm sure that a man with your lineage and who is an said to have the technical know how of Bill gates should know this...maybe not since you shamelessly used 9/11 to garner attention in your Who Is JHP self promotion video.

reference : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKn04HHr4II

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:11:30 pm

Randal RW,

Math shows the truth. take ALL your comments on line in each group, blog and forum. Find topic, then divide topic by number of comments and 90% of your online life is ME. I am your topic. I am your being, your purpose, your focus and your desire. I give you reason to post and reason to be read. I made you something for people to pay attention to. Before you trolling me, you were...... unknown and unseen and unappreciated. Glad to be of service.

RW Taylor
8/5/2016 05:41:26 pm

That's quite the boast considering I'm a member of several prominent AMC sites, military / valor sites, hiking/camping sites, caving exploration, UFO, avionics sites and a few more. You're in all of these?

You made nothing of me besides another detractor.

Ph
8/4/2016 03:50:11 pm

>>Wolter is articulate and has a command of the issues that easily exceeds anything I've ever heard from Pulitzer. Their partnership is none of my business, of course, but I continue to wonder why Wolter would choose to make his equal someone who so clearly is not. I remain puzzled by the mismatch.

Well, what's worse, someone that really believes his ramblings, or someone who is commercially biased but skilled and intelligent enough to steer away from intelligent counterarguments with emotional and personal arguments?

I think they might actually complement eachother, one explains the theory in a mostly lucid and intelligent way, the other engages warfare on the unbelievers.

But i'm willing to bet we get a fallout and resulting screaming match when they fall out of love with eachother, within a year.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 09:41:29 am

PH see my comments above on how I AGREE Scott and I are very different in all ways and why that both matters and works. I think it was in reply to Andy.

Reply
Nicole C Catlin
11/12/2021 01:04:18 am

I hope you guys did go back and dig it up.

Only Me
8/5/2016 10:49:07 am

So far, Hutton has said, "Attack and there is a price to pay," after complaining about personal attacks and vulgarity.

Hutton has accused Gina of stalking. That would be libel, per his interpretation, as stalking is a crime in all 50 states.

He accuses Andy of being part of academia's group think.

He refers to those who disagree with him as "sheeple" and "sycophantic ass kissers."

He claims RW Taylor's life is a "dead end."

Not once has he addressed the questions posed to him by Andy. Oh yeah, this will be a continuation of the same garbage Hutton left on Jason Colavito's blog. Andy, you have my deepest sympathy.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 12:15:15 pm

Only me, proven technique there. Preachers teach the world the meaning of the Bible buy using selective words and selected sentences instead of the full rent and message. You are in great company. Accusing of stalking, since I am the one stalked is not libel, it is provable by her comments about me and following me site to site. Facts matter.....same as always. Stay in the shadows..........

Reply
Only Me
8/5/2016 12:48:31 pm

Bullshit, Hutton. You committed libel, per your interpretation of the law, and claiming victim status doesn't justify it. If you had a legitimate case, which you don't, you would have already taken legal steps about the alleged harassment.

Proven technique? Oh, you mean the mastery of the double standard!

By the way, the "Use your real name or your opinion doesn't matter" argument has never been a credible counter-argument. I'm not surprised, though; I have taken note that you STILL won't answer Andy's questions.

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:04:41 pm

To Only Me. 1 you jumped the gun prematurely ejaculated the statement Iw as not answering Andy. Typical for you. 2. Using my real name, just reference all my state and federal iD"S.

Only Me
8/5/2016 02:17:30 pm

First, I KNOW you haven't been answering Andy. That's the point! Instead, you've hemmed and hawed and done everything to keep from answering.

Second, the double standard is in reference to your tactics: resorting to personal attacks and vulgarity AFTER complaining about their use against yourself.

Do try to keep up.

RW Taylor
8/5/2016 12:58:06 pm

Only Me, this is how we roll. I make some comments about something, regardless of the content, and he responds. I respond in kind then he gets upset and calls the RCMP and/or CC's me on an email to his lawyer.

You will never see a straight answer, only asking questions about what you asked, or bait and switch style conversation.

"What is your favorite number?"
"Back in the days of Pythagoras they used to believe that the world was flat, so 3.14 is the answer to why I like sausages"
"..."

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:02:27 pm

Randal, the facts matter and it is a matter of public record, I called the RCMP because someone promised to sexually assault my 15 year old son. Facts matter. Thus with that trolling post it became a crime and crossed international boundaries and imagine once the RCMP talked to you and your brother it all stopped. Weird I know.

RW Taylor
8/5/2016 05:52:56 pm

You called the RCMP over harassment. You made 1 mention of the comment regarding your son, who I may add you told the officer was older than 15. And I recall your son had his 17th birthday when you were still aloud on Oak Island which was well prior to that comment.

Also the spam never stopped. It continued even afterwards, or do you not recall having your account suspended and having to make a fake account to keep in touch?

The RCMP had full access to my account, which gave access to all messages and logs. I also invited them full access to my PC and cell phone.

Funny how you toss in Ryan to this, as I mentioned he had not a thing to do with these particular events.

And again, if that comment was at your son, as I said before, as a fellow father I do not tolerate any form of child abuse, direct or indirect.

If you'd like I could post all emails pertaining to these events. Oh, wait, I did and invited members of your group to read them on Oak Island Raw. Every email, and the police record number which anyone can request as a matter of public record!

Don't worry Hutton, you can keep on reciting your RCMP rhetoric. He just wanted to be rid of you as your call had literally 0 legal pull here in Canada. Do you not recall him telling you to contact your local police and make the complaint as you were not a Canadian citizen?

You keep adding 1+1 and coming up with potato.

Andy White
8/5/2016 12:21:33 pm

Oh hey, Hutton, while we're on the subject of facts mattering, why did you identify the brass on the "Roman sword" as gold? And why did you say the Italian eBay sword was plastic? Were these intentional lies of yours or just really bad mistakes?

Reply
Only Me
8/5/2016 01:24:54 pm

Sorry, Andy, Hutton is too busy pursuing a comment record on Jason's blog to answer your questions. In fact, he'll probably get around to doing that never. So busy, busy!

Reply
DanD
8/5/2016 01:59:24 pm

Good lord man, down load the report and please wait for the much-ballyhooed " White Paper " It will answer everything........lol

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:08:06 pm

DadD guess you downloaded and read the 200 plus page report? Awesome, a man who wants facts and does not just spew net gibberish..... or does he?

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:00:26 pm

Andy your answers: (1) in our XRF the tests showed gold, not brass. It is a gold overlay. Thats a fact. (2) The ebay swords I said were, simple base metals, some were cast iron and others were composites. You left all I said out. The composite was a plastic composite, as evidenced by the lower in China rip of of Toscano's version. The ebay versions ONLY show the sword is famous, not that the sword we showed is fake. Even the University dated it as most likely 1748 but you keep writing modern fake. The xrf of the sword we tested shows it to match hunders of known roman and peer reviewed artifacts, BUT you do not talk about that. So talk about ebay all you want, but try dealing with the actual report facts.

Reply
Andy White
8/5/2016 02:18:15 pm

That's priceless. I'm happy that you have confirmed that the self-propelled "world's greatest treasure hunter" still doesn't know the difference between brass and gold.

And remember when you went from saying the sword was bronze and NOT brass to arguing that brass with 35% zinc is actually ancient and not modern?

Where are your XRF data? Do they say the sword is brass or bronze? You know it can't be both, right? So if your XRF data say bronze . . . then what?

Jim
8/5/2016 03:30:09 pm

You stated the sword had a special quality to it .

"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."

Being an accomplished explorer I assume you understand the proper use of a compass and the fact that it points magnetic north, not true north. I also assume you understand the need for varying degrees of declination to give an accurate reading of true north.
Given this I have three questions for you.
1- How is this sword unique in all of history to be the only item that can break the laws of magnetism and and point to true north ??

2- How is it that Dr. Brosseau, an accomplished professional could have missed a lodesone, magnatite or other iron body in the sword large enough to have it point to,,,um,,,,er,,,,,true north??

3-How did you come to the conclusion that this sword had these properties??

4- Did your xrf results show this lodestone or high iron content in the sword??

Jim
8/5/2016 03:31:40 pm

oops 4 questions,,,,

RiverM
8/5/2016 12:37:08 pm

The giant human looking bone is a plant. Half a meter beneath them are thousands of discarded CueCats in original boxes, left there by E.T.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:07:13 pm

Awesome, River. Typical and over used. But now 11.5 billion devices use my scan to connect patents which launched cuecat. What have you done lately? Or ever?

Reply
Snoggins
8/6/2016 06:37:08 am

Actually your idea was a bar code reader that sent people to advertising sites, or sitesomething to other places that paid.

A barcode reader. A simple standard barcode reader. All you did was disable part of it via hardware and have it redirect to a site. Plain and simple.

Thats not innovation that's just another copy paste idea.

Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:06:17 pm

From 20 to 60 and we are now headed to breaking your comment record. Proving I am very very important to your blog and traffic. Awesome

Reply
Mike Morgan
8/5/2016 02:33:35 pm

Oh Pulitzer, you are so funny. (Just a placeholder so I will be notified of new comments) I see your humbleness and humility lasted just long enough to hit the enter button on your post @ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/served-huge-slice-humble-pie-damn-hurt-too-hutton-jovan-pulitzer

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:57:51 pm

Mike Morgan. Mike Morgan? man you are famous are you not as Superstar Boudoir boss Mike Morgan. You the same guy?

Mike Morgan
8/5/2016 03:35:01 pm

Well, Mr."Facts Matter" Pulitzer, I had to google to find out about the Mike Morgan you are confusing me with. The obvious answer is, of course, no. I am still alive, I am not typing from the great beyond.

Jim
8/5/2016 04:05:42 pm

24 of them being your comments,,,oh my how important you are.

Reply
Ken - blocked on FB by Hutton for discussing his lies
8/6/2016 01:58:08 pm

Hutton thinks the number of comments here is important.

It's a shame he doesn't think the quality of his comments is important.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:23:05 pm

Andy, you wrote "Hutton, every time you type something you further validate my critique of you."" I am a mildly amused that you think I even care. I am not liberal, I care not one bit what someone thinks of me. You on the other hand need acceptance for validation. Thus there is a huge difference in the two. No matter what I do, say, post or write, two things are written in stone - (1) Your opinion of me will not change and (2) your opinion of me is totally inconsequential to me and the universe. Thats like saying "the Blockbuster video clerk likes me!" just means nothing at all.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 02:47:29 pm

Andy, further review. If you go back in time Andy you will find I have before invited you to record, debate, present your case in an open forum. That was me reaching out to you. Now I understand your shyness when you speak to at most 20 people at a time , when i speak to thousand, up to millions. But the issue is you cannot come to the middle line no matter what. I can even compliment your art abilities (i am jealous you can sculpt) and thank you for correcting bad facts, but you cannot come my way no matter what and I can prove it. I am open minded and willing to take risks. You are poisoned by the system and seek the security of not taking risk. Here is why we are oil and water and no matter what I do, create and publish or say, you will be at odds with me and a prime example could be: Say I win the medal of honor, you see, it- all you could say in comment would be "did you see how stupid he looked" or "they were stupid to award it to him" and there is your LOT IN LIFE. We are this way why? I am 100% everything you detest and fear. Conservative, faith driven, published, wildly successful in numerous disciplines, recognized, wealthy, able to create wealth, courageous, daring, fearless, innovative, an inventor, someone who can manifest great and big things, someone people follow, talk about and love their. Someone who gets and has had national and international exposure and I could go on and on and on. YOU do not value any of those and you think those things are distasteful. Most likely you even hate I am a Jew who supports Israel since your own institution voted to boycott Israel at the anthropology level. You are none of what I am and I am none of what you are. yet, I have offered to debate you, share your views and opinion, but all you can do is slash words and attack. Why? I am 100% of what you detest most and patriotic on top to boot. Now that really makes me evil does it not? Even jason compares me to trump. LOL like that is a curse or something bad? Now that is laughable. At least I am honest, direct and courageous enough to be out there and not let people like you suppress historic truth. But do not worry, I am going to develop the White -Colavito Scholarship and have your stories and it will have you live long in history and its an award for the most opposing archaeologist or anthropologists who finally turned tails from the system and shared hidden truth. You will be the epitomize of what NOT to be. Seriously, you deserve the attention.

Reply
Only Me
8/5/2016 03:16:50 pm

For someone who just said, "your opinion of me is totally inconsequential to me and the universe," you really go out of your way to tell everyone just how much of a special snowflake you are.

I see more personal attacks, but nothing of substance. You boast of speaking to thousands/millions, yet you can't even answer questions from just ONE archaeologist with a blog.

Reply
Andy White
8/5/2016 05:21:52 pm

Yawn . . . you forgot "humble," "honest," and "able to stay focused and follow through" . . . oh wait -- nevermind.

Few if any of the qualities that you suppose you have are relevant to your ability to tell the truth and embrace contrary evidence. In those endeavors you have so far failed miserably. I don't care about your personal life and haven't written a single word about it.

And, for the record, the AAA rejected the resolution to boycott Israel. I was against it -- I thought it was a terrible idea that made zero sense.

Reply
Andy White
8/5/2016 05:38:36 pm

Also, Hutton, I don't recall ever getting an invitation from you about debating the "Roman sword." Could you refresh my memory? The emails I got from you during Swordgate were, as far as I remember, legal threats.

By the way -- the Daily Mail article STILL shows a picture of Roman sword boss that's in the British Museum . . . only it STILL has your copyright mark on it and says it came from Oak Island! That must be embarrassing, since you said you'd have that fixed back in December of 2015.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3364818/Did-ROMANS-discover-America-Sword-Oak-Island-suggests-ancient-mariners-set-foot-New-World-Columbus-according-radical-theory.html

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/5/2016 03:21:00 pm

Andy, look at the comment traffic, we are rocking it. 300% in mere hours. Kudos!

Reply
Jim
8/5/2016 03:53:33 pm

Hutton, 28 of 75 or 33% of the posts are your own,,, you can not buy posts here.

Reply
Carl Feagans link
8/5/2016 04:55:07 pm

It is genuinely interesting to read comments here and at Colavito's blog where Hutton continuously attempts to metaphorically measure his penis against everyone else's.

There is a term for people who constantly brag about themselves, seek to elevate their societal status above others in their peer-group, look to be the center of attention and constantly seek admiration of others. Such people often seek out titles and ranks they hardly deserve (like "commanders").

It's called narcissistic personality disorder. Those with it rarely admit they are afflicted to themselves, much less others. And they almost never seek treatment.

And, it would seem, they rarely use paragraphs when they write. The anthropologist in me is quite fascinated. Please continue.

Reply
MikeS
8/5/2016 08:15:03 pm

Carl,

I've seen others post similar types of posts regarding Hutton Pulitzer and narcissistic personality disorder. I do not know what credentials you have, if any, in the mental health field.
Regardless, though, making an "arm-chair" diagnosis, so to speak, about a person based solely on their blog posts is distasteful and counter-factual. I feel that it is important that here, on Andy's blog as well as on Jason's blog, that those who oppose Mr. Pulitzer actually stick to known facts. I do not believe that the facts bear out that Mr. Pulitzer has an official diagnosis of NPD. It would surprise me if he did have a diagnosis (though it would not surprise me if he did have NPD) as the majority of people who actually have NPD refuse to see anyone for diagnosis much less treatment.

Now, I do not like Hutton Pulitzer, his tactics, his hypotheses, his techniques, his bravado, nor, quite frankly, anything else about the man.
It may very well be true that Hutton Pulitzer does, indeed, have NPD. That diagnosis would best be made by a clinical counselor, psychologist, or psychiatrist in a clinical setting, not on the internet.
Let Mr. Pulitzer fire away with his patented brand of insult-and-ignore style of deflection, but please, as truly open-minded and scholars that we are, leave the name calling and pseudo-psychoanalysis to the likes of Mr. Pulitzer.

Reply
Andy White
8/5/2016 05:09:24 pm

Okay everyone -- I've been driving for the past few hours so I was only able to read comments (and make one) while stopping to get fuel.

Since Pulitzer is gracing us with his presence here, I'd like to focus his attention on some "Roman sword" questions. These aren't directly relevant to the issues around what he and Wolter are planning on doing when the go in search of giants, but they are relevant to the larger question of Pulitzer's credibility. As I wrote in the original post, Pulitzer's inability to acknowledge and account for contrary facts shows his refusal (or inability) to embrace the most basic tenet of doing science.

Pulitzer has said many incorrect things about both what he claims is a "Roman sword" and about the many of other Hercules-hilted swords that came to light after he made his claim. I've already asked two questions: 1) why did you identify the brass as gold? and 2) why did you say the Italian eBay sword was plastic?

Pulitzer maintained that the "Roman sword" actually has gold leaf on it. This is a ridiculous assertion for which he has provided no evidence. He claimed the shiny parts visible on the hilt are gold leaf, when actually they are just brass from which the fake patina has been removed - notice that the "gold" is on the high spots like the knees. His claim (that he has now reiterated in the comments here) is illogical nonsense.

I'm not sure I understand his response to my question about why he said the Italian eBay sword was plastic. I just checked, and I remembered it wrong -- he claimed it was cast iron (although he apparently also did say it was plastic at some point?). I can assure you it's neither: I had possession of the thing for quite some time. It's a copper alloy sword. Here is what Pulitzer said during Swordgate:

"We have attempted to contact [the seller's of the sword on eBay] over ten different times . . . I think they're worried about contact because they're posting pictures from the Naples Museum but sending a different cast iron sword in response. So what actually happened is when this story broke, people started looking at the sword and we all started asking questions of the sword and the people in Italy that were selling it . . . actually eBay shut them down because eBay realized that they were taking pictures of the museum sword which [unintelligible] supplied to eBay and they were actually supplying a different sword that was fake, cast iron, and whatever. So, I'm not sure they're going to want to answer a lot of questions when they were using authentic photos to ship a fraudulent piece of merchandise."

That story of his is all complete baloney - a total lie. The sword pictured in the eBay ad was the one that was shipped. It was a copper alloy sword very similar to the "Roman sword."

Pulitzer has never produced any evidence to support his claim of an "original sword" in the Naples Museum. He uses the claim that an "original sword" exists to deflect questions about why there are so many Hercules-hilted swords floating around. It's a baloney story, like so many other of his stories.

As a final point to the start of a sword discussion, I would ask what happened to his contention that the "Roman sword" was actually bronze and not brass? That contention, like his claim that the sword has gold on it, was apparently based on the XRF data that he has never released. If his XRF data are correct and the sword is bronze, why is he trying to argue that the Romans made brass artifacts with 35% zinc? His attempt to find Roman artifacts with such high levels of zinc amounts to an admission that the St. Mary's metallurgical data are ACTUALLY CORRECT, and his XRF data are not.

So, Hutton -- response?

Reply
Andy White
8/5/2016 05:53:10 pm

Hutton - I just refreshed my memory and watched your short video from immediately after the COI episode where they gave the metallurgical results. You did indeed say that your tests (it's XRF by the way, not XFR) indicated nothing like the high levels of zinc reported by Brosseau. So why do you care about finding Roman brass with high levels of zinc if her results were wrong and yours were right?

Reply
Andy White
8/5/2016 05:54:39 pm

Here's the link, by the way, in case you forgot what you said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6cUxQOeLU

Reply
Andy White
8/5/2016 07:06:46 pm

Oh look, Hutton -- you've now got 7 views on your "oh crap what just happened" video! You're welcome.

Reply
Andy White
8/5/2016 08:37:23 pm

Hey - your little "uh oh" video now has 15 views, so you're up 1400% on that little gem in just one evening!

But try to set your fame aside for a moment and just answer the sword questions when you get a chance. Don't forget about the little people. Thanks.

Reply
Justin Demetri link
8/6/2016 04:02:08 am

Andy, during swordgate I contacted the Naples Museum via email with links to images of the swords. A finally got a typed letter earlier this summer stating they have nothing in their collection that resembles the sword. They do however have various votive offerings in the form or hercules.

Hutton Pulitzer
8/6/2016 10:42:02 am

Let's do a debate radio interview. You ask all your questions. Agreed? I will schedule

Reply
Andy White
8/6/2016 05:55:30 pm

Hutton, here's my response. My two main points have already been raised in various ways by my readers today while I was on the road. My readers are reasonable people who, like other reasonable people, can see right through your nonsense. But on to my answer . . .

I'm open to the idea of having a debate (or some kind of structured conversation) with you about the "Roman sword" and the other Hercules-hilted swords. I have two main concerns that would have to be addressed in order to really talk about how to make it happen, however, both having to do with transparency.

1) There is no way I'm going to collaborate with you on something that you control and that will be part of your "brand" on your websites. Why? Because you have repeatedly shown yourself to be untrustworthy. You have shown that using distortion, misrepresentation, and outright lies is part of your MO. 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. It's just not part of a professional discussion about facts, evidence, and interpretation. But you do it all the time (including in the comments on this post, where you implied that I was an anti-Semite). In short, you have not provided any reason for me to take your word for anything and plenty of reasons not to. I have more credibility in my little finger than you do in your whole body, and I would be stupid to trust you with it. And despite what you may think -- I'm not stupid. When you give people reasons not to trust you . . . they won't. Maybe you never learned that lesson. Let me give you another one:

2) Data! When professionals have a debate, they refer to data. I have been open with mine, but you have not provided yours. 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" (see, there's that credibility issue again). It just doesn't work that way. You have made reference to your XRF data numerous times to support your claim(s), but you have not provided it. How could I evaluate claims based upon data I don't have access to? In order for me to have a real discussion about the sword with you, you'll need to provide your data ahead of time so that we both have access to the same information. And you'll need to get me a copy of "Commodus's Secret" so I can read your argument about the sword there.

If you want to talk about a sword discussion, it will have to be something that isn't controlled by you and you'll have to (finally) let us all see this XRF data that you've been hanging your claims on. If you can't agree to those MINIMUM requirements, the discussion is over: you aren't ready to have a real discussion about the sword. As one poster pointed out, it's not about money for me -- it's about demonstrating how you evaluate claims and evidence. Without transparency in the medium and the data I'm not interested.

Carl Feagans link
8/5/2016 05:24:26 pm

Questions for Hutton and the "Roman sword."

1) What was the model of the xrf used?

2) Can you link or show the results (surely with something as important as this you tapped the "export" button)?

3) What was your specific methodology to capture the results? Where was it done? How was the sword positioned? What part of the sword was sampled? How many times was the sword sampled? Can we see results for each? etc.

Reply
ghettohilbilly1
8/6/2016 05:53:11 am

button is to busy hiding the truth, he will not show his findings because he is doing exactly what he accuses others of ,with-holding the truth, he knows great answers to every question because he is hiding the truth, if he had good data that would hold up he would produce it but he doesnt so he keeps it to himself that way he can never be wrong, he is an amazing fraud who dances around every question, never answers them but tries to confuse you, all the while tooting his own horn, petting his own ego, but I have to ask button what his problem with nova scotians is? again in these blog comments hes insulted people from nova scotia and even the province itself, its sad but his compulsion to respond to every comment just shows how delusionally narcissist and out of touch he really is with reality

Reply
Snoggins
8/6/2016 06:40:45 am

The people from Nova Scotia can see through lies,plain and simple. His deceitful loads of feces which he spreads is no longer welcome there.

That and from what I read he can't seem to handle a few locals shit either.It's funNY to watch the screws be put to him and all he can respond is his sissy whiner statement of "RCMP" LOL.

Hutton Pulitzer
8/6/2016 10:43:38 am

Carl download the report and see. Numerous testso. Over 20 in fact.

Reply
Carl Feagans link
8/6/2016 12:34:25 pm

I have the report. Those questions were unanswered in it. If I'm wrong, my apologies--point to the page number. Also, what page listed Roman artifacts that had between 30-35% zinc? I didn't see these. A page number will correct me.

Thanks!

Uncle Ron
8/5/2016 05:47:17 pm

Interesting and revealing comment from JHP just above: Andy White "cannot come my way no matter what and I can prove it. I am open minded and willing to take risks. <He is> poisoned by the system and seek<s> the security of not taking risk (sic)."

This demonstrates another reason JHP will never understand the workings of real scientists. Science is not about "taking risks." It is about determining truth with the highest possible degree of accuracy (not to mention, being willing to change your beliefs if someone demonstrates a better explanation of the facts). His methodology is to make an outlandish claim (the risk) and then try to build support (facts) under it, rather than to only make a claim that is already supported by facts. He is propping up boulders with soda straws and naturally, in that position, gets irate when anyone grabs one of the straws. Ironically (from the scientific perspective) he gets what he wants (publicity) either way so for him it's a no-lose situation.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/6/2016 08:45:46 am

Uncle Ron, have you not looked up my technology science and research work in 189 countries. Each of you offer feeble reasoning and tty to paint me as if I do not know or adopt the scientific method, when in fact you are wrong. See the difference is we are talking words here. Not a one of you have anything to ferret out but words. And in that case we are related to the conflict between the sayee and the sayer as is the egotist is to the ego. In fact each of you on this and jasons blog work off that very principle.

Reply
John (the other one)
8/6/2016 09:57:39 am

Tech and science are different but sometimes related things, and you don't do research. Nor do you invent, write, win awards, find treasure, or inspire the truth. You have a terrible case of diarrhea of the mouth mixed with evading answering questions, bigotry, and general stupidity.

Abraxas
8/13/2016 04:52:22 am

Your "technology science" in 189 countries, eh? You mean the QR scanning tech that you didn't create and don't own? Or are you just talking about how some of your patents are referenced in that chronology chain?

Or maybe, if we go back to your CueCat days, you're talking about the technology that your company (Digital Convergence) had to buy and license from NeoMedia for 1.4 mil in your stock options? Maybe you did some occasional innovating along the way, but your patent application history looks like deprecated mess.

The majority of your scholarly work is self-published, and the few sources online that include it in their curriculum look like diploma mills. More importantly, your science and research work in 189 countries isn't referenced in the academic community at all (or at least, nothing that I could find).

Man, if you harnessed all your self-promotion skills in something real like marketing or PR, you'd probably be doing a bang-up job. But I know your type, Hutton. For whatever reason, your desire to become the "next-big-thing entrepreneurial superstar" is everlasting.

I'm just waiting for J. Hutton Pulitzer "3.0," in which you'll probably claim that #Swordgate followers were threatening your life, so that you can change your name and try to reinvent yourself all over again. How's this FEVR tech thing going, by the way? Looks like the website is still a template.

I really, really don't WANT to pick on you like this. It almost feels mean, and no sane person wants to be like that. But dammit Hutton, you really do bring out the worst in people. It's like you push and prod these buttons, time and time again, until people finally can't bite their tongue anymore.

There will never come a day when people don't call bullshit, Hutton.

Seamus
8/5/2016 06:54:19 pm

I somehow read all or most of the comments on Jason's blog. I made it to the bottom here, but only by skimming or ignoring Putzer's comments. They made my brain hurt. Can we just move on, ignore him and write interesting, thoughtful stuff?

Reply
Jim
8/5/2016 07:14:06 pm

You are right. He will not or can not answer a simple question, he only wants attention. Or perhaps he wants Andy to send him a cookie for increasing the post count here.
I am out, it's been a blast, see you all down the road !

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/6/2016 08:46:41 am

Andy, YOU ARE THE MAN! Look at you breaking 100 comments from a mere 20. Awesome man. You are making a real difference and I was happy to effect the 500% difference!

Reply
ghettohillbilly1
8/6/2016 10:22:52 am

Sounds like you are jealous that Andy and Jason can get more legit comments than the ones you have to buy and why are you hiding the truth by not releasing your long over due white paper? and do you actually have ANY non-self appointed titles or credentials?or just the ones you've made up for yourself?

Reply
Andy White
8/6/2016 10:28:20 am

Still not willing to answer the questions? They should be easy for you. The difficulty, of course, is that they show that you have been lying about your "100% confirmed Roman sword" from the beginning. I understand why you wouldn't want to admit that, but it would help your credibility if you would. You've got nowhere to go but up!

Here, I'll simplify the question so even you can understand it: what is the percentage of zinc in the "Roman sword"?

All you need to do is enter a number. You can even just copy-paste if you want! I know you can do it! If you can't I think my work here is done and you can stop commenting.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/6/2016 10:40:13 am

Andy I did answer and u r avoiding again. The exact 28% the number the University said ? Between 30 and 35. Thus they said not ancient. Except several 1000 well knownow peer reviewed artifacts in museums have over 35% read my 200 page study. Your info and their facts are wrong. Can't debate you if you are too lazy to read the report. Download it.

Andy White
8/6/2016 10:45:45 am

So you admit that your XRF data are not correct? You said in that video that you got nowhere near that level of zinc. So you now admit your data are wrong. And those data would include your identification of gold.

Only Me
8/6/2016 10:47:36 am

You had a golden (or is it brass?) opportunity to earn credibility. All you had to say was "Can't debate you" and left it at that. Not only would it have been one of the few times you were truthful, it might have earned you some respect.

Andy White
8/6/2016 10:49:27 am

I tried to download your downsized report last night, but I was trying I was blocked from viewing the content via Facebook. You've had me blocked for a long time, which reflects very poorly on your story that you are "open" to discussion. You've kicked me out of groups and deleted my replies to your posts. Your MO includes counting he message, which is why I am very skeptical of agreeing to anything with you. You have created a trust gap a mile wide.

Carl Feagans link
8/6/2016 11:26:53 am

What page in your "study" are the "over 35%" artifacts listed? In the portion up to page 100, you never cited them, so I'm assuming they're in the disorganized list of "reference" and "research" materials that follow in the next 100.

Also, would you be so kind as to show the full XRF data that you took? This is something you criticize Brosseau for, by the way: not showing all her data in a report.

How do you account for the refined copper and lead within the sword? Are you saying it doesn't exist or that a refining process existed for Roman metallurgists circa 400-450 BCE?

Peter Geuzen
8/6/2016 12:34:12 pm

Did he just write that he got exactly 28% or did he just write he got between 30 and 35%? It's impossible to tell based on the lack of coherent writing skills.

Carl Feagans link
8/6/2016 12:52:53 pm

I think he's saying he got exactly 28%, which is, coincidentally, the highest amounts documented in antiquity, probably because of the alloying processes involved -zinc vaporizes at a temperature lower than copper melts. More complex methods of alloying zinc into copper didn't come around until a few things happened in history, like the isolation of zinc as a metal, refinement of metals in processes like electrowinning, and two-phase alloying processes that take into account the differing melting temperatures.

The 30-35% claim is probably a way to hedge his bets. If he can't show evidence for his 28% "exact" XRF data, then he can just say it doesn't matter since metallurgists ~430 BCE were creating brass alloys with 30-35% zinc content. The problem is, I've yet to see the data, which he says is in his "200 page report," of which about 100 pages is a disorganized jumble of references and copy/pastes from journal articles that are not properly pointing to citations within the first 100 pages which is his actual "report." There's really only about 30 pages or so if you normalize the fonts and eliminate unnecessary images and side-bars.

Maybe Another Kook
8/6/2016 10:29:44 am

HP - You must have so much time on your hands to be able to provide so much insight to so many, many people.
Can I also provide factual information about your sordid activities so you can make my blog famous too?

Andy, may I have the next shot at the champ?

Reply
Andy White
8/6/2016 10:41:56 am

On your own blog that you're responsible for you can, of course, make your own decisions. Here, however, I'll delete posts that I judge cross the line.

Reply
RW Taylor
8/6/2016 10:58:20 am

I'm going to be fair and impartial here. Hutton, Andy, this is directed at both of you.

If you agree on an interview you need to have a 3rd party who has no vested interest in the sword or any of the arguments that we have all had, nor either of your interests at heart except for history overall.

The host has to be knowledgeable of history and able to ask clarifying questions. It has to be someone you both agree on and it has to be on their ground, not on a Sound Stream or Podcast run by either of you.

Neither of you can host this and have the results be fair and impartial and believed by each side when questions are asked and answer given.

That is the only way that your debate, questions and answers will be taken seriously. A 3rd party impartial mediator to host and ask questions to both of you when they see fit.

Reply
Jim
8/6/2016 02:20:45 pm

I don't know what the point would be, Hutton has ducked all questions since the outset of this. Why would a radio broadcast be any different ? Perhaps to get some listens by riding Andy's coat tails ?

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/6/2016 02:39:28 pm

Jim each item was answered or addressed. Just a different times from you ejaculated starting that I did not. Yes. Andy and his blog as of this quarter contributed exactly 13 plays to our radio program. Huge numbers for Andy. Not even a blip for us.

Jim
8/6/2016 02:53:05 pm

Hutton; No, nothing has been answered ! Truth matters, Facts matter !
I have asked this twice and have seen no response ! I ask again,,,,

You stated the sword had a special quality to it .

"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."

Being an accomplished explorer I assume you understand the proper use of a compass and the fact that it points magnetic north, not true north. I also assume you understand the need for varying degrees of declination to aquire an accurate reading of true north.
Given this I have four questions for you.
1- How is this sword, unique in all of history to be the only item that can break the laws of magnetism and and point to true north ??

2- How is it that Dr. Brosseau, an accomplished professional could have missed a lodesone, magnatite or other iron body in the sword large enough to have it point to,,,um,,,,er,,,,,true north??

3-How did you come to the conclusion that this sword had these properties??

4- Did your xrf results show this lodestone or high iron content in the sword??

Please address these questions !

Jim
8/6/2016 04:22:20 pm

Also to address this;

". Andy and his blog as of this quarter contributed exactly 13 plays to our radio program. Huge numbers for Andy. Not even a blip for us. "

After a quick check, the going rate for buying soundcloud listens is $12 for 5000 listens. So yes the time you invested here only gained you 3.6 cents worth of listens. Really a poor return for your time. I guess buying more listens is the better way.

http://soundcloudreviews.org/

Jenson
8/8/2016 06:57:51 am

For someone who does a lot of copy / paste and smoke blowing, Hutton seems to have a hard time copying any quotes with any real facts from that fluff up white paper 'report' . ... #factsmattermyass #huttonbullshitter #strikesagain

Eric
8/6/2016 01:46:31 pm

"Uncle Ron, have you not looked up my technology science and research work in 189 countries. Each of you offer feeble reasoning and tty to paint me as if I do not know or adopt the scientific method, when in fact you are wrong."

Actually, this is exactly where you go off the rails, Pulitzer. You've got some technology work but nothing that seems to be independently-verifiable science. Especially when it comes to publishing work you approach science like an inventor - by hiding all the details so no one can steal them. Unfortunately, one of the key characteristics of science is repeatability and so science focuses on telling ALL the details so that anyone can repeat your tests and validate your claims. There's even a push in scientific publishing to make people deposit full data sets in online repositories when they publish.

This is continued in writing. Scientific articles follow a single general format 95% of the time which makes it easy to find the information. You've gotten questions about both methods and results, which would be in sections called "Methods" and "Results" in a scientific paper. Instead, we've got to dig around in a disorganized mess to find your claims. Then when you get questions you don't say, "Table 2.A," but "Find it yourself somewhere in 100+ pages." Incidentally, 100+ pages is more like a book than a science paper, and if it were a book you'd be expected to break each subsection of your claim into its own chapter for readability.

You're making a radical claim that would break all sorts of models of how the world works (including rewriting the epidemiology of the New World). The Bayesian prior here is that you're wrong, so I'd expect a clear, convincing sell with all the cards on the table. Instead, I end up feeling like you don't really want anyone looking too hard at your data.

Reply
John (the other one)
8/6/2016 07:12:43 pm

Well...there is no data.

Reply
nomuse
8/6/2016 02:35:20 pm

So...

Pulitzer can not give a firm answer for the amount of zinc ("The exact 28% the number the University said ? Between 30 and 35.") He refuses to detail the XRF in any way, much less provide the original data. So not only is there no verified number, there isn't even a number to discuss.

He also wants it to be accepted as established that this number fits within a set of samples of the period claimed. Except that there is no list or other documentation of said samples, even within the rambling hundred + page report which is so difficult to reach it might as well be considered behind a firewall.

He can't even supply a single named item from a single known collection that can be independently verified? One single bronze artifact that agrees in ONE way (aka just the zinc percent) with this disputed sword?

I've seen vastly better (documented and investigable) claims made by Moon Hoax believers.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/6/2016 02:36:34 pm

Andy I do not see your answer to a recorded session. Did you reply or is this mute? Simple "I'm in" or "No thanks" will do. Then we both can put our individual facts out there. Please advise. And no I did not say my Xrf was wrong. That's a misdirection statement by you created by you. But now I increased your comments 600% gonna move on it you can't agree to openly debate.

Reply
Mike Morgan
8/6/2016 03:02:07 pm

Bye bye, or is this just another false statement?

Reply
Jim
8/6/2016 03:05:04 pm

But Hutton, wait, you still haven't answered my questions ! Oh right, sorry, run away Hutton, run away, by by little man.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/6/2016 07:55:22 pm

Jim let's see if Andy has the guts and facts to join and do a recorded debate. I venture to say he is just like you brave behind a keyboard gonad-less I'm real life and exposed

Andy White
8/6/2016 07:56:47 pm

I answered your question. Did you forget how to read?

Eric
8/6/2016 04:56:24 pm

"But now I increased your comments 600%"
Who cares? Andy gets paid by his employer, not his blog. I realize your publicity machine may be your primary source of funds but why would Andy care?

Incidentally, are you aware that when I search your name on Google it isn't until the 5th hit that I get anything that appears to be one of your own websites? Maybe you should worry a bit more about your own web traffic.

(Andy's site comes up twice before yours on a search for your name. Putting your name all over the comments on this article probably doesn't help that situation any.)

"gonna move on it you can't agree to openly debate"
What are you doing now? Not debating? Debating behind a secret paywall I somehow got exempted from?

You don't mean "openly debate", you mean "openly debate in front of a bigger/different audience".

Reply
Jim
8/6/2016 05:00:31 pm

I wonder Hutton that since Andy and Dr Brosseau have been completely transparent and laid all their cards on the table regarding the evidence they have collected for all the world to see, would you be willing to do the same ? Would you provide Andy with the results of your XRF scans and any other evidence you have to make a level playing field ? Or do you need an unfair advantage ? So far it seems you do. You claim you are right but provide no evidence.
Well, open up the vault and show us your evidence, in the interest of fair play !

Reply
Andy White
8/6/2016 06:18:50 pm

Correct - thanks. Not providing the XRF data on which his claims are based would be a deal killer.

Andy White
8/6/2016 06:17:28 pm

Hutton, I answered your "debate" question above.

Are you now saying you got 28% zinc in your XRF data, even though in your "oh crap" video right after the episode aired you emphatically stated that you got "nowhere near" the levels of zinc reported by Brosseau?

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/6/2016 07:58:37 pm

Andy deflection once again. We are not talking ABOUT any video after an episode. Only you are to deflect. Next the report is out and will provide the Xrf as we did for Epoch Times. Man up whip and open the debate and we will peel this onion one by one. But a blog has never been a debate forum.

Andy White
8/6/2016 08:02:56 pm

Can you try to speak English, please?

Either provide the "data" upon which you base your claims or we have nothing to debate. it's pretty simple. I would think that even you could understand the concept.

Mike Morgan
8/6/2016 10:38:14 pm

Pulitzer: "Next the report is out and will provide the Xrf as we did for Epoch Times."

What report is out that contains the XRF data? Nothing about a new report from you on your several Facebook pages or on your HistoryHeretic blog. Or are you referring to the elusive "White Paper", the “Multi-Discipline Forensic History Research Group Rewriting History of Pre-Columbian Contact in the Americas”, where the "Epoch Times" stated in their 1/20/2016 article @ http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1946376-exclusive-new-evidence-ancient-romans-may-have-made-it-to-oak-island-canada/?photo=5 , "...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."

Are you saying the "White Paper" is now released?

Jensen
8/8/2016 07:00:29 am

LOL ! #huttoncantread !! Do u need someone to copy and paste that answer again for you???? !!!! LOL

Reply
Andy White
8/6/2016 03:11:07 pm

I'm on the road and will address comments when I'm done driving.

Reply
Only Me
8/6/2016 07:13:05 pm

Andy, I think you should be grateful to Hutton for one thing: his comments present a very convincing case he not only doesn't understand science, he's mostly concerned about drumming up publicity. It's no secret he wants a TV show of his own. I think that is the real reason he teamed up with Scott Wolter.

Oddly, he insists he can't convince you to join his side, but still offers to debate you publicly. I guess the pursuit for more recognition makes for strange bedfellows.

Reply
Hutton Pulitzer
8/6/2016 08:01:47 pm

Each of you are only excuse makers. Nothing more when faced with opportunity to debate in open you each slink back behind your keyboards and throw verbal jabs. Will somebody that is really an adult .hopefully andy.and put your childish jabs aside and deal in the forum of an open debate. You can just keep using the stupid excuse of "you did not answer" geez whimps - sickening lack of courage to defend your beliefs.

Only Me
8/6/2016 08:15:23 pm

>>>Nothing more when faced with opportunity to debate in open you each slink back behind your keyboards and throw verbal jabs.<<<

That is rich! This is coming from the man who dodges questions so frequently, I'm convinced you could dance between water drops in the shower.

>>>You can just keep using the stupid excuse of "you did not answer"<<<

As long as you don't answer the questions put to you, we will.

Jim
8/6/2016 09:41:08 pm

Hutton; are you drunk ?

ghettohillbilly1
8/7/2016 04:03:10 am

Lol what is Pulitzer 12? Crying about insults when being rude and insulting, "telling on"(threating legal action)anyone who disagrees, taking his ball and going home, and now copy cat-ing anything anyone says about him, this is NOT the reaction of a 50 some man this is how a CHILD acts, either Button is having a mid-life crisis, or his parents and teachers were horrible at teaching as most of us were taught it was unacceptable behavior and out grew that kind of behavior in elementary, so I'll ask again in a way that maybe he will understand
WHERE IS THE WHITE PAPER?
WHERE IS THE WHITE PAPER?
WHERE IS THE WHITE PAPER?
WHERE IS THE WHITE PAPER?
done with your excuses and BS?
WHERE IS THE WHITE PAPER?

Reply
Jensen
8/8/2016 07:07:59 am

Here is the hutton pulitzer template of debate

" facts matter .. --insert insults-- ,I am a warrior of truth, facts matter -- insert bogus qualifications--,I am awesome TV star and you are not--insert quick deflection-- insert few more insults-- cause facts matter, --insert legal threats --, what say you? "

Reply
Andy White
8/7/2016 06:36:26 am

FYI: I've pulled my statement on the "debate" issue of out the weeds and made a new post:

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/roman-sword-advocate-wants-me-to-debate-data-im-not-allowed-to-see

Reply
Jim
8/7/2016 07:27:58 am

Beauty,,,,,,,,,,popping the popcorn as we speak !

Reply
Thomas K
8/7/2016 03:58:36 pm

How can we know if the Hutton comments are actually from Hutton? And who is the 3rd party?

Reply
John (the other one)
8/7/2016 05:28:42 pm

ask Scott Wolter and Mary Magdalene

Reply
Cooper6ver2
11/18/2016 09:19:33 am

I was doing a little online fact finding about the oak island show when I remembered how batshit crazy that j Pulitzer guy seemed to be on TV. It usually doesn't take long to tell when someone is a completely mental, self important buffon but with him it was almost instantaneous! So I switched gears to see if others had any thoughts to confirm my suspicions and my search brought me here. Why any of the commentors here try to give that loon a rational response is a waste of time and only adds to whatever attention he is seeking. It's painfully obvious that guy deserves no credibility whatsoever but I guess in Hollywood if someone feels by latching on to crazy, fringe wannabe, history sleuths they can make a buck then it's justified. Anyway, thanks for entertaining me for a few. I did find the actual blogs well written and thorough. Happy hunting!

Reply
Terrie
11/26/2017 02:48:21 pm

Know I'm late to the party, checking to see who the person on the older Oak Island episodes was and found this site. Wow, watching a group of amazingly intelligent people get completely under the skin of Mr. Philyaw is highly entertaining. Informative as well. He had phony written all over him and every time he types one of his juvenile replies he demonstrates his ability to bully not to mention that always present ego. How many times did Andy say answer the questions?

Reply
es file explorer apk link
10/1/2018 03:54:22 am

How many times did Andy say answer the questions?

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