Swordgate Poster, Version 4

1/31/2016

Peter Geuzen, Fake Hercules Sword enthusiast and Friend of #Swordgate, has produced an updated version of his poster that includes additional information and comparisons. Here it is:

View post on imgur.com

Changes from Version 3 include:

An abstract at the top of the page;
Occurrence dates, Sword numbers that correspond to the entries in the Fake Hercules Sword database, and provisional type designations;
Blade similarity indicator arrows and annotation for Type F;
Indicator lines and annotation for similar "clean blade" versions (possibly Type CS);
Indicator lines and annotation for the single "Pugio" (Type P) example;
Enhanced pinstripe.

Killbuck

1/31/2016 08:52:53 am

If this keeps going, one day someone will go on a quest to find the original swordgate poster, rumored to be in a museum in Naples.

Rory MacNeil

1/31/2016 12:41:07 pm

LOL

Bob Jase

2/1/2016 04:34:40 am

And it'll be longer than the Bayeux tapestry.

Peter Geuzen

1/31/2016 08:56:42 am

Plus:

Added enlarged hilt comparison between Nova Scotia and Andy’s collection

I think 'enhanced pinstripe' is just a border thing from imgur that shows up on the on-screen enlargement; there really isn't an extra pinstripe border thing, if you save a copy. Assuming this is what you are noticing and referring to, of course.

Andy White

1/31/2016 09:00:36 am

I should've gone with heated seats and a moon roof.

Killbuck

1/31/2016 11:26:41 am

I'm holding out for the commemorative tote bag

Anon

2/1/2016 03:07:24 am

The thing I don't understand is how anyone that's seen that poster — let alone read the article here about the production defects — can seriously keep furthering the notion that the Nova Scotia sword is authentic...

I mean, with 90-some-odd percent certainty, it's right there for anyone to see. Identical production defects can't just be explained away, unless you're actually trying to argue that ALL the swords with those markings are authentic (in this case, the "J"-type).

Makes me wonder if Pulitzer's just been doing a good job of insulating his followers from Andy's blog. We know he wouldn't allow a direct link over in his Facebook groups and other social media that lets him delete comments, but Andy's blog is pretty high up there in Google results (both for the sword and J. Hutton Pulitzer searches).

So I can only conclude that either the majority of them haven't stumbled upon that particular article (or they aren't looking at the poster graphic closely enough, since it's appeared in more than just one blog entry), or they have seen this information and just refuse to take it into account. I suppose a third option is that they realize the sword is fake, yet they remain willing to champion Pulitzer's other claims instead.

I don't get it... Do they want our perception of history to change SO MUCH that truth be damned? I'd be interested in hearing from them, if they do in fact visit Andy's blog. And while I'm sure Andy would prefer that most people comment with a semi-real ID, I'd like to point out that it's not a required (hence my name here). You don't have to sign up for an account with Wordpress to comment, either.

Peter Geuzen

2/1/2016 06:11:16 am

In his video thing last night somebody asked near the end when the 200 page sword analysis rebuttal paper was coming out. He dodged it without a definitive reply. He was supposed to release his XFR results right away and it didn't happen. He was supposed to release the 200 pager as fast as possible and waived a copy around last week I think but it didn't happen. It may never happen, but on the chance it does looks imminent, I have a suggestion.

I propose Andy should start a poll on this supposed 200 page rebuttal to the sword testing. In blocks of 20 pages, 10 blocks up to 200, and on the chance it goes over, one extra block for 200+, so 11 blocks total, here’s the main poll question: How many pages (pick your block of 20) do you think will be copied and pasted directly from the internet? So in other words, how much will just be BS filler to pad the page count – quantity before quality, to try to look impressive to his minions but be void of actual substance. There could be several side bets on this as well. How many of those pages will be nothing more than instruction manual talk on XRF? How many pages will NOT be properly credited to the original author? How many “Roman Antiquities Experts” will be signing this report? How many metallurgy academics or professional engineers or museum curators will be signing this report? How many buddies representing the AAPS will be signing this report? The ultimate question - Yes or No, Is there any shred within the 200 pages of filler that presents any absolute scientific conclusive objective proof of whatever it is he thinks he is trying to say about the sword (if we can even understand it)? This could be fun.

Anon

2/1/2016 06:57:14 am

Oh, I'd definitely take that bet... If the report does exist and it's really 200 pages long, I'm sure that a substantial portion of it won't be original research. Just like you said, it'll probably be lots of instruction manual or technical copy. We've already seen how he likes to present that kind of stuff as evidence, when in reality he's bridging the gap between data and hypothesis with speculation or conjecture.

It drives me nuts when he publishes these sensationalist headlines about proving X or debunking Y, citing his "200 page report" as the smoking gun. And he talks about it in his podcasts/videos like it's already available for public review, frequently referring back to it as the basis for his claims...

It's crazy that so many people are willing to just "take his word for it" when it comes to these wild claims about history, science and archaeology.

Mike Morgan

2/1/2016 09:33:45 am

Anon, you wrote: "Makes me wonder if Pulitzer's just been doing a good job of insulating his followers from Andy's blog. We know he wouldn't allow a direct link over in his Facebook groups and other social media that lets him delete comments, ..."

Pulitzer has recently allowed, on at least one occasion, a link to Andy's blog, to stand. It was posted during the time Facebook had given him a "time out" and sent him to stand in the corner so hard to tell if it is purposely or accidentally allowed. It did cause some discussion and led some to accept that the sword is not as Pulitzer portrays it to be. Someone also posted a section of the Swordgate poster showing a comparison of the hilts in the same thread.

See comments @: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CurseofOakIslandOfficial/ under post by Ryan Williamson
January 27 at 3:55pm.

Just a sample:

Reggie Wood: The test the show did is confusing because the test result are yes seen in artifacts made in the 1800's but what they failed to mention is those test results are also found in artifacts dating back 2500 years. I wish they would of done more test it would of confirmed the date 100% if this was my sword I would of had them run many different test. How do they know the handle doesn't have different metal content then the blade tip. I noticed some parts were not green on the sword which tells me there could be more then one metal content in it and I would of had those section tested before the tip of the sword.

Paul Arsenault Reggie Wood: I thought the same thing then I read this it has the scientist giving more information on the tests she did and she did test the handle too. Thank you

Paul Arsenault Reggie wood: http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/.../summary-of-the...

Reggie Wood: Thank You for that link a lot of good info until I realized who wrote it. I don't trust anything that Andy White guy saids his own bio states he is a loud month sh@t disturber if you read between the lines and he would do and say anything to disprove Hutton. He also was the one who said he had 100% proof the Roman sword was the eBay sword it was confirmed 100% test it was the eBay sword as he put it. Then when that started to lose its credibility the page disappeared and became a dead link he then changed his story to tie it to something else and now has changed his tune again to match the University testing results so Andy screwed himself of all credibility in my books and I wouldn't trust anything he saids and unless he uploads the interview I wouldn't believe anything he writes.

Keria Rossin: I was able to access the article. Most of it was a summary from Dr. Brosseau on testing, methods, and explanations of the composition of Roman artifacts. I found it interesting and informative. I had my husband (a metallurgist) read and it he found it accurate in describing testing and results. I know you all think that they only tested the tip but she states they also tested the hilt. They also used four different tests, not just one. In Drilling Down, the Lagina Brothers were convinced the test results were accurate. Furthermore, they went out of their way on the last show to state that what the History Channel shows is what is actually happening and they are not distorting the process. I know we all were hoping this sword was Roman but, at least in my mind, I am pretty satisfied that it doesn't appear to be. I am open to having my mind changed if Hutton's paper has more verifiable facts. But I haven't seen that yet so based on what I do see, it's not looking Roman.

Anon: "So I can only conclude that either the majority of them haven't stumbled upon that particular article (or they aren't looking at the poster graphic closely enough, since it's appeared in more than just one blog entry), or they have seen this information and just refuse to take it into account. I suppose a third option is that they realize the sword is fake, yet they remain willing to champion Pulitzer's other claims instead." True as evidenced by this exchange in another thread:

Asked to a believer: "What information has you convinced the sword is real? What testing other than the testing done on tv has you convinced the sword is real? I'm just trying to have a friendly conversation

"we have faith in our man H P for one"

Anon

2/1/2016 09:50:50 am

Man, it all sounds so similar to what I've read about cults, or cult-related psychology. I suppose you could also find similarities with tons of "group-think" theories as well, so I shouldn't really go down the religion road, since we're not here to insult anyone.

Maybe there are a lot of factors at play, like the timing of the Oak Island show or the age Pulitzer's followers. Who knows? Thanks for the info, though. I've been casually monitoring some of the conversations in that group, but I must have missed that one.

Kathy link

9/19/2016 09:45:07 pm

Very good comment. I agree with you. Thanks!

Comments are closed.

Swordgate Poster, Version 4

Archives

Categories