The latest weak coffee to be added to stew of "evidence" for a Roman occupation of Nova Scotia is a "Roman inscribed stone." The carved boulder, described in this post as a "Roman symbology stone," joins an evidence list that already includes such powerhouse "smoking guns" as a modern brass tourist sword and some "crossbow bolts" that are most likely pieces of historic period logging tools.
The "Roman symbology stone" is depicted as covered with all kinds of symbols that don't look like much to me. Apparently you have to be a professional cacheologist to understand that the symbols on the stone mark
"some form of a Roman Recon Mission, possibly a forbearer to various Iberian Reconquistas hit the shores of Oak Island."
Or, as Howard Montgomery (an alert member of an Oak Island group on Facebook) did, you could just turn the stone upside down and read it as it was meant to be read.
It says "Harold."
The "Roman symbology stone" is depicted as covered with all kinds of symbols that don't look like much to me. Apparently you have to be a professional cacheologist to understand that the symbols on the stone mark
"some form of a Roman Recon Mission, possibly a forbearer to various Iberian Reconquistas hit the shores of Oak Island."
Or, as Howard Montgomery (an alert member of an Oak Island group on Facebook) did, you could just turn the stone upside down and read it as it was meant to be read.
It says "Harold."
These pieces of "evidence" seem to be getting dumber and dumber, which (hint hint) is the wrong direction to go if you want to build a case that anyone will take seriously.
Recently I've been asked how long I plan on staying on this topic. I don't really have an answer to that except to say that I'll write about something if it interests me. I found #Swordgate to be fascinating, so I put quite a bit of effort into it. The drivel that we're seeing now, while somewhat entertaining in a strange way, doesn't have much appeal to me beyond the "how long does this go on" question. I'm curious to see how all this plays out now that (1) the main piece of "evidence" has been pretty thoroughly examined and (rightfully) thrown in the garbage pile and (2) the main proponent of the case has demonstrated himself to be less than credible both in terms of his interpretations and his statements of fact. Lately we've seen a second round of attempts to get the "Roman" story in the media. My impression is that those attempts have been less successful than the first round. We've also seen some kind of strange battle on social media that has apparently resulted in Pulitzer being suspended from using his Facebook accounts.
One thing that I haven't seen yet is others in the "fringe" community distancing themselves from this debacle. As someone commented on my blog (sorry - I haven't been able to find the post again), what we're seeing here has moved beyond "fringe" archaeology into the realm of "tassel" archaeology. I get emails from people across the spectrum on things like this. One person who self-identified as someone on the "fringe" told me that "everyone on the fringe side is laughing at Hutton as much as the archaeological community." As far as I know, however, no-one on the "fringe" side has publicly said "enough of this nonsense." People who carefully read what I write will know that I am open to many different ideas about the past. I am a scientist, however, and for me to accept a claim as credible there has to be some kind of evidence that stands up to scrutiny. I think many of you on the "fringe" side understand and appreciate that and also understand that what we're seeing here does not meet even the minimum thresholds of quality of evidence, sincerity of investigation, or honesty of argument required to be taken seriously. The Ancient Artifact Preservation Society went all in on Pulitzer's story, and is apparently still backing all of this. Some of you could do a lot for your own credibility, I would suspect, by weighing in with your judgement of the merits of what's going on. Pulitzer is pretending to speak for all of you right now, and what he's saying is not making you look good.
That's just my opinion. If you want to keep drinking the weak coffee and pretending it tastes good to you, that's your business. Prepare yourselves for some pretty bad tasting stuff coming down the road: my impression is that the coffee is only going to get weaker. Don't say I didn't warn you when we're debating a Little Caesar's box washed up on shore (that's from another blog comment that I can't find - sorry for stealing it to whoever said it) and you're still letting the TreasureForce Commander speak for you.
The stone says "Harold." What else are you waiting for?
Recently I've been asked how long I plan on staying on this topic. I don't really have an answer to that except to say that I'll write about something if it interests me. I found #Swordgate to be fascinating, so I put quite a bit of effort into it. The drivel that we're seeing now, while somewhat entertaining in a strange way, doesn't have much appeal to me beyond the "how long does this go on" question. I'm curious to see how all this plays out now that (1) the main piece of "evidence" has been pretty thoroughly examined and (rightfully) thrown in the garbage pile and (2) the main proponent of the case has demonstrated himself to be less than credible both in terms of his interpretations and his statements of fact. Lately we've seen a second round of attempts to get the "Roman" story in the media. My impression is that those attempts have been less successful than the first round. We've also seen some kind of strange battle on social media that has apparently resulted in Pulitzer being suspended from using his Facebook accounts.
One thing that I haven't seen yet is others in the "fringe" community distancing themselves from this debacle. As someone commented on my blog (sorry - I haven't been able to find the post again), what we're seeing here has moved beyond "fringe" archaeology into the realm of "tassel" archaeology. I get emails from people across the spectrum on things like this. One person who self-identified as someone on the "fringe" told me that "everyone on the fringe side is laughing at Hutton as much as the archaeological community." As far as I know, however, no-one on the "fringe" side has publicly said "enough of this nonsense." People who carefully read what I write will know that I am open to many different ideas about the past. I am a scientist, however, and for me to accept a claim as credible there has to be some kind of evidence that stands up to scrutiny. I think many of you on the "fringe" side understand and appreciate that and also understand that what we're seeing here does not meet even the minimum thresholds of quality of evidence, sincerity of investigation, or honesty of argument required to be taken seriously. The Ancient Artifact Preservation Society went all in on Pulitzer's story, and is apparently still backing all of this. Some of you could do a lot for your own credibility, I would suspect, by weighing in with your judgement of the merits of what's going on. Pulitzer is pretending to speak for all of you right now, and what he's saying is not making you look good.
That's just my opinion. If you want to keep drinking the weak coffee and pretending it tastes good to you, that's your business. Prepare yourselves for some pretty bad tasting stuff coming down the road: my impression is that the coffee is only going to get weaker. Don't say I didn't warn you when we're debating a Little Caesar's box washed up on shore (that's from another blog comment that I can't find - sorry for stealing it to whoever said it) and you're still letting the TreasureForce Commander speak for you.
The stone says "Harold." What else are you waiting for?
RSS Feed
