Re: Old story walking again.

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:54:48 +1200

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:59:18 -0500, Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:41:31 -0500, Tom McDonald
>> <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 16 Sep 2004 07:22:42 -0700, bogart.lloy@uwlax.edu (Lloyd) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"I E Johansson" <ingerxjohanssonx@telia.com> wrote in message news:<1Sb2d.3352$d5.25705@newsb.telia.net>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In one of the groups I belong to this old story is walking around again. I
>>>>>>haven't been able to find any valid proof nor photo for the facts presented
>>>>>>in the url. Just can't help wondering why the story is walking around again.
>>>>>>Has anyone seen new information at all?
>>>>>>http://www.dockwalk.com/issues/2002/february/trivia1.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Inger E
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>1: This is not archaeology.
>>>>>
>>>>>2: Stories like this do not "walk" by themselves, they are "carried" --
>>>>> by twits.
>>>>>
>>>>>3: Some people are compelled to insist that others believe things
>>>>> that have little or no basis in fact, so they keep repeating nonsense.
>>>>>(This is quite common in certain religious domains, and in politics,
>>>>> but not generally accepted in science.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>While others disbelieve things that have little basis in fact.
>>>>
>>>>'Little' basis is 'some' basis and the matter should be followed up
>>>>and put to bed. However, if what I have heard some years ago is true,
>>>>following up the matter is now difficult as the Brazillian government
>>>>buried the site in rubble and fill. I suppose there is some
>>>>significance to them thinking there was something worth burying.
>>>
>>>Eric,
>>>
>>> Little or _no_. Often, 'little' is a rhetorical nicety,
>>>meaning, "no, but I'm too kind to say so", or "no, but gravity
>>>could reverse tomorrow, so let's keep the door open on *this*
>>>thing just the slightest hair of a smidge".
>>
>>
>> Keeping the door open just a smidge saves somebody having to lever it
>> open when some new information arises.
>
>Eric,
>
> I know you disagree, but in the main, in archaeology, when
>a door is shut due to lack of evidence (and often lack of time
>to do the work), the door is never locked. The handle turns
>quite nicely with new evidence, or with a new theory comprising
>the extant evidence. Some doors are stickier than others, but
>to imagine that amateur conspiracy theorists must constantly pry
>at the door with the same old rubber crow bar that's never
>worked in the past in order to be sure an issue is taken
>seriously is not effective.

I don't know how the 'amatuer conspiracy' crept into this discussion,
but It has nothing to do with anything I intended.

The difference between us is the willingness to shut the door. I won't
close it until I read that someone qualified has carried out an
investigation and found the Roman ship story to be false.

You would rather keep it closed until you read that someone has
written a peer reviewed paper which finds it true.
>>
>>
>>> Actual evidence would be nice. Understanding how conspiracy
>>>theorists could imagine a conspiracy isn't evidence.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean to say the reports of finding evidence of a Roman wreck
>> are fictitious?
>
> What I've read (admittedly not much) seems to require a
>firm hand at the sifting tray to strain out bits of valid
>evidence from piles of the same old ***. I don't think that a
>report of finding evidence of a Roman wreck is itself evidence.

Oops ...

Now you are drifting off at a tangent. The reuth of the matter is that
you dont know how to handle evidence of this kind.

> We see reports of all sorts of ghosts, space aliens from the
>Planet Zork, and planets 20 times the mass of the Earth zipping
>around the inner solar system, totally invisible but showing up
>on images as dead accurate simulations of cameras' optical
>artifacts.
>
> Now if there are artifacts with valid provenance available
>to archaeologists...

  " He sold six jars to tourists before the Brazilian police
     arrested him with the two remaining jars for illegally selling
     ancient artifacts. Archaeologists immediately identified
     these as Roman amphorae of the 1st century B.C These
     containers were originally used to carry water, grain, salted
     fish, meat, olives, olive oil and other foods necessary to
     feed the ship’s crew and to provision Roman outposts. One
     of the world’s foremost authorities on Roman shipwrecks,
     Robert Marx, found more artifacts and confirmed this as an
     authentic Roman shipwreck. The world’s foremost authority
     on Roman amphorae analyzed the clay in the jars and
     confirmed that these were manufactured at Kouass which
     was a Roman seaport, 2000 years ago, on the coast of
     modem-day Morocco. The Institute of Archaeology of the
     University of London performed thermo luminescence
     testing (which is a more accurate dating process than
     Carbon 14 dating) and the date of the manufacture was
     determined to be around 19 B.C. Many more amphorae
     and some marble objects were recovered, as well as a
     Roman bronze fibula (a clasp device used to fasten a
     coat or shirt)".

Isn't that enough for you, or are you still hesitant?

>... that can be shown to be Roman, and if the
>context in which they were found allows the possibility of
>interpretation as Roman, then we can talk. However, most of
>what I read was a lot of who shot John; just-so stories that
>explain why wonderful, powerful, conclusive evidence was thrown
>away, lost, or mysteriously buried.

If you really want to live up to your professional responsibility you
might try contacting some of the people/organisations mentioned above
and find out whether or not what is claimed is true. Otherwise you
remain in the amatuer, negative, professional nay-saying brigade.
>
> But, as I said above, the door is there to be opened by
>the evidence. Madly pounding on it screaming that the
>government, or whoever, is out to get one is likely to be met as
>you would meet it; by locking the damned door and calling the fuzz.

Eric Stevens

Quantcast