Re: Old story walking again.

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 09/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:59:50 +1200

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:22:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:59:18 -0500, Tom McDonald
>> <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>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.
>
>Eric,
>
> I don't think so. I think you think that the *report* of
>finding evidence of a Roman ship wreck means something important
>by itself. I don't think it does. I've heard many reports of
>amazing archaeological finds that turned out to be nothing at
>all.

Have you never heard of a report of an amazing archaelogical find
which turned out to be something?

>Now if the bare report is fleshed out with necessary and
>sufficient evidence, that's a horse of a different feather.

Now you are talking about sufficient evidence to catch your attention.
But when you first started this it was about insufficient evidence
being grounds to class it with "gravity revresing tomorrow". Maybe you
didn't mean that literally but to me it sounded as though you meant
that only with the (later described) "artifacts with valid provenance
available to archaeologists that can be shown to be Roman, and if the
context in which they were found allows the possibility of
interpretation as Roman" would you allow the door to be opened.

What you don't seem to realise that it will only be a person with a
more open mind who will come up with the level of authentication you
desire.
>
>> The reuth of the matter is that
>> you dont know how to handle evidence of this kind.
>
> Evidence of what kind? Below you refer to information found on
>this website:
>
>http://www.dockwalk.com/issues/2002/february/trivia1.shtml
>
> I read it very carefully. I suggest you do the same.
>
> Who was the fisherman? Where can one read his own account of
>the find, or interviews with him in which he discusses this?
>Where can one read the police report? Where is the
>investigation report, or any report of any investigation into
>this person's character and history? It isn't presented or
>referenced in the 'evidence of this kind' you want me to handle.
>
> Who was the spear fisher? Same questions about him. It isn't
>presented or referenced in the 'evidence of this kind' that you
>want me to handle.
>
> Who were the archaeologists who identified the amphorae? Where
>can one read their reports? Again, not presented or referenced
>(N.P.O.R.)
>
> Where did Robert Marx find more artifacts? Did he also find
>evidence of an actual ship in the shipwreck? Where can one read
>Marx's report on his investigation? N.P.O.R.
>
> Where can one read the report on the amphorae by '[t]he world's
>foremost authority on Roman amphorae'? Does this person report
>only that those artifacts are genuinely Roman of the late first
>century BC? Or can he demonstrate that they came to Brazil
>about that time? NPOR.
>
> The article states that other artifacts, including more
>amphorae, marble and a bronze fibula were found. Where were
>they found? In situ, or not. By whom, and were can one see the
>reports? NPOR.

All good questions and I don't have the answers. But the point is that
you are in a catch 22 situation. You won't evince sufficient curiosity
in the claim to go and get the answers until someone provides you the
answers.
>
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>
> See above. If all we have to go on is this report on one web
>site, then we have nothing to make me unhesitant.

Straw man. I have read more of this elsewhere and elsewhen. I presume
that so too have you.
>
> What I don't understand is why you find that the article
>provides anything in the way of provenance or context to the
>'finds'. This may well be a story that is totally supported in
>every way by good, solid, professional work by relevant
>archaeologists, art historians, and scientists. But the article
>itself provides nothing of that. Do you remember the AVM stone?

 ... and the well authenticated Piltdown man.
>
> Why are you so gung-ho to have me or anyone else jump on the
>yea-say bandwagon? Why not lets get some actual evidence first.

Where do get the peculiar idea I want you to jump on the band wagon?
Do you even think that I'm on that same band wagon?

All I want is (as I have already written)is that we keep the door open
just a smidge to save somebody having to lever it open when some new
information arises.
>
>>
>>
>>>... 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.
>
> Early days, Eric. Who have you contacted to get facts on this?
> If your answer is 'no one', then you remain in the amateur,
>positive, professional yea-saying brigade.

You really are making a fool of yourself. You seem to think that
because I want to leave the door open I must be in the "professional
yea-saying brigade". You seem blind to the possibility of any
alternative to me being either 'for it', or 'agin it'. Let me just say
to you "divided middle".

Eric Stevens

Quantcast