Experts Present the Case That Even The Vikings Were Not The First To Discover America Due To New Evi
61 replies, posted
[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/17/20/2F77F78F00000578-3364818-image-a-2_1450384874611.jpg[/img]
[quote=The Boston Standard]
[B]Ancient mariners visited the New World more than a thousand years before Columbus - according to a sensational new report.
[/B]
Historic investigator J. Hutton Pulitzer has put a large white paper together with a group of academics from the AAPS (Ancient Artifact Preservation Society). He claims to have evidence of a Roman sword found submerged just off Oak Island - and what is believed to be a Roman shipwreck. Pulitzer says this sword is ‘100 per cent confirmed’ and described it as the ‘smoking gun’ to his theory.
“The ceremonial sword came out of that shipwreck,” he said. “It is one incredible Roman artifact."“I began my forensic work into it using an XRF analyser - which is a leading archaeological tool for analysing metals,” he explains. “And we found all these other metals that tell you this was made from ore that came directly from the ground. It has the same arsenic and lead signature in it. We’ve been able to test this sword against another one like it and it matches. This goes against everything we have been taught.” Exactly what else could lurk in the mysterious shipwreck is unknown as it has not been investigated by divers. Astonishingly, there are thousands of unexplored shipwrecks in the Nova Scotia area, the majority of which are thought to date back to the 18th and 19th century. “The shipwreck is still there and has not been worked,” said Pulitzer. “We have scanned it, we know exactly where it lays, but it will be a touchy thing for the Nova Scotia government to allow an archaeological team to survey it. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is Roman.[/quote]
[quote=(Further Source Evidence)]
The report details a number of Mi’kmaq petroglyphs (carved images) on cave walls and boulders along riverbanks in Nova Scotia. Some of these images, first discovered in the 1800s, depict what Pulitzer’s team believe to be Roman legionnaires marching with their swords - and Roman ships.
“Another very interesting ‘coincidence’ is a bush on Oak Island and one on the mainland which is listed in Canada as an invasive species (Berberis Vulgaris). “This was used by ancient mariners, including Romans, to season their food and fight scurvy.
Two carved stones on Oak Island also ‘possess a language from the ancient Levant’ according to Pulitzer. The first is the famous ‘90ft stone’ which was inscribed with strange symbols and first unearthed in 1803, 90ft down the money pit. The second is the so-called ‘HO stone’ - a large boulder believed to have been sited on the shoreline and inscribed with secret codes for mariners - but later blown up by treasure hunters who thought the treasure was buried beneath. “How can someone in that time have faked that?” he asks. “They wouldn’t have known about that language.”
Other findings detailed in the report include a Roman legionnaire’s whistle found on Oak Island in 1901, a metal ‘boss’ from the centre of a Roman shield unearthed in Nova Scotia in the mid-1800s, and a small Roman head sculpture found in Mexico City in 1933 under foundations of a pre-colonial building dated to between 1476 and 1510.
[/quote]
[quote=Linkedin Profile of Pulitzer] Pulitzer's Life's Work and Technology are currently available for Case Study at over 134 Universities and Institutions, including Harvard University, Yale University, New York University, USC, UCLA and many others. Content of this complete profile is copyrighted 2016, Hutton Pulitzer- all rights reserved. Re-Publish Request by email approval only.[/quote]
[url]https://www.linkedin.com/in/jhuttonpulitzer[/url]
Sources
[url]http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/local/startling-new-report-on-oak-island-could-rewrite-history-of-the-americas-1-7118097[/url]
[url]http://www.higherperspectives.com/roman-sword-1537891372.html?c=ss[/url]
[url]http://themindunleashed.org/2015/12/america-roman-sword-oak-island.html[/url]
[url]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[/url]
Edit: Thread is in agreement that the source hasn't made anything sound credible. Probably best if mods lock this one, sorry.
ROMA EST MAXIMA
AGRAE ROMAE SUNT OPTIMI
ROMA OPPRIMIT OMNES
Romanes Eunt Domus
Sword is a reproduction from the 1800's by the way.
i'm exceptionally skeptical of this, especially considering the fact that the "oak island mystery" attracts cranks all the time.
especially considering that the romans never mentioned the existence of america and no records exist of any roman sailing west of the canaries (maybe azores at a stretch)
You know, if he writes a book about this he'd probably get a Pulitzer.
Oak Island makes no fucking sense. It's either the most valuable unexplored archeological site in Nova Scotia, or it's a long-running hoax to bring attention and tourism to NS.
I wouldn't doubt that Oak Island has some sort of importance, but everyone is making suggestions left and right about the mythical properties of it, and that makes no sense to me.
to be honest i read the sources and they've got all the usual warning signs. it refers to the romans building burial mounds (romans haven't been recorded as ever engaging in this practice). there's also mentioning a lot of the details are lacking, or are otherwise vague
this is complete bullshit lol
-snip-
Yeah to wcho others this is such fucking bullshit.
"Experts."
Maybe experts in bullshit.
The romans never had massed burial mounds, usually they cremated their dead or entombed them in individual graves.
The sword is far too pristine. Most Roman swords were not decorative, and the handle does not have the pommel of traditional swords of the era.
The Romans were extremely hanky about keeping lists and writing things down about every miniscule detail. Were the Romans to discover an entire new continent and [I]set up a colony[/I], the Romans wouldn't shut the hell up about it.
As cool as it would be, this can't possibly be true. If it is, I'd be downright shocked, but there's too much pointing against it.
Like I'd think it was neat as fuck to be proven wrong but come on like Sobotnik said this has all the signs of typical quackery.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49471102]Like I'd think it was neat as fuck to be proven wrong but come on like Sobotnik said this has all the signs of typical quackery.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, we all know that it wasn't the Vikings
it was the Jews
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49470993]to be honest i read the sources and they've got all the usual warning signs. it refers to the romans building burial mounds (romans haven't been recorded as ever engaging in this practice). there's also mentioning a lot of the details are lacking, or are otherwise vague
this is complete bullshit lol[/QUOTE]
Not that I'm disagreeing, this article does seem really shifty
but what are these then? [URL]https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1015579[/URL]
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;49471153]Not that I'm disagreeing, this article does seem really shifty
but what are these then? [URL]https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1015579[/URL][/QUOTE]
That literally says they're most likely from Native Ariatocrats who wouldn't give up their ways.
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;49471153]Not that I'm disagreeing, this article does seem really shifty
but what are these then? [URL]https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1015579[/URL][/QUOTE]
those are basically native british constructions.
if it was a "roman" practice it would have been widespread all over the empire, from spain to turkey to egypt to germany and italy. we dont really have similar barrows in the rest of the empire
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49471195]those are basically native british constructions.
if it was a "roman" practice it would have been widespread all over the empire, from spain to turkey to egypt to germany and italy[/QUOTE]
Ah cool, thanks
[editline]6th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=bdd458;49471191]That [B]literally[/B] says they're most likely from Native Ariatocrats who wouldn't give up their ways.[/QUOTE]
i swear this is FP's favorite word
But it does say exactly that :v:
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;49471203][quote]literally[/quote]
i swear this is FP's favorite word[/QUOTE]
surprisingly this is the first callout I've seen about the word that isn't an accusation of being an sjw from tumblr
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;49471203]i swear this is FP's favorite word[/QUOTE]
What would you prefer people use in its place, o' Language Master?
personally a fan of the theory that aboriginal australians were the first to make it to the americas
Romans vs American Indians. That'd be interesting. Someone should do an alternative history timeline game of the Americas being colonized by Rome, causing the Roman empire never to fall.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;49471575]Romans vs American Indians. That'd be interesting. Someone should do an alternative history timeline game of the Americas being colonized by Rome, causing the Roman empire never to fall.[/QUOTE]
Personally I'd love to see Romans vs Imperial Chinese
The Romans fielded like 10s of thousands of men, the Chinese fielded hundreds of thousands of men, but both bad different tactics, weapons, armor, and command structures, its one of those what-if questions
now i wish I could see romans vs indians
[QUOTE=Ajacks;49471575]Romans vs American Indians. That'd be interesting. Someone should do an alternative history timeline game of the Americas being colonized by Rome, causing the Roman empire never to fall.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that a thing that happened according to the Book of Mormon, or were those Greeks?
[QUOTE=Sableye;49472111]Personally I'd love to see Romans vs Imperial Chinese
The Romans fielded like 10s of thousands of men, the Chinese fielded hundreds of thousands of men, but both bad different tactics, weapons, armor, and command structures, its one of those what-if questions[/QUOTE]
i was going to say i want to see romans vs mongols under genghis khan, but that would 100% result in mongol victory
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49470916]i'm exceptionally skeptical of this, especially considering the fact that the "oak island mystery" attracts cranks all the time.
[b]especially considering that the romans never mentioned the existence of america[/b] and no records exist of any roman sailing west of the canaries (maybe azores at a stretch)[/QUOTE]
Not that I think it's unreasonable to be skeptical, I certainly am, but if romans did make it to america that doesn't necessarily mean they'd make it back to have the information recorded.
I'm more inclined to believe the theory that the Chinese discovered the Americas first, and that has no evidence at all that I'm aware of
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.