I think you responded to the wrong thread or something.

But I couldn't help but notice the words "mainstream archaeology" used together as if there is some sort of alternative to archaeology. Archaeology is done using methods of science. One is either doing scientific archaeology or one is not. There is no "alternative" so we just say "archaeology."

But there's a reason why your "bay of jars" doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. And it's very closely related to why archaeology doesn't pay any lick of attention to it.

It's mostly nonsense.

It is, however, an interesting story!

The real story is this: In 1960, a wealthy entrepreneur living in Rio de Janeiro liked the style of some genuine amphorae (jars used to transport/store liquids and grains) he saw in Sicily so he commissioned a potter in Portugal to make him some exact replicas. But they lacked the one thing their Sicilian counterparts had. That particular look of age and antiquity. So Americo Santarelli, the new owner of 16 otherwise authentic-looking Roman amphorae, dropped them in Guanabara Bay in 1961 where he left them to become encrusted with barnacles, corals, and mollusks. Unfortunately for him, he could only locate 4 of the 16 original amphorae, leaving 12 scattered about the bay, where two were found by lobster divers in 1974.

From there, everyone assumes that "Romans made it to South America" thousands of years earlier than they should have.

But even if these were authentic amphorae dating to, say, the 2nd century BC, they would only be evidence of someone between the 2nd century and 1974 bringing Roman Period amphorae to Brazil. It would be more likely that they were collectables lost in modern times than Roman since we have evidence of both modern ship traffic and modern collecting of antiquities and no evidence of Roman Period ships reaching the Americas.

... than being on the Ashley Madison list. The Hax0rs have gone too far this time!

What proof was given, precisely?

The abstract states that "We have recently reported that pretreatment with electroacupuncture (EA) at stomach meridian point 36 (St36) prevents the chronic cold-stress increase in the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA), an action that may be under central control."

What is a meridian point? I'm sure the person inserting the needle thinks she or he knows, but I've yet to see a description that would allow someone to locate a meridian point from one person to the next. What does one look like when you autopsy a cadaver? How do you locate one on a live person? A rational person who deals in evidence would be forced to conclude they don't actually exist in reality based on these and other questions that are never answered about "meridians."

So that creates a premise within the cited abstract that has a problem: if a meridian point is not an objectively definable point, where's the replication ability of the study. In fact, I note that that abstract mentions that two groups were used, one with "real acupuncture" and one with sham acupuncture. There was no apparent control group in which the same unknown current was applied at a non-meridian point. If there was an effect, it was more likely that it was due to current being passed through the rat's body -regardless of it's entry point.

The only thing this study is proof of, that I can see, is that humans will go to great lengths to create data that are supportive of their preconceived conclusions.

Wasn't this figured out several years ago? Like 2012?

... then it should be made public to all.

The fees are nominal. They aren't exorbitant by any means and reasonable since someone has to take time out of their day (perhaps a good portion of their day!) to search for documents, review them for sensitive and private data (SSNs, account numbers, information that could skew active bidding, etc.) and redact them where necessary.

A single, good reason for making a FOIA request public is transparency and accountability. Many "journalists" have agendas and preconceived notions to which they are seeking supporting data and that data which are not supportive or are counter to the preconceived notions are often omitted, ignored, or kept secret. It is not inconceivable that a FOIA request will be cherry-picked for data, quotes, and out-of-context information that will support a bias and damage the counter-argument. Making the FOIA request data available to all makes those with competing agendas able to see the original contexts of the data.

If a journalist looses a scoop, then they weren't working hard enough. If I'm preparing an expose, and I've already done enough research to know what information to request in a FOIA, then I should be able to produce something before a competitor that didn't know it was going to be made public.

I agree he was probably wrong to withhold the passwords. Unethical.

But what I don't understand is why he just didn't say, "sure, the password is pRisonLove69. What? It didn't work? Well that's what I set it as..."

Could they then jail him for faulty memory?