Nice to meet you as well.
She's not sticking out her neck or risking her career. She is a Dr. of Art History. No one asked her anything art related on the show. And, by her website, the History Channel employs her services repeatedly and I am sure they will continue to. And probably not many of her "peers" watched the show, anyway. Haven't heard where she stood with them before it aired. ;-)
Friends of ours have two daughters who majored in art history. One has a masters, one a doctorate. Pleasant enough women but they wouldn't know much archaeology, anthropology or British field gear of the 18th century. But they could design you a nice living room, or tell you who painted which and in what style.
WELL, if it's a matter of her actually qualifications, that I can't argue about. I just didn't see good reason to think she was being disingenuous. Still the idea of her being unqualified to identify objects of antiquities seems to clash with the claimed 20,000+ items she appraises annually. Still I guess we have to take even that figure with a grain of salt.
First search "Art Gallery"
Then search "Museum"
Then search for "Archaeological Degree"
And you might see the difference.....
As far as the "Lets Try Some Google Searches"........ it sounds like you are quite founded in the educational background of a completely random person.
Almost as if you work for her.....or the channel perpetrating this front....
I wish I worked for them! Actually I think I'd rather work for Irving construction...
No I was fairly dubious of the doctor too, so I started Googl'ing her before the episode was even over.
Like this guy?
View attachment 1418181
What new faces......
great to meet you
I've never seen that guy on the show!
I was talking about guys like this...
I also found problem with the carbon dating though. That was a pretty wide margin. In the end even if it does date back to 1650, it only really proves an extensive project.
The issue I have with it being a rail-road spike... Where are the rails? Where are the ties? I guess Dunfield would have probably annihilated any over-ground evidence of them ( i.e. flat leveled ground ) with his excavation, but surely there should be some kind of evidence of a rail system underground. Did any of the search expeditions report using rails? It's like finding shoe-laces without the shoe. I think the simplest explanation would be that modern searchers were using railroad spikes, a commonly accessible and reproduced item, in their own construction of shafts and what not.
I am more interested in the mystery of the whole story than the idea of treasure being there. I've seen the research and studies to suggest it's all simply a natural phenomena, but of those theories none of them have really satisfied me with the amount of proof they offer either. The only piece of research that has any actual evidence of natural underground formations is the 1995 Woodshole Oceanographic Institute's study, but that doesn't necessarily indicate an absence of man-made flood tunnels either. Otherwise, even a "geologist" like Dunfield was just making guesses when concluding the flooding and tunnels were natural.
I would find it a really funny and ironic story that someone thought there was treasure there and then men have been chasing each other's tails for two centuries, but I think there's enough evidence to conclude that there was human presence on the island in time periods where there shouldn't have been. I like the theory of it being from a British military installation, but then what about the Spanish artifacts? Blankenship claims to have found a pair of wrought-iron scissors and low-carbon piece of steel dated from the 1600s, so that predates the time period the British were speculated to have been there. Then there was the Spanish coin in the swamp. If it wasn't planted by the production crew, where did that come from?
