Thread by @KevinCNolan1

The #retracted paper largely regurgitated in a forum by Comet Research Group for Comet Research Group. Submitted on Jan 11/24, revised Jan 11/24,&accepted Jan 12/24. Wonder how this paper was processed so quickly. Could author on the editorial board explain that? 1/

This is slightly updated, but no more convincing. Some errors are fixed, but only cosmetically. The supplemental material provides a good introduction to the issues with the data. I'll compare a few parts of the new (2024) to the original #retracted (2022) article. 2/

The first miracle in the 2024 paper is that a soil sample that was previously extracted from 57-58 cmbs is now 75-85 cmbs. The volume of material makes more sense coming from 10 cm, but with no primary report we can't check the facts. Is it 2 ft below surface or 3ft? Minor slip?

Moving Turner sediment sample isn't alone. Compare 2022 Table S5 to 2024 S4. 0.25-0.31, 0.32-0.56, 0.57-0.58 for the the same description as 0.65-1.55 in 2024. Then 0.58-1.50 (2022) for the 1.55-1.78 2024 description. Then 1.50-1.78 for the same as >1.78. What depths are real? 3/

Turner soil profiles aren't the only ones that changed. At Jennison-Guard the 11-12 cm, 12-20 cm and 20-32 cm layers disappeared since 2022. Note also that there are no measurements for Pt/Ir in non-target layers. The anomaly is that they actually measured it in some layers. 4/

More disappearing strata at Miami Fort. However, at least this is consistent with the previous. There are more issues at this site that are published for the first time. 5/

This is new. Included in the rejected reply to our comment, we are now presented with the first picture of a "fire-hardened surface", & it is identical to a prepared clay basin which are common in many Hopewell mounds. Note that there are no prepared profile pictures, maps. 6/

These "candid" excavation photos show nothing but arrows and text claiming to identify features. With no context and no full report anywhere, it's impossible to evaluate the claims. 7c & 7d show what is clearly a fragment of a crematory basin, not a "habitation surface". 7/

There is a "report" submitted to Great Parks Hamilton County, but not SHPO. According to ORC 149.53, permit from OHPO was required & report should be filed with SHPO. No permit issued. No report filed. 8/

The "report" (all 17 pages) labels the 7d"Carbon-rich" layer a B1 horizon. No soil descriptions. There is a map of features (1-5), but no description of them. The only thing demonstrated is that they don't know what a Hopewell ceremonial basin looks like.

Back to 2024 sup mat: Moundview, again missing sublayers; more consistent than usual. Note they don't measure Pt/Ir outside of target layer. Can't document "anomaly" w/o background to distinguish from. They still graph all Pt/Ir from non-target layers as ZERO, not no data. 9/

There's some new information abt Marietta investigations. Their "charcoal-rich" stratum was in the ditch fill by Conus mound. There is no charcoal visible in the profile presented (2024 Fig14), & taphonomy is not discussed for this accumulating erosional deposit. 10/

Again we see both vanishing sublayers and changes in depths of key layers. This confusion could be due to their attempt to present two discrete profiles in a single table, simply making things more confused. 11/

Nice addition is OxCal code included in the supp mat. However, there are syntax errors in the presented code, and the functions used do not match their descriptions in the captions or text. Claiming to conduct "synchronicity" (quick call the Police!) analysis. No such thing. 12/

The #retracted paper largely regurgitated in a forum by Comet Research Group for Comet Research Group. Submitted on Jan 11/24, revised Jan 11/24,&accepted Jan 12/24. Wonder how this paper was processed so quickly. Could author on the editorial board explain that? 13/

More #pseudoscience & #psuedoarchaeology, less substance. This comparison of supp mat only scratches the surface of errors, alterations, and obfuscations presented by the much smaller group of authors on this version. What happened to 4 or their colleagues? 14/14

@threadreaderapp unroll