Often in people's studies of Ancient Rome, they often can see virtual reconstructions of a place. For those that do not know their architecture you have one extreme direction (which we do know is entertainment) such as Gladiator's Rome with the Baroque teal roof tops and domes instead of classical and History Channel is a disaster anytime it shows an ancient Roman building other than the Pantheon and Colosseum. Every show, documentary, or movie I have seen on Ancient Rome has always screwed up the Roman Forum on its layout or architectural structure not mildly, but with extreme errors.

As for scholars messing things up badly and yet getting serious financing, you can look at a few areas such as IATH from University of Virginia's Roman work. They scan the famous model within Museum of Roman Civilization showing the city of ancient Rome and get a serious million in grants, but it doesn't legitimize the model. Too many mistakes and nobody challenges the scholars because they are big wigs. The Universite de Caen Basse - Normandie has some of the most beautiful renderings of ancient Roman architecture, but too much of it is fanciful. Their Curia (Senate house) is fine, but the neighboring building the Atrium of Minerva is completely made-up. Because it is scholars that do this, does that mean we must accept it as fact? And their Temple of the Deified Julius Caesar is laughable.

With so much bad stuff on the internet, as models or as webpages, the innocent treat it as fact. I mentioned this once but if a person makes a model of Sleeping Beauty's Castle and puts the title "Parthenon," it doesn't mean that the castle is the structure. Models must have endnotes to prove their case. El fin.

Back to the interesting guest... (sorry)