Tourists Bought a Ticket to Visit This ‘Ancient’ Roman Theater. Then Investigators Took a Closer Look. 28%

By Tim Newcomb39%

8/3/2026, 5:00:12 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.2% saturation with 125 hits. Analysis detected 729 faulty-reasoning hits from 564 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.7% and a BS Rank of 28% (20,429 of 28,112 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.70% of the article peer group.

Tourists Bought a Ticket to Visit This ‘Ancient’ Roman Theater. 
Then Investigators Took a Closer Look. 
Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story: 
An Italian tourist attraction sold to visitors as a Roman theater full of Neolithic, Roman, and Greek artifacts was outed as a fake. 
Arrested for art forgery and unlawful construction, the owner of the site went to prison. 
The theater’s owner continues to defy the government by not removing the fraudulent site as ordered. 
In the world of art fraud, Franco Malosso, known as Franco Alessandro Molosso Maltarel von Rosenfranz, went big. 
And bold. 
The Italian constructed a fake Roman theater, complete with stone steps, columns, and Greek-style statues, advertised it to tourists as a bona-fide ancient site from 393 C.E. 
But it most certainly wasn’t. 
After his first court case, an appeal, and a second attempt at an appeal, Malosso’s conviction for art forgery and illegal construction stood, as did his sentence of two years and four months of prison time. 
Despite all that, the theater still stands, although it’s been under judicial seal since 2016. 
Exactly how and when Malosso created the Porto degli Angeli Berico Maritime Amphitheater is a bit of a mystery. 
Malosso claimed he’d found the site, known as the Berico Amphitheater, near the town of Arcugnano in the province of Vicenza in 2005 following a landslide. 
The attraction, complete with tours, operated for several years, showing off supposed Neolithic, Roman, and Greek artifacts, everything from the theater to statues. 
According to reviews, some tourists had a grand time, even though they were ultimately scammed out of their admission fee, which ran as high as €40. 
By 2016, Italian officials got involved, claiming the 53,000-square-foot hillside site was fake. 
The Vicenza Public Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation, and Malosso was charged with counterfeiting works of art and illegal construction. 
Additional investigations revealed the extent of the fraud. 
Malosso reportedly told tourists the site was constructed in 393 C.E. and that Julius Caesar visited it with Cleopatra, an impossibility due to dating discrepancies. 
He also claimed that an ancient church at the site was once inhabited by Juliet Capulet, the entirely fictional character in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet—but he’d confused Vicenza with Verona. 
Then came the actual construction, which included concrete pillars, fiberglass, papier mâché, statues created in the 2000s, and modern building blocks. 
All these overlapping elements were treated with putty and weathered to look old. 
There was an artificial pond added to the mix. 
Comparing satellite images offered additional evidence that Malosso leveled a hillside and constructed the fraudulent ancient site. 
There was no evidence a landslide had ever revealed such a historic find. 
Even the name was all wrong. 
An amphitheater is elliptical—think: the Colosseum—while a semicircular design, such as the Berico forgery, is known merely as a theater. 
The courts found Malosso guilty, even after repeated appeals and a more recent request for probation, requiring him to serve prison time, pay fines, and restore the site, although he hasn’t yet removed the theater. 
For visitors believing they were visiting one of the world’s oldest and largest amphitheaters—and there were plenty who believed it, although also those who saw through the ruse—they were instead visiting someone’s imaginary world. 
And paying up to €40 to do it. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.9%Tim Newcomb: 5.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Tim Newcomb: 2.4%Popular Mechanics: 2.5%Availability Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Tim Newcomb: 3.5%Popular Mechanics: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias9.4%This article: 10.1%Tim Newcomb: 3.2%Popular Mechanics: 3.0%Framing Effect10.1%This article: 6.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion6.0%This article: 8.9%Tim Newcomb: 0.8%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Status Quo Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.9%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.2%Tim Newcomb: 3.3%Popular Mechanics: 4.6%Negativity Bias22.2%This article: 4.6%Tim Newcomb: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.8%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.4%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.9%Tim Newcomb: 4.7%Popular Mechanics: 4.4%Appeal to Authority14.9%This article: 6.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%False Dilemma6.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 4.2%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.8%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 2.1%Popular Mechanics: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.6%Tim Newcomb: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.0%Anecdotal4.6%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.5%Tim Newcomb: 2.0%Popular Mechanics: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.5%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity6.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.8%Tim Newcomb: 1.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.3%Unattributed Quote9.8%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.7%Tim Newcomb: 4.4%Popular Mechanics: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice6.7%This article: 6.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Indoctrination6.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

564 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers8.2%attributed speech518writer words
Selected voice

Franco Malosso

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words57% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-10.6 ptsWriter: 10.6%Franco Malosso: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%Franco Malosso: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Franco Malosso: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Franco Malosso: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.