Say what you will about what authority St. Peter exercised at Rome, to say that he was never there and was not martyred and buried there is just pure foolishness.
Inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of real Protestants are pretty sure St. Peter is both a saint and was in Rome, I really don't where this guy finds his argument ~ maybe a rumor at the monestary or something?
Very strange way to begin a discussion of the archaeological authenticity of Peter's presence in Rome. It could be he's simply trying to distract us from some of the weaker threads of support.