Page 7 of 102
Possible PreClovis Blade
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:59 pm
by Charlie Hatchett
deleted
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:05 pm
by Minimalist
And, of course, you are probably finding tools that have been used, worn down and then discarded so who knows how sharp the edges might have been originally.
I've often wondered what the 'failure rate' on flint tools may have been? It seems grossly unlikely that every attempt resulted in the successful creation of a tool. Somewhere, there must be a hell of a discard pile!
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:32 pm
by Charlie Hatchett
deleted
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:43 pm
by Minimalist
LOL...
Seems odd that a small group of alleged hunters and gatherers could produce that much, doesn't it?
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:18 pm
by Bruce
What do you think, Bruce, maybe 500 to 1,000 BP?
Jim Bischoff, Geologist Emeritus, with the USGS, is Uranium-Thorium dating the carbonate on two of the artifacts as we speak. There's a team of three geologists that have a hunch these pieces unraveling out of the gravels might be from the Sangamonian Interglacial (80,000-220,000 B.P.), due to the thickness of the calcrete coatings. They feel the gravels might mark the beginning of the Wisconsin glacial advance. Because of the thickness of the calcrete coatings, it's postulated the coated flint pieces are at least as old as the last prolonged dry spell prior to the Wisconsin. Guess we'll see...
Here's the two specimens I sent him:
If you go at 80,000 to 220,000 you gonna rule out HS as the maker of those tools. What's your guess?
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:03 pm
by Charlie Hatchett
deleted
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:23 pm
by Bruce
If they tried to sail it was to sail home.
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:24 pm
by Brew
Charlie, its good to see you still "in the field" getting dirt under your fingernails! I'd recognize some of those photos anywhere! Not to mention I can see your fingerprints in some... wait... yep, it's you!
And I am still Brew
The furnace, BTW, is definitely Anunnaki
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:11 am
by Charlie Hatchett
deleted
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:15 am
by Charlie Hatchett
deleted
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:16 am
by Charlie Hatchett
deleted
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:11 am
by Minimalist
Charlie Hatchett wrote:Seems odd that a small group of alleged hunters and gatherers could produce that much, doesn't it?
Right? I don't think this was a small band of nomads. These guys seemed to have "set up shop" for the long haul. Seems as if there were a bunch of them. But, who knows, Bro?
That would imply a settlement, which, if humans have any consistency should be upstream and upwind of the 'furnaces.' Also, there should be a source of iron ore somewhere nearby....assuming all of this wasn't obliterated by repeated flooding.
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:09 pm
by Brew
Charlie, maybe not quite what you're looking for, bu Jason Martell has a nice website at
http://xfacts.com/ancient/
Lotsa photos!
Thanks for the welcome...
Brew (Phil)
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:06 pm
by Charlie Hatchett
deleted
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:13 pm
by Minimalist
Lucky guess on my part.
Pre-Columbian evidence of iron in North America would be a big deal. Even "The Club" would have to take notice.
Your first inkling of that would be when they start calling you a "pseudo-scientist." Wear it as a badge of honor!