Chris Hardaker's The First American

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:08 am

I like this guy already.

He's got a great sense of humor. I remember when he was dicussing Berkeley's 1.1 million B.P. dates, he asked, mockingly, if that was B.C. or A.D.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:36 am

Alright Charley, I give up. What does Preguntan etc mean?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:38 am

Alright Charley, I give up. What does Preguntan etc mean?

Question Authority.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:39 am

oops...double post.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:43 am

Alright Charley, I give up. What does Preguntan etc mean?

Thanks for pointing it out, though. I had it conjugated wrong.

It should actually be "Pregunte la Autoridad".

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:48 am

Pregunte Michelle?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:57 am

Thanks Charley, good idea.

Post by **MichelleH** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:35 pm

Pregunte Michelle?

Thanks for the translation Charlie, my spanish stinks. Here's one just for you Bob:

Periculosum est credere et non credere

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:46 pm

Periculosum est credere et non credere

That's Latin. Don't worry Min. She didn't insult you too bad.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:04 pm

Pregunte Michelle?

I'm crazy...but not that crazy.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:07 pm

Thanks for the translation Charlie, my spanish stinks.

Ha! Mine too. Luckily my wife speaks it fluently. When I'm in trouble, I have no idea what's she saying, but I do know I'm in trouble.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:41 pm

I get "dangerous to believe or not to believe" from my exceedingly rudimentary knowledge of Latin.

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Post by **MichelleH** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:58 pm

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam

Fling away and better hope you don't miss

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:20 pm

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:20 pm

More from Chris:

Re: Chris Hardaker's The First American
Posted by: chard (IP Logged)
Date: January 20, 2007 08:31AM

Allan

It seems that just about everyone concedes that the Hueylatco Ash layer is at least 250,000 years old. Are there any dissenters?

It also seems that everyone agrees that bed I extends back under the Hueylatco Ash. That should be easy to prove by taking a core down through the Hueylatco Ash down to bed I at a nearby location.

If the Hueylatco Ash is over 250 kya and overlays Bed I then the final proof will be to recover more unifacial tools within bed I in a secure context that no one can find fault with.

Hi Allan,
The Hueyatlaco Ash was recently dated by Renne to about 1.1ma by Argon/Argon. Previous dates by other folks seem to range from 200-400k,

The Xalnene Tuff is about 2 meters below the artifact beds, and it is also the surface for the Gonzalez "footprints" a few miles away. Argon/argon says the Xalnene is 1.3ma. Gonzalez got 40k dates for the same Tuff using other methods (see her 2006 report).
The big test now is to figure out if the old (1981) paleomag tests were right. They showed normal polarity, which means an age less than 780k. So it seems Waters and Renne are doing it again. Like I said it is getting really wild.

For Waters, Bed I does indeed continue under the Hueyatlaco Ash, be he believes the Bed I artifacts were mis-identified stratigraphically. Waters thinks Cynthia Irwin-Williams totally screwed up on the Bed I stratigraphy and that what she was really finding were artifacts from the very bottom of the Bed C+E insets. In essence, there are no Bed I artifacts. He gets all this from his single trench. He seems to have blown off all other stratigraphic work done before and only has eyes for his own single trench where his "inset" does indeed cut into Bed I. But there are clear indications from photos and profiles drawn in 1973 that Bed I is indeed buried under a meter of sterile beds which underlie the bifacial beds. So for Waters to generalize the entire stratigraphy based on a single profile might have been too hasty.

Does this help or just further confuse? I tried to get images in the book that will help show this. What is interesting is that in all the work by everyone down there, I think we can finally all agree on the idea that none of the beds have been redeposited. That's something, I hope.

Chris