Archaeologica.org

Stuart Fiedel is a joke, Min. There's so much evidence staring him in the face, but he just remains comfy in his denial.

Can we trash can Fiedel first, before beating the crap out of him?



I haven't done that in ages!

Quote (Charlie): "Speaking of "pseudo quackery", here's Stuart Fiedel's last collection of pseudoscience:

[cayman.globat.com]

He just can't let go of Clovis First. "
------------------------------------------
Quote (Lee):

Fiedel 2000 "last collection"???

Fiedel 2002
[www.ingentaconnect.com]

Fiedel 2004
[www.unm.edu]

There are others, but not as directly related to the issue of the peopling of the Americas.

Charlie:

O.K., throw those in along with Fiedel’s heap of "pseudo quackery" tripe.


Quote (Lee):

Notice some differences between Fiedel's work there and Charlie's here in this post.

1) Feidel's "collection of pseudoscience" appears in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
2) No offense Kat, but Maat, where Charlie makes his comment, is not peer reviewed.
3) Fiedel's claims are backed up by direct citations to the literature, Charlie's accusation is not and amounts to nothing more than...well, nothing peer reviewed so far.
4) I suspect one reason Charlie doesn't submit a point by point rebuttal to Fiedel's paper in JAR is because Charlie knows what would probably happen to that paper...circular file. That is why the accusation "collection of pseudoscience" appears here and not in the JAR. Prove me wrong Charlie, you are prefectly free to challenge Fiedel in the literature. I, for one, would be most interested in reading such a paper from you.
5) Not to mention the fact that "Baker's paper" thread started by Charlie is also a by-pass of peer review, at least to the extent of not appearing first in a major journal, a formal site report, or comprehensive review.

Charlie:

First of all, I personally prefer the open peer review method, because it allows all to review both sides of the arguement, instead of a select few. Why do you not prefer this method...something to hide? Invite Fiedel to join in this debate, online, for all to review.
I suspect his answer will be no, and he’ll provide some lame excuse. He’d get eaten alive.

As to your preference to closed reviews, I assume you have no problem accepting human habitation in North America during the Sangamonian Interglacial and Illinoian:
Diatom evidence for autochthonous artifact deposition in the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico during the Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,000 to ca. 220,000 yr BP and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP))

Journal Journal of Paleolimnology
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0921-2728 (Print) 1573-0417 (Online)
Subject Earth and Environmental Science
Issue Volume 36, Number 1 / July, 2006
Category Original Paper
DOI 10.1007/s10933-006-0008-4
Pages 101-116
SpringerLink Date Saturday, July 29, 2006

Sam L. VanLandingham1
(1) Sam L. VanLandingham, 1205 West Washington, Midland, TX 79701, USA
Received: 21 May 2005 Accepted: 24 January 2006
Abstract Fossil diatoms in the Valsequillo area are important in supplying adequate paleoecological evidence for the in situ deposition (in the absence of strong water currents necessary for the displacement and redeposition) of artifacts as large as those at the Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site. The paleoecology of lacustrine diatom-bearing samples from four nearby localities in the Valsequillo region all correlated with numerous diatomaceous samples from the Hueyatlaco Site (Puebla, Mexico) and indicate an autochthonous deposition of the artifacts at that site. This correlative evidence is consistent with a deposition in Sangamonian to Illinoian time and is based on the relationships of percentages of taxa in categories of the current, pH, and halobian spectra in six lines of correlation of samples between the Hueyatlaco Site and the four localities.

Charlie

You'll need a bigger can for the whole club.

Not to mention the fact that "Baker's paper" thread started by Charlie is also a by-pass of peer review

So...let me see if I follow this.

1- They bitch and moan because things aren't peer-reviewed by Club members.

2- The Club members who run the peer-reviewed publications won't publish anything that hasn't been approved by The Club.

3- The fact that The Club won't publish anything that isn't approved by the Club is then used to sustain the Club's orthodox position.


Is that about it?

Let me know when you're going to start a new thread like that - I may come over and join you.

The Internet has turned the tables. No more knowledge filter.

That explains why they attack any site except their own for being "unscientific."