Chris Hardaker's The First American

[Minimalist]

I think we can finally all agree on the idea that none of the beds have been redeposited.

That's going to piss off the guy in the movie, isn't it?

[Charlie Hatchett]

That's going to piss off the guy in the movie, isn't it?

[Charlie Hatchett]

More comments from Chris:

Re: Chris Hardaker's The First American
Posted by: chard (IP Logged)
Date: January 20, 2007 10:00AM


I know it's tough. But what we are talking about here is science, an evidence driven enterprise. What we are finding out now is that the Clovis Firsters were fundamentally theory-driven. Hueyatlaco and the other Valsequillo sites were no brainers, archaeologically speaking. No problema from an excavation/in situ perspective. This is not Calico or Texas Street or Pedra Furada. These were bifaces and blades next to mineralized bones. The geological science puts the stuff way back there, over and over again. We can argue about archaeological sensitivities and consensual opinions, but in science you must demonstrate that the science is wrong. Believe me, the scientists involved have gone over this many, many times.

In doing the research, it was fascinating to find that there was an atmosphere of acceptance about the Valsequillo discoveries up until the U Series dates. Wormington, several times, wrote letters to prepare the community for a possible 20-40k cellar at Valsequillo. They were ready to accept this older antiquity at the end of 1967. Then the U Series dates blew everyone out of the water, geologists included -- which is why they went back in 1973. It is a pretty long and involved story and I can only pray I was able to reconstruct it in the book. So in respect to the idea that archaeologists nowadays cannot accept such old dates but that they are prepared to accept preClovis dates (what? 20-30k? 40k?), well, all I can say is, Welcome to 1967. I fully realize that a 250k date for early Americans is just about as outlandish as it was in 1967. Nothing has really changed with respect to that attitude. What has changed are the discoveries that have been occurring in the Old World for the last decade showing that the preMods were fairly intelligent, way more intelligent that we like to give them credit for -- this is covered in the book as well.

Personally I don't give a damn how old the sites are down there. My peeve is that they were definitely Pleistocene-aged sites in a very good sandy-silt primary burial context -- and we ignored all that for a generation or two. As an outsider to this board, I would really, really like to hear why that happened, and why you might support such a case of professional amnesia. Even if you, like Wormington, conceded a 20-30k antiquity for the sites, then for the last thirty years of CRM, we would have been looking for materials at least that old. We can never get those thirty years back.

Emphasis added.

[Minimalist]

What we are finding out now is that the Clovis Firsters were fundamentally theory-driven.

That's a polite way to put it.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Quote:
What we are finding out now is that the Clovis Firsters were fundamentally theory-driven.

That's a polite way to put it.

This part really burns me up:

So in respect to the idea that archaeologists nowadays cannot accept such old dates but that they are prepared to accept preClovis dates (what? 20-30k? 40k?), well, all I can say is, Welcome to 1967.

So we've made zero progress in 40 years. And most of these guys in academia are paid by the taxpayers. Makes me want to whack someone upside the head.

[marduk]

until you have evidence that proves otherwise
what do you expect
a couple of sites does not a migration of homo sapiens make

you keep failing to grasp this simple premise
real science requires evidence
pseudo science just requires belief

[Digit]

Fine words Marduk and I would like to see that being the way forward, but it often isn't. The very existance of finely made Clovis points should have been accepted as the end product of many generation of development, the fact that the evidence was unavailable should not have altered the fact, that unless the God head had presented the technology as a finished product, somewhere there had to be an earlier stage of development.
If some time in the distant future someone recovers the remains of a 747 I hope they have sufficient common sense to realise that it represents many years of effort to get there.
Even the Giza pyramids did not simply arise out of the sand.

[Minimalist]

Makes me want to whack someone upside the head.

Use a CLUB.....they'll appreciate the irony.

[clubs_stink]

until you have evidence that proves otherwise
what do you expect
a couple of sites does not a migration of homo sapiens make

you keep failing to grasp this simple premise
real science requires evidence
pseudo science just requires belief

Ah, but the question is, how much PROOF does the club need? In a murder case for instance, only one thing being where it should not be, is enough to warrant a conviction...a drop of blood, one strand of hair...and yet Charlie has quite a collection of things that, according to the club, should not be where he is finding them...if ONE thing is enough to condemn a man to death, surely Charlie's finds are more than enough to make the club sit up and take notice?

How much proof do they need?

[Minimalist]

How much proof do they need?

The first thing they do is try to discredit the proof. Their reputations are more important than science.

[marduk]

Charlie has quite a collection of things that, according to the club, should not be where he is finding them

Charlie has as far as I can see not excavated any of his artifacts correctly
he is also not qualified to excavate his artifacts correctly
so going back to your murder scenario its like finding a drop of blood or a strand of hair and not being able to prove it came from the murderer

besides which Charlie is a henchman of the club so is likely to hide all the proof he finds anyway
or didn't you know he's a member at the hall of maat

[Charlie Hatchett]

until you have evidence that proves otherwise
what do you expect
a couple of sites does not a migration of homo sapiens make

you keep failing to grasp this simple premise
real science requires evidence
pseudo science just requires belief

Then apparently you're practicing pseudoscience.

1. Marie Wormington and Cynthia Irwin-Williams, two of the all time tops in N.A paleo-archeology attest to the artifacts being recovered in situ. The strata from where the artifacts were recovered are rock hard...literally. Chisels and hammers are used versus trowels. No chance for re-deposition.

2. Hal Malde (USGS), Virginia Steen-McIntyre (USGS), Ken Farley (Cal-Tech), Ray Donelick (Stanford), Trevor Demitre (Stanford), and Paul Renne (Berkeley), among many others, attest to the strata from which the artifacts were recovered being greater then 250,000 B.P.

3. Sam Vanlandingham's diatom dating insures there has been no recent insets and there has been no re-deposition. His dating also places the recovered artifacts' in Illinoisan to late Sangamonian (ca. 400,000 B.P. to ca. 220,000 B.P.) Sam is often called as an expert witness in trials requiring forensics, where diatom evidence is relevant.


So, remember, "real science requires evidence,
pseudoscience just requires belief"

[Charlie Hatchett]

besides which Charlie is a henchman of the club so is likely to hide all the proof he finds anyway
or didn't you know he's a member at the hall of maat

Ha! Shhhhhhh.

[clubs_stink]

Charlie has quite a collection of things that, according to the club, should not be where he is finding them

Charlie has as far as I can see not excavated any of his artifacts correctly
he is also not qualified to excavate his artifacts correctly
so going back to your murder scenario its like finding a drop of blood or a strand of hair and not being able to prove it came from the murderer

besides which Charlie is a henchman of the club so is likely to hide all the proof he finds anyway
or didn't you know he's a member at the hall of maat

From what I can tell, Charlie has tried to call attention to his finds, and has been ignored. Sort of like a murder witness who said HEY THERE'S BLOOD OVER THERE, only to be ignored so he collects a sample, perhaps photographs where he found it in order to preserve it before the rain washed the evidence away...

Those who want to pick on Charlie for not "doing it right' have an obligation to get in there and do it right, and I hazzard a guess that if they were not so afraid of what they would find, they would.

Anytime someone finds something in a place where it should not be, his or her character is called into question by the experts who find all kinds of excuses NOT to accept the fact that they don't understand...and say, "I have no explanation why that was where you found it, it does not go along with our current scientific knowledge, but I acknowledge that you found it where you said you did...now I've got some thinking to do.."

NOOOO they are not going to do that.

AI groups also have a lot at risk here if there ARE found to be populations genetically different from them! They will also fight to hide and conceal evidence in order not to loose their grip on the land issues ect. AND I do not find it impossible that some scientists may not buck them on this in order to preserve a good working relationship with what they DO have.

IF anyone one doubts the vehemence with which AI groups protect their own, take a look at the DAWES list where hundreds of clearly geneticly qualified AI's from various tribes were denied membership. It's appalling.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie has as far as I can see not excavated any of his artifacts correctly
he is also not qualified to excavate his artifacts correctly
so going back to your murder scenario its like finding a drop of blood or a strand of hair and not being able to prove it came from the murderer

Hopefully that won't be necessary. Your right, I hold no formal degree, but if the carbonate in the flake channels can be dated successfully, then a minimum date can be provided for the artifacts.

At that point, hopefully we can get a pro team to excavate. The Pleistocene gravels are absolute loaded, so it will be no problem for the pros to find this stuff in situ. And remember, the gravels are capped with 8-10' of topsoil, which has been dated with 70 plus 14C assays. The contact point between the gravels and soil is well documented to be of Clovis age: 11,500 B.P. From there, the artifacts could be a whole range of dates. That's why the U/Th dating of carbonate in the flake channels is so important. And, remember, U/Th dating is used for calibrating 14C dating, when the age is over 10,000 B.P.

Use a CLUB.....they'll appreciate the irony.

Man, I gotta take a nap...I’ve been down lifting big ass rocks all morning...zzzzzzzz

Catch up with ya’ll later this evening.