Deleted

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:58 pm

charlie you got my support! but i have to put h erectus in with neandertal on the north american continent 300,000-250,000bp.

Thanks, Bruce.

So far, nothing to falsify your hypothesis.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:01 pm

Charlie, I've got all 12 docs. downloaded and I hope to have them read by the end of today.

Are you suggesting that I stay close to my bathroom?

Highly recommended.

Thanks for reading it, Beag. I'd love to hear your review.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:16 pm

It would not be the first place on earth where it would seem that older technology is more advanced than newer. The Giza Pyramids, allegedly the 4th, 5th and 6th of nearly 100 built, are far more technically advanced than later structures....most of which are little more than piles of rubble at this point.

Perhaps your people had the secret of iron and lost it?

That would be consistent with Hancock's belief that civilization had advanced before and been flattened by the end of the ice age.

Well, even more recently, look at the fall of the Roman Empire, and the decent into the Dark Ages. I think when there has been abundance, innovation has flourished. During lean times, you simply survive. .. you don't have the resources to "reflect" and "ponder'. Your hungry! Look back to the recent U.S. Great Depression, ca. 1930ish. I remember my grandfather, even as late as the 80's, limiting us kids to .25 tub of water. He was tight...and worked from before the sun came up until well beyond sundown. Hard times, no matter what the cause, slows, and reverses innovation.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:36 am

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology ... ating.html

One problem with the technique is the requirements for the object to be dated- it must take up uranium-238 and no thorium, then immediately be closed off so it would not be able to take in more. This is possible especially in caves, deep water and land fall areas.

Charlie, I read all 12. I'm impressed and I have a comment that I'll make by PM. I'm trying to get a rough working knowledge of U/Thorium dating techniques. I'm sure that Bischoff agrees that your samples fit the requirements in this article - right?

Again - impressive and pretty astounding.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:07 am

Thanks for taking the time to read the report, bro.

Jim's not comfortable enough with the findings to publish the dates, but is still very interested in persuing the dating...so he's enlisted Warren Sharp, from Berkeley's Geochronology Center, to conduct some more analyses.

Here's a clip from a few pages back, with the explanation of the dates:

Charlie, why is there such a discrepancy in the dates? Do the two artifacts
come from different levels?

Pretty interesting!

Hey Stan.

Could be a number of things:

1. Contaminated samples:

Quote:

From: James L Bischoff
Date: 11/16/06 20:09:26
To: Hatchett Talent Agency
Subject: Re: Central Texas Artifacts

Hello Charlie:

Look under the heading "Activity ratios" and find the ratio 230Th/232Th.
As you can see the ratio for both samples is about 2. Credible dates
require a ratio >10. Such a low ratio indicates an extraineous source of
Th, in addition to that from the decay of uranium, which confounds the
calculation of a date.

Jim

2. A number of artifacts from various ages were swept downstream and consolidated into the gravel terrace when it was formed:

Quote:
Charlie found one in situ stemmed projectile point in the gravel cap underlying (older than) fine-grained sediments in which Clovis points have been found by others and dated by them at ca. 12,000 years. Said tool (archaic [not! VSMcI] 20) has remnants of a carbonate coat covering the flake scars. (flake scars = tool shaping = older than carbonate coat = older than gravel cap = older than Clovis = older than 12,000 years). Other stemmed tools from nearby float (out of context) also have remnants of carbonate coats covering flake scars, as do many other float specimens showing various flaking technologies. He finds other artifacts in the overlying fine-grained sediments, the ones that have produced Clovis points at a nearby site, but none of them have remnants of a carbonate coat. We can assume they are younger than the carbonate coat episode.

But carbonate coats don't start out as relatively thick spots on flake scars; they start out as thin films covering the whole piece and thicken slowly over time. And nature doesn't treat an artifact as an artifact; she treats it as a piece of gravel. So we can further assume that, after these pieces were made, they rested a long time in the place they were dropped, and that the climate at that time was hot and dry, with intermittent moisture (for the carbonate to be moved in solution and later deposited on the tools. Sangamon Interglacial?) Then the climate got a lot wetter (Wisconsin time?) This in order to erode the sediments containing the tools, concentrate them, and move them along in a relatively high energy environment to their current position in the gravel cap, knocking off most of their carbonate coats in the process.

So, these tools Charlie is finding will have to be older than the gravel cap out of which they are now eroding. And they can be of various ages. Two especially, if those chip marks aren't natural, have had flake scars modified by water transport, i.e. dulled edges, before the carbonate coat was added (paleo 20, photo 2010a; preclovis 2019). Others may have been recycled at a later date (preclovis 20190, preclovis 20206).

Steen-McIntyre Jul 24, 2006 (prior to the dating)

Sangamonian Interglacial sensu lato= 80000 to ca. 220000 yr BP

The gravel deposition is thought, by Dr. Michael Collins et. al, to have occurred sometime between 13,000B.P- 12,000 B.P. Mike Collins et. al excavated the Wilson-Leonard site, which is 8 miles upstream from this site were studying. In addition, the gravels are capped, securely, by a well dated stratum (11,500 B.P.), which has produced definite, in situ, Clovis tools and projectile points.

Thanks again for reading the report, Beag. I'll keep everyone posted on how the Berkeley analyses progress.

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:33 am

I didn't have much luck opening the huge Charlie text on screen, so I started saving it to disc. Problem was when I opened it I just got sixteen blank pages and some empty frames. In document properties it insists I'm looking at a 9000 word essay but as I say, nothing doing. I'm using Lotus Wordpro with Windows 2000 and I recently got some Wordpad documents from Digit which I could read just fine. Any advice? Apart from 'buy a new computer' that is...

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:54 am

I didn't have much luck opening the huge Charlie text on screen, so I started saving it to disc. Problem was when I opened it I just got sixteen blank pages and some empty frames. In document properties it insists I'm looking at a 9000 word essay but as I say, nothing doing. I'm using Lotus Wordpro with Windows 2000 and I recently got some Wordpad documents from Digit which I could read just fine. Any advice? Apart from 'buy a new computer' that is.

..

Hey Bro.

Sorry for the hassle. It's in Word format. I need to convert it into .pdf, and compress the crap out of it...way too big. I've tried .pdf on a couple of occasions, but so far I haven't been able to get the images to replicate correctly.

Oh...try this...select all, change all the font to black, and you may still get the text. The text is in white, with an image as a background. I'm guessing the image didn't make it through to your word processing application.

Appreciate you at least attempting to take a look.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:00 pm

W/A - try googling "microsoft word viewer". Free download. That will open it right up.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:19 pm

So we can further assume that, after these pieces were made, they rested a long time in the place they were dropped,

How long is a long time in this case?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:49 pm

How long is a long time in this case?

Perhaps 10's of thousands of years? The typeable artifacts, that have been found in the 10,000 B.P. and less range, have no sign of carbonate coating:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2037.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... e%2019.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2015.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2043.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2045.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2033.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2035.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2028.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2029.jpg

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:59 pm

Charlie Hatchett wrote:
It would not be the first place on earth where it would seem that older technology is more advanced than newer. <snip>

Well, even more recently, look at the fall of the Roman Empire, and the decent into the Dark Ages. I think when there has been abundance, innovation has flourished. During lean times, you simply survive. .. you don't have the resources to "reflect" and "ponder'. Your hungry! Look back to the recent U.S. Great Depression, ca. 1930ish. I remember my grandfather, even as late as the 80's, limiting us kids to .25 tub of water. He was tight...and worked from before the sun came up until well beyond sundown. Hard times, no matter what the cause, slows, and reverses innovation.

Is it that we have been indoctrinated with this idea of "linear evolution" (i.e. from bumbling neanderthal to present day "intelligence") whereas in fact we could better describe evolution as "cyclic"?

Just a thought

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:23 pm

Linear evolution is a staple of the Club.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:28 pm

The typeable artifacts, that have been found in the 10,000 B.P. and less range, have no sign of carbonate coating:

However will they explain that away?

stan · Post by **stan** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:12 pm

Those are some beautiful pieces, Charlie.
They appear to have been made yesterday!..or early this morning....
What do you mean by carbonate coating? A patina caused by weathering?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:22 pm

Is it that we have been indoctrinated with this idea of "linear evolution" (i.e. from bumbling neanderthal to present day "intelligence") whereas in fact we could better describe evolution as "cyclic"?

Certainly seems plausible, with the observations that have been rolling in lately. Seems as if the particular enviroment allowed folks to settle in for a good bit, and be more efficient with meeting their basic needs, then innovation tended to flourish. Conversely, if the particular enviroment was lean, and it was harder to meet their basic needs, less time was spent on innovation. If the lean times lasted long enough, it seems plausible that technological innovation might not only slow, but could dip into the negative, relatively, resulting in overall technology decreasing below where it was 10's of thousands of years earlier.