Chris Hardaker's The First American

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:18 pm

Hey guys.

I must say my vision is a little blurry at this point, from the tears. I never, in my wildest dreams, figured I would receive the support and encouragement you've provided. This is the stuff that keeps a fella carrying on in the face of large obstacles: That what I'm doing actually matters, in some small way, to the overall picture. Your encouragement is your contribution to changing the tide in North American archeology. Hats off to you.

I could go on and on, but I'd really like this thread to focus on Chris' excellent work. Chris has put in 30 long, hard years in this business, and, in my opinion, is one of the leaders in changing the tide from theory based to observation-based North American archeology.

Again guys, I ain't got the words. I appreciate you.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:21 pm

We don't know him, yet....we know you!

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:27 pm

Charlie Hatchett wrote:Hey guys.

I must say my vision is a little blurry at this point, from the tears. I never, in my wildest dreams, figured I would receive the support and encouragement you've provided. This is the stuff that keeps a fella carrying on in the face of large obstacles: That what I'm doing actually matters, in some small way, to the overall picture. Your encouragement is your contribution to changing the tide in North American archeology. Hats off to you.

I could go on and on, but I'd really like this thread to focus on Chris' excellent work. Chris has put in 30 long, hard years in this business, and, in my opinion, is one of the leaders in changing the tide from theory based to observation-based North American archeology.

Again guys, I ain't got the words. I appreciate you.

Charlie, you know very well that we have an asshole pretending to be an expert on this board!

You da man.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:33 pm

More from Chris:

Have you heard of any peer-reviewed refutations to Sam's diatom research at Hueyatlaco?
It seems the presence of the rare diatoms (exclusively Sangamonian and Illinoisan age) both outside Mike's so called inset, as well as within, would put an end to any notion of the strata above Cynthia's excavation being re-deposited at a later/ younger date.

Charlie

Re: Chris Hardaker's The First American
Posted by: chard (IP Logged)
Date: January 21, 2007 07:45AM

Yeah, the diatom data is pretty killer, and it should be like you say, but the early man realm in the New World academy is not one of the most rational subcultures -- he's been publishing on Valsequillo for over five years now and nary a whisper. The real story out there was a soap opera starring upncomer diatomist Barbara Winsborough who went around poisoning Sam VanLandingham's work at conferences he attended, or at least bringing his "controversial" work to the attention of editors, warning them they better not publish it in conference volumes because of the nutsoid implications of the work. This worked a couple times, but science won out in the end and he's published a couple fine peer-reviewed papers since then. I mean, this guy has written over ten books on the subject over forty years and many, many articles. Of course his work should have hit the headlines! This is a quality of data that would be admissable in court if it were, say, a murder trial. (Sam's been called in a number of court cases as a microfossil expert when diatoms, etc. have become part of the forensics parade.)

There should be some good discussions for geology junkies by the end of the year. Hal Malde et al is sending out the Hueyatlaco debate paper to both bad guys and good guys (that's a joke) so hopefully they will have comments from all sides of the geological issue. And best of all, it will be online for all to see on the Palaeontologia Electronica website. It is going into a memorial volume dedicated to paleontologist Charles Repenning. As a non-geologist who attempted to detail the geology of the Valsequillo sites, I cannot tell you how relieved I am that this will be published for all to see, and written by the folks who were working Valsequillo decades ago. As far as I can tell, their data pile seems to be holding up. But like I said, my expertise is airyheads and broken rocks, and that side of the equation is a no brainer.

Chris

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:51 pm

The real story out there was a soap opera starring upncomer diatomist Barbara Winsborough who went around poisoning Sam VanLandingham's work at conferences he attended, or at least bringing his "controversial" work to the attention of editors, warning them they better not publish it in conference volumes because of the nutsoid implications of the work.

I'm sure the Club will amply reward her for her efforts.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:57 pm

We don't know him, yet....we know you!

You da man.

Min and Beag, you guys have been following this project pretty much since its inception. I can remember when Frank first introduced us.
I still crack up, thinking about my first exchange with Min: "Looks like a bunch of rocks to me".

And you were fairly skeptical at first, too, Beag.
The difference between you guys and the orthodoxistas, is you approached the proposal with an objective mind, and most of your skepticism was the infamiliarity with Old World technology, as I had to struggle with in the beginning. As the patterns became apparent to you guys, you didn't write it off: You studied the specimens and let your observations drive your further interest.

I'm telling you guys, your light years ahead of 99.9% of academia, when it comes to North American paleo-archeology. I'd say these days, at least for N.A. archeology, it's probably better not to have an archeology degree/ brainwashing, as long as you know how to educate yourself. The Internet has made that much easier for our generation, if you have the desire.

I appreciate ya'll more than you'll ever know. The invitation stands for both of ya'll to become involved in this project, if your interested and it's possible for you. There's always room, imo, for objective minds.

Onward through the fog.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:00 pm

The real story out there was a soap opera starring upncomer diatomist Barbara Winsborough who went around poisoning Sam VanLandingham's work at conferences he attended, or at least bringing his "controversial" work to the attention of editors, warning them they better not publish it in conference volumes because of the nutsoid implications of the work.

I'm sure the Club will amply reward her for her efforts.

Is that not just the biggest bunch of bull...reminds me of a politician, not a scientist.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:02 pm

Charlie, I may take you up on that one day.

I'm retired and how far could it be to Texas?

Oh, and do I have to take this bumper sticker off my car?

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:04 pm

Is that not just the biggest bunch of bull...reminds me of a politician, not a scientist.

The Club is composed of people....with all the failings inherent in that designation.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:06 pm

and that same description doesnt apply to anyone who reads pseudoscietifica and thinks its gospel without checking out the details for themselves
who does your dentistry Min ?
local fruit and veg salesman ?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:06 pm

Charlie, I may take you up on that one day.

I'm retired and how far could it be to Texas?

You know I'm serious. I've extended the invitation before. It's about 875 miles from Phoenix to the site.

Oh, and do I have to take this bumper sticker off my car?

Purely optional.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:12 pm

Let's talk it over when the weather improves. Too much ice and snow in Texas right about now!

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:16 pm

and that same description doesnt apply to anyone who reads pseudoscietifica and thinks its gospel without checking out the details for themselves

True, and I think you've come to see, after justified skepticism, that further investigation is warranted, Mar. Once Frank explained to me that you’re just a smart-ass, I started to take your criticism alot better. At first I just thought you were ugly and mean spirited. I've had to get used to the British since of humor, and you've certainly broke me in.

I remember when I was very green behind the ears, and we meet up on VSM site. Remember the whole Tubal-Cain/ Anu discussion.

Seems like forever ago.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:24 pm

Let's talk it over when the weather improves. Too much ice and snow in Texas right about now!

Right? This last week was the longest running spell of freezing precipitation on the books, for central Texas.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:25 pm

I remember when I was very green behind the ears, and we meet up on VSM site. Remember the whole Tubal-Cain/ Anu discussion

that guy didnt have a clue did he

I mean at one point he stated of the Solar deities An and Anu

I'm not sure what your sources are, but An and Anu were the supreme
gods of Sumeria and Babylonia, not sun gods.

see this is normal when someone who is a genius in his own area strays into one hes not familiar with
can't remember his name now
Harley Chatchett
something like that