Archaeologica.org

FT you don't have a case and I have yet to see a post from you that actually contributes value - another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

More worringly you seem to have missed the point of Cognito's statement regarding dating.

Perhaps you'd "believe it" if "Mike Morewood himself" had "spoken of" such things... such professional rigour

Concur.

OK i rest my case.

F/T, you have demonstrated here that you know absolutely nothing about the Calico or Topper sites. If that is your case, you certainly have done an excellent job.

No club at all merely common sense if you wish to come up with some wonderful sounding dates that fit silly theories use 100,000 BP if you like just dont call it research more like wishfull thinking lol.

Goodyear published his results based on the limits of radiocarbon dating. What you don't know is that thermoluminescence and fluourescence has already been performed on the Topper site, but has not been published. Goodyear's comments regarding the site being older than 50,000 years derives from that data.

You have not visited either site, nor have you spoken or corresponded with any of the archaeologists involved as far as I can tell, but you project yourself as an expert on the topic. Your blatant ignorance is only exceeded by your atrocious grammar.

Whilst we are it FT - where did your little wibbly wobbly website disappear to?

http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewt ... 093f53ca70

I thought perhaps you'd followed it?

fossiltrader wrote:Ok i rest my case.
We all love those war surplus tales.
However is there anything on this site that actually looks at archaeological research?
Sadly no i would suggest Forbes whoever they are may wish to award their little reward to a Harry Potter site why do i waste my time .

Fossiltrader -

I sincerely hope that you do not continue to waste your time.
You obviously have more important things to do.

However, could you provide this site with a bibliography of papers already published, and a precis of your ongoing research?

john

I'm sure you're holding your breath john.

That's what you get when you mix 'double degrees' with disdain.

Re: FT

I've noticed this phenomenon on a number of BBs I visit. I assumed that some psychology grad student would have done a thesis on it by now, but I couldn't find much. I finally did find something that encapsulates it, albeit in a somewhat "rough" form.

Google: John Gabriel's Greater Internet Theory

John Gabriel's Greater Internet Theory

tsk, tsk Mayo.

Mayo!

You left out a word.

Minimalist wrote:C14 dating does have an upper end of usability around 50,000 years. That would be about 10 half-lives and the idea being that there really isn't going to be much radioactive C14 left after 10 bites at the apple.

Still, The Club doesn't think that it has to go back to more than 11,500 BC in the New World so C14 was always good enough for them, before!

Funny that with all this 'Club' business I have a textbook on Native Americans that is over 30 years old and casually assumes there were Native Americans much earlier than that. Comments like Mini's stifle debate. Perhaps that's the purpose of them, to shut people up or make them unwilling to comment for fear of being attacked.

Paid your dues recently, huh Doug?

What debate Doug? When you get archaeologists destroying evidense, as suggested at Valsequillo, debate becomes a bit muted I would say!

As I said, attempts to stifle discussion. It isn't funny and I don't appreciate it.
It's much easier to say 'the club', or 'destroyed evidence', or 'my dog ate my homework' then to do the real research needed.

The fact remains no matter what Minimalist says is that there have always been people arguing for older than Clovis. Sure, the debate is fierce, but so what? It's there, and the argument is more or less over except for a few diehards (Minimalist being one evidently). Some people however seem to have a hard time distinguishing between insisting on good evidence and rejecting something out of hand.

Meanwhile, more from Goodyear:
http://uscnews.sc.edu/ARCH190.html

Digit wrote:What debate Doug? When you get archaeologists destroying evidense, as suggested at Valsequillo, debate becomes a bit muted I would say!

Someone's tampered with the 'footprints'?