Central Texas Preclovis Site

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:16 am

It seems Charlie Hatchett is raising an eye-brow or two as he continues to work the central Texas pre-clovis site. I recently went to his personal forum but I am banned, however if one follows the links he recently posted on the Hall of Ma'at Ancient History board, you will discover some growing interest in his preclovis iron smelting, including the results of tests carried out the Metallurgical Department of the University of Toronto (I believe). It is also interesting to note, that some archaeologists in Texas refuse to acknowledge anything Charlie is doing or saying.

Its always painful when you step on someone's paradigms.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:20 am

Good stuff, Monk.

Yeah, the Club won't take this lying down.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:29 pm

Hi FM

Good to hear from you.

I was wondering why you got banned from Charlie Hatchett's site. You're such a mild-mannered fellow over here. Not a bit like Marduk, anyway! Surely some mistake?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:41 pm

My thinking entirely Ish.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:45 pm

So come on FM. What did you do?

Do a full striptease on the board? Make a disparaging remark about the size of Mr Hatchett's member? Proposition Mrs Hatchett?

Go on...do tell! Digit and I are all ears!

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:57 pm

Perhaps we should wait for the 9pm watershed Ish!

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:09 pm

I didn't do anything. Charlie does what Charlie does. He was probably just cleaning house one day and noticed I hadn't logged in for awhile. Who knows?

Anyway, interesting to see he continues to make waves in the academic community. I only wish someone can get down there and date the site once and for all. It amazes me how the University of Texas people seem unwilling to send a guy a few hours up the road to at least find out if Charlie is smoking loco-weed or does he have an archaeological site.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:14 pm

I think Monk made a tongue-in-cheek remark. Actually, everyone is banned from Charlies' site - it's for viewing only. He doesn't have to worry about hackers.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:23 pm

Forum Monk wrote:I didn't do anything. Charlie does what Charlie does. He was probably just cleaning house one day and noticed I hadn't logged in for awhile. Who knows?

Anyway, interesting to see he continues to make waves in the academic community. I only wish someone can get down there and date the site once and for all. It amazes me how the University of Texas people seem unwilling to send a guy a few hours up the road to at least find out if Charlie is smoking loco-weed or does he have an archaeological site.

I didn't see your post Monk. Yeah, he started off having a regular forum but when us and Valsequillo got hacked he changed his site. He is the only poster there. He is in another forum though if you're looking for him. Let me know and I'll PM you.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:51 pm

It amazes me how the University of Texas people seem unwilling to send a guy a few hours up the road to at least find out if Charlie is smoking loco-weed or does he have an archaeological site.

They don't really want to find out.

One of these Texas "Archaeologists" told Charlie that his "furnace" was a watering hole for a horse.

?

In order to believe this you must believe that someone was too lazy to walk the horse the extra 15 feet to the creek's edge but, at the same time, was willing to go through all the trouble to hack a small hole into the limestone!

BTW, it would be an exceptionally tiny horse, btw. The "furnace" is less than a foot on each side.

A second Texas "archaeologist" later dismissed the horse-watering idea but told Charlie that it could be a "pothole." I lived in NY for a long time and I saw plenty of potholes....but none of them were ever square!

I can understand a professional being skeptical....hell, they should be skeptical....but they should try to avoid looking stupid in the process.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:10 pm

Fortunately there is no law against making a fool of yourself Min, and unfortunately pro archaeologists seem remarkably prone to 'foot in mouth disease'.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:44 pm

Really I wasn't sure why I was "banned" as I had not been in touch with Charlie for a while. I didn't take it personally, though. I figured he was revising his forum in some way and guessed that probably a lot of people had been "banned".

I think in general, the move away from here has actually done him some good. This forum was like a Charlie Hatchett pep rally. "Out there" people are more critical. As a result, he seems to have made greater strides toward documentation and careful presentation of his finds. He has raised the bar, so to speak, in his effort to gain a wider legitimacy among mainstream researchers and skeptics alike.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:33 pm

I can only partly agree with you Monk. He has gotten a lot of critique since day one. He has improved his presentation and his knowledge base so much that I would mistake him for a field scientist with a graduate degree. He really knows his stuff. One of his mentors early on was Dave Campbell. He is the moderater at Anarchaeology:
http://www.anarchaeology.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2

I was just over there to say Happy New year. Charlie posted earlier today.

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:19 pm

This is a relif to me.
I have missed him and woundered what had happened to him.
What is the name of his site?

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:46 am

Forum Monk wrote:Really I wasn't sure why I was "banned" as I had not been in touch with Charlie for a while. I didn't take it personally, though. I figured he was revising his forum in some way and guessed that probably a lot of people had been "banned".

Me too and I was a little phased at first, but he sent me a pm - simply hasn't got the time to moderate a full-on BB, which is fair enough. I know I wouldn't enjoy it. More power to the man, I say.