[_ Old Earth _] "Out of Africa" Out the Window?

[Charlie Hatchett]

From harristjrMesssage 3972.7

To Kris Hirst (archaeology3)

That's what I was trying to tell him. He's found a sympathetic audience in the lunatic fringe and they keep encouraging him. Charlie has a legitimate, probably pre-clovis site in his back yard and he's wasting time on this pseudo-archaeology crap. It ruins any credibility he may have had.
Sorry Charlie, this is just crazy.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Speaking of the "tail wagging the dog":

Charlie:

Not only were humans not in the Americas 350,000 years ago, they weren't on the planet yet, having not evolved before at the very most 200,000 years ago.

This is not a legitimate mammoth 'kill' site, and no paleontologist I know would credit such a claim.

Kris
-----
K. Kris Hirst
About Archaeology
http://archaeology.about.com
http://www.About.com
About.com is part of The New York Times Company

Hi Kris.


Here's the latest dates reported concerning the

Hueyatlaco and El Horno sites, 40 km East of Mexico City.

Note, the El Horno site has unifacial tools found in situ, sandwiched between

Xalene ash dated at 1.3 million (reverse polarity has been observed in this

strata) and a sedimentary strata dated at a minimum of 280,000. Bifacial

tools have been found in situ, sandwiched between the Hueyatlaco ash,

dated at 250,000 and the El Horno strata dated at 280,000.

The El Horno unifacial tools have been assigned to the CroMagnon culture.

The Hueyatlaco bifacial tools have been assigned to Homo Sapien Sapien.

Until now, CroMagnon was thought to have existed from 40,000 -10,000,

emerging from Homo Sapien in Africa and migrating into Europe.

Homo Sapien Sapien is thought to have decended from Homo Sapien in

Africa 130,000 ago.

Homo Sapien was thought to have decended from Homo Erectus 200,000

ago...in Africa.


It's very easy for engrained dogma to obscure observations...especially if the dogma overides

observations.



Hueyatlaco, Mexico

Excavations at the Hueyatlaco siteSeveral potential pre-Clovis localities were found in the 1960s around the edge of the Valsequillo Reservoir, Mexico. One of these localities is the site of Hueyatlaco. This site was excavated by Cynthia Irwin-Williams in 1962, 1964, and 1966. At this site, numerous unifacial flake tools were found with extinct fauna. Questions about the stratigraphy, location of the artifacts, and dating have plague this site. In 2003, a trip was made to the Smithsonian Archives in Maryland and the files of Cynthia Irwin-Williams were examined. Numerous maps and files were photocopied and this Excavations at the Hueyatlaco sitematerial was used to reconstruct the excavations conducted at the site in 1962, 1964, and 1966. Field investigations were undertaken during May and June of 2004 at Hueyatlaco. Three trenches were excavated at the site in order to examine and evaluate the stratigraphy at Hueyatlaco. We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I). An unconformity separated the alluvium containing the bifacial material (Bed E and C). Samples of the Hueyatlaco Ash and other units are being dated by the Ar-Ar and luminescence techniques. These dates will resolve once and for all the age of this important site. This research is being done in collaboration with Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales (INAH), Patricia Ochoa-Castillo (National Museum of Anthropology), and Mario Perez-Campa (INAH).


http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/res ... t_projects


Unfortunately only a rough manuscript was passed around revealing the results of Berkeley's dating of

the Hueyatlaco Ash back in 1998. The author made it known that he was being hassled severely and

had decided to drop the whole thing. Mike Waters from A&M has promised dates on the Ash since

2004....nothing to date, but I do think Mike has the backbone to report his dates regardless. We'll see.

Then there's Lake Manix, but that's a whole different story...

Charlie Hatchett

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Tell Kris Hirst to get on the phone to National Geographic to give them the news that there were no humans on earth before 200,000 years ago. NatGeo has the following embarrassing story of a 400,000 year old mammoth kill in the U.K. which needs to be withdrawn.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... hants.html
_________________
David Campbell

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Boy, I should really stay out of paleontological discussions, of which I know very little indeed. Thanks, Charlie for the link to the NatGeo story, which I'm told is based on an article in the Journal of Quaternary Science. There were no Homo sapiens running around that long ago, but science writers tend to slur over the species names, and in fact, I've been wondering where scientists now think 'human' began anyway. But let's not get lost in quibbling about who is human or not (that was a chastisement for myself).

The 400,000 year old butchered elephant was in the UK, and was apparently butchered by one of our hominid ancestors, some form of H. erectus. And Pakefield, also in the UK, is an H erectus site also in the UK, firmly dated to +700,000 years ago.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/homoere ... efield.htm

So the question is, why is it not possible for hominid ancestors (and their butchering sites) to be located in the Americas? Hominids evolved in Africa, and as far as irrefutable scientific proof has been made, they (er, we) didn't make it here until, well pre-clovis, if you're a believer in pre-clovis, and there's probably good support for that, (I hesitate to put a date on it but well within 30,000 years bp).

But for earlier, for +350,000? Nothing convincing that I'm aware of. None of the sites you've mentioned, Charlie, have support in the scientific community. To date. I of course can't speak to the future; but I'm a believer in Occam's Razor, and if there isn't any evidence that is enough to upset decades of scientific research that says there isn't anything here, I'm sticking with tradition. Call me a stick in the mud, if you will. It takes a lot to overturn decades of scientific research--and it should, to my way of thinking. There ought to be a pretty high bar.

I apologize for shooting off my mouth earlier, it was uncalled for. If we can get somebody with street cred on paleontology to weigh in, that would be pleasant. In the meantime, I'm going to shut up and concentrate on more recent events.

Kris
-----
K. Kris Hirst
About Archaeology
http://archaeology.about.com
http://www.About.com
About.com is part of The New York Times Company


Lol..Kris, it's not that big of a deal.

This article just came out 5 days ago. It was news to me until recently.

Putting the whole "modern man" definitional thing aside, I think it's very significant if there's a possible

early man kill site in North America. Just my opinion, but that darn report from San Diego County just

screams kill site to me. It would be interesting to get a hold of the U.K. formal report and see how much

it differs from the San Diego report. I did note in the U.K. report that they had found 6 cores. In the San

Diego report, 7 refit cores are noted. Both reports also note distinct types of bone fracturing.

I agree with you. I wish we could get a weigh in from a pro paleontology type

Kris, I consider you a friend, and you been kind enough to help me with my research in the past.

I appreciate you, and I hope none of my comments offended you.

Take care,

Charlie Hatchett

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

From the article:

" The team says the humans who ate the elephant belonged to Homo heidelbergensis. The ancient humans had brains about three-quarters the size of our own and walked fully upright..."

Clearly, they are using the term 'human' in the loosest possible sense here, and not in the AMH sense.


Christopher J. Riga


Hi Christopher.

I didn't read about any human remains. Where did you and NG deduce that they were Homo

heidelbergensis?

It would be nice to hear an explanation besides the standard circular arguement stating that ToE says the

species must have been the culprits, because Homo Sapien didn't come into existence until 200k B.P.


Charlie Hatchett

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

From the article:

" The team says the humans who ate the elephant belonged to Homo heidelbergensis. The ancient humans had brains about three-quarters the size of our own and walked fully upright..."

Clearly, they are using the term 'human' in the loosest possible sense here, and not in the AMH sense.


Christopher J. Riga


Hi Christopher.

I didn't read about any human remains. Where did you and NG deduce that they were Homo

heidelbergensis?

It would be nice to hear an explanation besides the standard circular arguement stating that ToE says the

species must have been the culprits, because Homo Sapien didn't come into existence until 200k B.P.


Charlie Hatchett

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I deduced it by reading the article that you posted as refuation to what Kris and the others had been saying. My area of expertise and education is much more recent than proto-humans, so I do not pretend to speak with authority in the matter. I leave that to the experts that are in the article you posted.


Christopher J. Riga


Fair enough Chris.

The average cranial capacity of modern humans (Homo sapiens) is 1350 cubic centimeters (cc), although the

range of variation is large, around 1000 to 2000 cc.

The average brain size for H. heidelbergensis is 1200-1300 cc, well within the range of modern humans.

I'm not sure where the authors came up with the 3/4 size brain, or if that's just NG's input.


Charlie Hatchett
http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

From: Hatchett Talent Agency

Date: 07/12/06 19:22:18

To: newsdesk@ngs.org

Cc: Dr. Mike Collins; Dr. Mike Waters; Dr. Al Goodyear; Dr. Bruce Bradley; Dr. Dennis Stanford; Dr. Jim Adovasio; Dr. Mario Pino; Dr. Tom Dillehay


Subject: 335,000 B.P. Mastodon Kill Site Reported in San Diego County


Greetings.

I really enjoyed your article: "Stone Age Elephant Found at

Ancient U.K. Hunt Site".

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... hants.html

What really grabbed my attention was the date of the elephant kill:

400,000 B.P.

I've been investigating a plausible 335,000 B.P. hunt site, including

plausible evidence of a butchered mastodon and horse. The San Diego

Museum of Natural History directed the research.

Here's a link to the summary of findings presented by The San Diego

Museum of Natural History to Caltrans :

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... n_1995.pdf

In summary, the report dates a plausible hunt site near San

Diego at 335,000 year B.P. (uranium series). Included in the report to

Caltrans is plausible evidence of a butchered mastodon and

a butchered horse. The evidence submitted includes 7 core

refit analyses, numerous abrasion analyses and several mastodon bones

are reported to display distinct, human made fracture marks.

If you decide, after reading the summary of findings, the evidence is

convincing, it should be an excellent follow-on to the U.K. research.


Keep up the great reporting!


Cheers,

Charlie Hatchett

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

1. There was no articulation of mastodon elements and no anatomical trend to their
placement in the quarry...

This may scream "kill site" to you, Charlie, but it screams "secondary deposition from eroded fossil bed" to me.

Hi Kid.
A quote from later in the report:" In contrast to the disarticulated condition of the mastodon remains was the discovery of a partially articulated skeleton of Fulica Americana, the American Coot, collected in Unit B5. The entire pectoral region including the right and left wings and coracoids was found still articulated with the sternum. Articulated portions of the legs were also recovered. Several rodent skulls recovered from bed E were found with articulated lower jaws."
In summary, the authors are conveying to me that, in the same unit, and same low energy mudstone formation, heavy duty mastodon bones are completely disarticulated, while fragile coot and rodent bones are articulated. How would you explain this observation?

2. Many bones were fragmentary and displayed distinct types of breakage...

"Distinct" here means that the breakage patterns were able to be classified, not that they were human in origin/agency. Articles making such bold claims generally do it out in the open, not in code.

...the distinct classification being spiral fracturing, which is highly indicative of human involvement (especially in a low energy sedimentary formation). See some of Steve Holen's (The Denver Museum of Nature and Science) work concerning this issue of spiral fracturing.

3. Of special note was the discovery of both isolated femur heads side-by-side...

Wow. Two femur heads (note, it says nothing of them being from the same individual) next to each other. Call C. Vance Haynes!

I think the word "both" implies that these femur heads were from the same mastodon. Note that both were isolated, yet side by side. Then there's the context in which they lie: next to a rib lying on a plutonic cobble and a large piece of mastodon long bone shaft displaying spiral fracturing.

4. Adjacent to the femur heads lay fragments of ribs, one of which was found lying directly on a plutonic cobble...

Interesting. So presumably a flowing stream at one point deposited a rib right on top of a piece of granite. Still, I don't see anything suggesting human agency here.


5. Also found in this concentration was a long piece of a long bone shaft displaying distinct spiral fracturing...
Spiral fracturing occurs from a type of force applied to the bone, not exclusively as a result of human activity. Force applied in two different directions to a single bone (a twisting motion) produces this. It's very common for this type of fracture to occur naturally.

Again, look at the overall context: "...Of special note was the discovery of both isolated femur heads side-by-side..."; "...next to a rib lying on a plutonic cobble and a large piece of mastodon long bone shaft displaying spiral fracturing..."

6. ...sharply fractured piece with a distinct impact scar on it’s internal surface

Not sure what this even means. Sounds like they're saying that a bone was struck with a force perpendicular to its long axis, and a chip of bone on the inside of the break was dislodged. No evidence of humans here.

What their referring to is the semi-circular notch and negative cone of percussion where the impactor hit the bone. This is the diagnostic factor of percussion by a rock hitting a bone. Only humans can create this kind of evidence.

Tusk embedded in stream bed, water flow around tusk causes some erosion of stream sediments around it. Gradually, sand fills in around the tusk where perturbations of stream flow originally caused lighter sediments to be swept away. No humans here.

The tusk would have to of been forced downward with considerable pressure to penetrate the underlying comformable beds (Beds D and C), and create this uncomformity (Bed D's Sand pentetrating 40 cm into Bed C).

9. The more intact larger rocks displayed smoothly rounded surfaces, indicative of
stream transport...
10. Many of the smaller rock fragments had sharp, angular edges that lacked signs of
abrasion...
11. There are seven instances in which rock fragments and/ or boulders found
separated in the quarry were able to be reassembled...


So, let's see... We have stream cobbles, some smaller pieces of broken stream cobbles that show no use wear, and coincidentally some of the broken rocks in the streambed could be fitted back together again.Why they refit them, I couldn't say. Maybe they just felt like it. Why they put it in the report? I have no idea. But they certainly don't say anything to suggest that they think it had anything to do with people.

I don't think use wear was the purpose of the author's stating the smaller fragments had sharp angular edges and lacked abrasion. I think the purpose is to show the lack of erosional forces on these smaller pieces. The larger intact stones must have been imported to the area and reduced via some heavy duty percussion. Certainly not consistent stream transport. Remember, we have a coot and rodent skeletons articulated in this same strata...mudstone.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Quote from terrascythe on Jul 6th, 2006, 7:58pm:
Wait a minute! My question is, if this is true, doesn't this mean that the whole archaeo record for CA is all f't up?
I've monitored my share of ground disturbances in San Diego County and I've run across a few mastodons, shark and other remains. To think they might have been cultural? This presents several problems.
First off, it gives validity to Luis Leakey’s find near China Lake. And let's not forget Michael Cremo either.
Second, it would mean that multiple paleontologists need to re-examine their findings.
Plus, have archaeologists ever examined other paleo finds in SD, especially mastodon?
Third, the truth of this report would only mean added expenses to the environmental monitoring aspect, which has already artificially inflated the cost of development in California.
Not to mention the sheer economic logistics of changing reports and text.
And finally, what do the Native Americans think about this?
Has and band claimed lineage that far back. And, does this mean that Native American monitors will be needed for ground disturbance paleo/archaeo sensitive areas?
Just a few thoughts....

You bring up several good points:

1. "...paleontologists need to re-examine their findings..."

2. "...have archaeologists ever examined other paleo finds in SD, especially mastodon..."

3. "...truth of this report would only mean added expenses to the environmental monitoring aspect, which has already artificially inflated the cost of development in California..."

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

VanLandingham, S.L., 2006, Diatom evidence for autochthonous artifact deposition in the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico during the Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,000 to ca 220,000 yr BP and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP). J. Paleolimnol, 36, 101-116.


Journal of Paleolimnology
Diatom evidence for autochthonous artifact deposition in the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico during the Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,000 to ca. 220,000 yr BP and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP))
Journal Journal of Paleolimnology
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0921-2728 (Print) 1573-0417 (Online)
Subject Earth and Environmental Science
Issue Volume 36, Number 1 / July, 2006
Category Original Paper
DOI 10.1007/s10933-006-0008-4
Pages 101-116
Online Date Saturday, July 29, 2006

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m13 ... %20evidenc e%20for%20autochthonous%20artifact%20deposition%20in%20the%20Valsequillo%20region%2C%20Puebla%2C%20Mexico%20during%20the%20Sangamonian%20(sensu%20lato%20%3D%2080%2C000%20to%20ca.%20220%2C000%20yr%20BP%20and%20Illinoian%20(220%2C000%20to%20430%2C000%20yr%20BP))%22


Here we have a mainstream science journal publishing a well-reasoned paper, written by a well-respected paleontologist, arguing for human existence in North America between 220,000 BP-430,000 BP. In light of the 335,000 BP report to Caltrans and the 400,000 BP report from the U.K. by well respected, mainstream paleontologists and archeologists, I think any open minded individual must seriously consider the plausibility of human existence in North America contemporaneously with the earliest of Neanderthals and the latter of Homo heidelbergensis.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Valsequillo Artifacts

3 Valsequillo Artifacts

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

-------Original Message-------

From: Charlie Hatchett
Date: 10/12/06 19:19:13
To: Dr. Al Goodyear; Dr. Bruce Bradley; Dr. D. Clark Wernecke; Dr. Darrell Creel; Dr. Dennis Stanford; Dr. Jim Adovasio; Dr. John Edward Clark-BYU; Dr. Mario Pino; Dr. Mike Collins; Dr. Mike Waters; Dr. Steve Kissin- Lakehead University-Ontario; Dr. Tom Dillehay
Subject: Texas A&M's Hueyatlaco Dating Reported


News Flash!!
A&M has informally announced the results of it's dating for the artifacts found in situ at Hueyatlaco, Unit I:

Older than 1,000,000 B.P.

I wonder how long it will take for them to announce these dates publicly? The bifacial tools, found ca. 1 meter above the unifacial tools and assigned to Cro-Magnon, and the associated strata in which they were found, are hotly contested. It's basically a shoot out between Texas A&M and the USGS. USGS claims the strata are greater than 250,000 B.P.

Charlie Hatchett
PreClovis, Clovis and Archaic Artifacts
1-877-252-2351/ 1-512-453-6178 ( Austin)
charlie@preclovis.com / http://www.preclovis.com

Here's the current project write-up, from Texas A&M's website:

Hueyatlaco, Mexico

Several potential pre-Clovis localities were found in the 1960s around the edge of the Valsequillo Reservoir, Mexico. One of these localities is the site of Hueyatlaco. This site was excavated by Cynthia Irwin-Williams in 1962, 1964, and 1966. At this site, numerous unifacial flake tools were found with extinct fauna. Questions about the stratigraphy, location of the artifacts, and dating have plague this site. In 2003, a trip was made to the Smithsonian Archives in Maryland and the files of Cynthia Irwin-Williams were examined. Numerous maps and files were photocopied and this Excavations at the Hueyatlaco sitematerial was used to reconstruct the excavations conducted at the site in 1962, 1964, and 1966. Field investigations were undertaken during May and June of 2004 at Hueyatlaco. Three trenches were excavated at the site in order to examine and evaluate the stratigraphy at Hueyatlaco. We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I). An unconformity separated the alluvium containing the bifacial material (Bed E and C). Samples of the Hueyatlaco Ash and other units are being dated by the Ar-Ar and luminescence techniques. These dates will resolve once and for all the age of this important site. This research is being done in collaboration with Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales (INAH), Patricia Ochoa-Castillo (National Museum of Anthropology), and Mario Perez-Campa (INAH).

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/res ... t_projects

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

BTW, here's the Hueyatlaco write up on A&M's website:

Hueyatlaco, Mexico

Excavations at the Hueyatlaco siteSeveral potential pre-Clovis localities were found in the 1960s around the edge of the Valsequillo Reservoir, Mexico. One of these localities is the site of Hueyatlaco. This site was excavated by Cynthia Irwin-Williams in 1962, 1964, and 1966. At this site, numerous unifacial flake tools were found with extinct fauna. Questions about the stratigraphy, location of the artifacts, and dating have plague this site. In 2003, a trip was made to the Smithsonian Archives in Maryland and the files of Cynthia Irwin-Williams were examined. Numerous maps and files were photocopied and this Excavations at the Hueyatlaco sitematerial was used to reconstruct the excavations conducted at the site in 1962, 1964, and 1966. Field investigations were undertaken during May and June of 2004 at Hueyatlaco. Three trenches were excavated at the site in order to examine and evaluate the stratigraphy at Hueyatlaco. We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I). An unconformity separated the alluvium containing the bifacial material (Bed E and C). Samples of the Hueyatlaco Ash and other units are being dated by the Ar-Ar and luminescence techniques. These dates will resolve once and for all the age of this important site. This research is being done in collaboration with Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales (INAH), Patricia Ochoa-Castillo (National Museum of Anthropology), and Mario Perez-Campa (INAH).

 

[Barbarian]

Corroboration of Sangamonian age of artifacts from the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico by means of diatom biostratigraphy
Sam L. VanLandingham
1205 West Washington, Midland, Texas, 79701 USA, email: sambrero@earthlink.net

Important artifacts have been found in situ (i.e., not redeposited) within lacustrine deposits in the Valsequillo region. These deposits contain many diatoms which indicate an age corresponding to the Sangamonian Interglacial sensu lato (80,000 to ca. 220,000yr BP). Two of the four samples in this study are associated with the Dorenberg skull or with stratigraphic units which contain bifacial tools. The remaining two samples are from diatomaceous deposits which are also Sangamonian and stratigraphically above the artifact units. These four diatomaceous samples yielded 30 extinct and 143 extant diatom taxa. The ages of the four samples correspond to other diatomaceous samples (some of which are associated with artifacts) from nearby Valsequillo localities. A post-Sangamonian age for these four diatom-bearing samples is discounted by the presence of Navicula bronislaae and N. dorenbergi, both of which have short stratigraphic ranges and are known only from the Sangamonian (or its equivalents), and by 13 diatoms which evidently have known long stratigraphic ranges and extinctions before the end of the Sangamonian. An age no older than Sangamonian for the artifacts and their enclosing diatomaceous deposits is indicated by the presence of two diatoms (Epithemia zebra var. undulata and Navicula creguti) known only from Sangamonian (or = age) or younger and by an extant diatom, Cymbella cistula var. gibbosa (C. gibbosa), which has its first occurrence in the Sangamonian.
http://micropal.geoscienceworld.org/cgi ... t/50/4/313

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Corroboration of Sangamonian age of artifacts from the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico by means of diatom biostratigraphy
Sam L. VanLandingham
1205 West Washington, Midland, Texas, 79701 USA,

Dr. VanLandingham has an updated report out:


VanLandingham, S.L., 2006, Diatom evidence for autochthonous artifact deposition in the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico during the Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,000 to ca 220,000 yr BP and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP). J. Paleolimnol, 36, 101-116.


Journal of Paleolimnology
Diatom evidence for autochthonous artifact deposition in the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico during the Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,000 to ca. 220,000 yr BP and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP))
Journal Journal of Paleolimnology
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0921-2728 (Print) 1573-0417 (Online)
Subject Earth and Environmental Science
Issue Volume 36, Number 1 / July, 2006
Category Original Paper
DOI 10.1007/s10933-006-0008-4
Pages 101-116
Online Date Saturday, July 29, 2006

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m13 ... %20evidenc e%20for%20autochthonous%20artifact%20deposition%20in%20the%20Valsequillo%20region%2C%20Puebla%2C%20Mexico%20during%20the%20Sangamonian%20(sensu%20lato%20%3D%2080%2C000%20to%20ca.%20220%2C000%20yr%20BP%20and%20Illinoian%20(220%2C000%20to%20430%2C000%20yr%20BP))%22


Here we have a mainstream science journal publishing a well-reasoned paper, written by a well-respected paleontologist, arguing for human existence in North America between 220,000 BP-430,000 BP. In light of the 335,000 BP report to Caltrans and the 400,000 BP report from the U.K. by well respected, mainstream paleontologists and archeologists, I think any open minded individual must seriously consider the plausibility of human existence in North America contemporaneously with the earliest of Neanderthals and the latter of Homo heidelbergensis.

Pretty smart human "sub-species"...making a sail across The Atlantic and setting up shop in Central Mexico. Of course, Africa/ Southwestern Europe and South America/ Central America/ Mexico appear to be split from one continent...Pangea.

 

[jwu]

Pretty smart human "sub-species"...making a sail across The Atlantic and setting up shop in Central Mexico.

Or migrated across the Bering Strait during an ice age.

Of course, Africa/ Southwestern Europe and South America/ Central America/ Mexico appear to be split from one continent...Pangea.

Is your implication that the split of the continents happened much faster and shorter ago?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:

Pretty smart human "sub-species"...making a sail across The Atlantic and setting up shop in Central Mexico.

jwu:

Or migrated across the Bering Strait during an ice age.

Which would even more of a technological feat.

charlie:

Of course, Africa/ Southwestern Europe and South America/ Central America/ Mexico appear to be split from one continent...Pangea.

Is your implication that the split of the continents happened much faster and shorter ago?

Depends on what you mean by "faster" and "shorter".

As one looks back in time, the space-time continuum appears stretched out, compared to looking forward in time, where time appears compressed. Without space there can be no time in the space-time continuum. I made a posting not to long ago concerning "absolute dating" as it relates to
the space-time continuum...I'll see if I can track it down.

Catch up with you this weekend.

Peace

8-)

 

[jwu]

Which would even more of a technological feat.

Why?

As one looks back in time, the space-time continuum appears stretched out, compared to looking forward in time, where time appears compressed.

Umm...i hope you elaborated on that in the other thread which you mentioned, because i am not aware of any such effect. And even if it was there, it wouldn't matter in the slightest if the whole earth was affected equally.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Several more, recently discovered, hypothesized iron smelting artifacts from Central Texas:


I

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20110.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20111.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20112.jpg


II

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20113.jpg


IV

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20114.jpg


V

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20115.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20116.jpg

Charlie Hatchett

http://www.preclovis.com