Lee Olsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick Baudé Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cerutti looks like
> > they took everything of value
>
> Looks like they didn't. Of course one would have
> to read the paper to find out they left the femurs
> and took away 90% of the bone of no value at all.
> Lots of potential marrow and tool material in the
> tail bones and skull (yep, that's sarcasm).
>
> > and had a little fun
> > shoving the tusk in the ground
>
> Too bad there's no evidence of hominins around to
> shove a tusk in the ground.

Sure there is how did the tusk get shoved in the ground still no answer except that "it's been answered elsewhere."
>
> > rearranging the
> > femur heads
>
> Same process that scattered the teeth and the rest
> of the misplaced bones.

Which was? Still nothing but dodge ball answers about the answer's in the papers/references blah, blah, blah.
>
> > and then abandoning the place.
>
> LOL. Rick says above: "Cerutti looks like
> they took everything of value". So the imaginary
> hominins took every thing of value, then wasted
> calories shoving a tusk in the ground for what?
> This is getting more bazar by the minute.

No kidding
>
> > > > And how did the tusk get jammed in
> the
> > > ground
> > > > while the other one was lying on
> its
> > side?
>
> Easy. Read the references in the reference that
> you keep snipping out.

Which are?
>
> > The entire site was what was left after
> humans got
> > through carving up a mastodon.
>
> Nothing was carved up. Read the paper.

I read the paper think of 'carved' as a synonym for dismantling the mastodon. Yeah, I know they didn't say that either.
>
> > Anvil stones,
> > hammerstones,
> > percussion points
>
> With no protein residues... no evidence for
> hammerstones.

Funny thing about proteins they break down over time.
>
> on the bone all
> > point to humans. The question is how did the
> tusk
> > get shoved in the ground?
>
> Straw man. Snip out the reference, then don't read
> all the references within...and then ask how?
>
> >Why were the femur heads
> > deliberately next to each other one facing up
> the
> > other down?
>
> More evidence you didn't read the 1995 report or
> the Nature paper. Why don't you read the papers,
> then we can discuss them?
>
> > Stange how the critics drop into
> > Olympic caliber goal post moving.
>
> Every question you have asked has been answered in
> the literature you haven't read.
> There is more to being a critic than reading just
> the abstracts:
>
> Rick Baude wrote: "From the Abstract "These
> findings confirm the presence of an unidentified
> species of Homo at the CM site during the last
> interglacial period (MIS 5e; early late
> Pleistocene), indicating that humans with manual
> dexterity and the experiential knowledge to use
> hammerstones and anvils processed mastodon limb
> bones for marrow extraction and/or raw material
> for tool production."
> >
> /www.nature.com/articles/nature22065?dom=pscau&
> ;src=syn
>
> Nothing about femur heads or teeth. "
>
>
> I quoted directly from the paper that falsified
> your claim of "Nothing about femur heads or
> teeth."
> Lee Olsen wrote: "Quote, cut and paste from Nature
> (2017):
> "which contained portions of molars, long bones,
> and ribs (Concentration 1; Fig. 1). Of special
> note was the discovery of both femur heads
> side-by-side,..."
>
> Hint: the femur heads got moved the same way the
> teeth and other bones got scattered.

Answer: hominids moved them around.
>
>