Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep. Here's what it looks like

[www.hallofmaat.com]
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's there to refute?

RB wrote: "Exactly and these look like fully formed spearheads,"

"Name the industry."
No answer...yet.

"RB wrote: "and if you push it back to 15.5 KYA"

LO: "You didn't even get the date right,
you may want to read more than the abstract."

Also you may want to try looking at Fig 2 cross section A-A.

Not to mention (from the paper): (Figs. 2 and 3).
"The radiocarbon dating method was not used to date the archaeological
components at the Friedkin site because there were no carbon
samples that would yield reliable and accurate ages. In situ charcoal
is not preserved, and all bones are leached of collagen."

How cherry picking nice, no one can refute Imagination.

"and you want to have a discussion? Why don't you read the papers first before commenting? Or are we going to just have a rerun of this discussion:"
[www.hallofmaat.com]

RB wrote: "throw a couple of thousand more"

LO asked: "Couple of thousand more what, more disappearing acts?"

LO wrote: "What is there to discuss, a bone-free, DNA free, pile of mixed up clay pseudo-industry that can't repeat itself twice, let alone a "thousand".

Still no answer. what can one do to refute reality, right, snip away.

RB wrote: "onto it to allow migration from Beringia to Texas. Yep, Clovis wasn't first."

Only if a person doesn't believe in DNA results.

"[www.sapiens.org]
Score: Clovis/Folsom 15+... Buttermilk 0"

Still zeros for Buttermilk, in spite of the snipping.

DNA?
[www.hallofmaat.com]
Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not suprised at all. I think this discovery at
> over 100,000 is outside the range of any DNA.

Corrected by Lee Olsen:
[www.the-scientist.com]
"A 400,000-year-old mitochondrial genome adds new twists to scientists’ picture of early human evolution."

I'm always here to help make corrections...you're welcome.

LO wrote: "BTW, they have found a few human teeth at Buttermilk...DNA failed and so did the 14C dating.
How cherry picking nice. So how can one discuss nothing results?"

"Got direct-dating on human bone results here though:
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

What do you have left at Buttermilk? Excuses by Waters et al.

To sum up the DNA evidence so far:
[www.scientificamerican.com]
[core.tdar.org]
[www.scientificamerican.com]
[www.nature.com]
[www.sciencemag.org]

"Score: Clovis 6 ...Buttermilk 0"

Thanks to Rick's snipping, guess things aren't going to improve over zeros at Buttermilk anytime soon.

"Grayson and Meltzer (2002) rejected the Manis mastodon site as
providing secure evidence for human interaction with a mastodon.
We did this because no complete report on the results of the
excavation had ever appeared (and still has not), because there
were no undoubted artifacts associated with the skeleton, because
there was no compelling evidence that the bones bore cut marks or
were broken in ways that could only be accounted for by human
action, and because it had not been shown that the bony object
protruding from the rib represents a projectile tip."

Only Waters can demand others to have site reports, while exempting himself from the that process.

But it's actually far worse than that.
Mammoth Trumpet 2011 Vol 26 (1)
page 6:
Waters "well-dated strata are only the begining....."
page 11:
Waters: "But before we can pass final judgment on the site, we need a good site report Jenkins agrees...."

Still no site report at Paisley, yet Waters et al. referenced Paisley as a backup for Buttermilk.

From the paper page 1:
"...indicating that people must have
been in North America ≥14.2 ka ago. In North America, humans were
present during the period ~14 to ~15 ka ago, as documented by archaeological
evidence radiocarbon dated to ~14.6 ka ago at Page-Ladson,
Florida (4); ~14.2 ka ago at Paisley Caves, Oregon (5); ~14.2 and
~14.8 ka ago at Schaefer and Hebior, Wisconsin (6, 7); and ~13.8 ka
ago at Manis, Washington (8)."

The only thing indicated is site reports count for Clovis but not pseudo-Clovis sites.

[tinyurl.com]
One of the skeptics, Thomas F. Lynch, a specialist in South American archeology
at Cornell University, said: "I'm still unconvinced. A lot of weak cases don't
add up to a strong case."