Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Got any references on how many peer reviewed
> articles

Peer reviewed articles on what, "Re: Oldest Tool in America found?)" article?

> have site reports?

That's nonsensical because Science Advances isn't a site report as per "we need a good site report" and no one said it was that I know of...unless it was some layperson.

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...."

We all know that Jenkins has been 'reporting' his finds in Science Magazine, so that tells you right there he doesn't consider Science a "good" site report...unless Waters uses it himself.
"Look twice at a two-faced man." - Chief Joseph

So far at Buttermilk we have no DNA, no 14C dates (in paper above), no "good" site report like the one Waters asked for at Paisley, in fact we still are waiting for that "good" site report from Jenkins. No corroborating evidence or sites, no trail, no nothing.