<<unifacial artifact-bearing deposits>>

Lets get this on target. Paul H. has been dropping in the footsteps issue. These are not footsteps.

The effort mentioned in Doug Weller's first post not only relates to dating the artifacts at the site but re-constructing the original effort that provided so much grief through the 60s to present.

Your comment that it is just not credible goes to the crux of the matter. Based upon what we thought we knew (exception being the specific site controversy) the context just was didn't fit in any shape or form. That is how it is with science. You go where the data leads you. This is the new world. This was populated late and at some point was virgin and now this comes along and says "oops".

Paul H. accused me of using this as a classic alternative has to be. Well that just is over the top. My major interest in this controversy was the treatment accorded to MS Macintire. The treatment seemed to be a knee jerk reaction to something that didn't fit the orthodox story. She is in her 70's and after that promising start long ago never enjoyed a career in her chosen interest.

It will be of little comfort for her to discover she was right all along. And needless to say 40 years after the fact is a LOT of wasted research time going down blind alleys.

the actual claim and the skepticism given given the claim considering the time was understandable. The tratment by the gatekeeprs was extreme to say the least. it is not the only time; only one of the most egrarious.

Now this. Texas A&M archeology and the Netherlands lab are not pseudo scientists.

I don't know how this will continue to play out but the beginning has ended. Something very strange indeed was happening at least in the southwest and Mexico. Lots of exotic odds and ends as well as extraordinary dates are starting to form a pattern.

All bets are off and alternative and orthodox need to go back to the drawing board.