Raab Wrote:

"There is a big difference between disagreement
and lets lock the doors. The posts here do make
clear there was not just disagreement with
Mcintyre. Read them again. And with the initial
post here one would have thought over forty
years that a little "gee she might be right
after all" might be in order. There is winning
and there is win at all costs"

This has nothing to with "winning at all costs". In Steen-
McIntyre's case, I fail to see where a "gee she might be
right" is in order because her claim for a 250,000 BP date
was based mainly on Uranium series and fission dates, which
anyone with any knowledge in the basics of geochronology
would regard as being obviously unreliable, and a completely
failed methodology using the hydration of volcanic glass to
estimate the age of volcanic ash.

In case of the Uranium Series dates, Gonzales et al.
(2006), stated:

"A priori assumptions of uranium uptake,
such as the 'early uptake' model employed
to date the bones from the Tetela Peninsula,
do not identify or account for leaching or
recent uptake of uranium and have been shown
to be both unreliable, and potentially
leading to Uranium Series dates grossly in
error (Pike et al., 2002)."

As Gonzales et al (2006) also note, the large standard
deviations, which the Uranium Series and fission track dates
exhibit, are solid evidence that they are completely
unreliable. This something any geologist should understand,
yet you, Steen-McInytre, and other people supporting a
250,000 BP more or less date for the Valsequillo sites,
repeatedly ignore. [Given the way you and other people
ignore this and other inconvenient facts, I suspect the only
criteria you and other proponents have for assessing the
validity of these dates is whether it agrees (valid date) or
disagrees (invalid date) with your theories.] Basing one's
hypothesis on dates, which any geologist, would regard as
unreliable garbage is not a reason for saying ""gee she
might be right" about anyone regardless of the truth of
the matter.

Also, Gonzales et al. (2006) attempted replicate the Ar/Ar
dating reported by Renne et al. (2005). They found it
impossible to determine a valid age for the Xalnene Ash
because of evidence for the presence of extraneous argon
within the material being dated, which Renne et al. (2005)
apparently overlooked with their dates. They also found
that the Xalnene Ash did not contain sufficient K for
reliable Ar/Ar dating.

Given these and other problems raised by Gonzales et al. (2006)
and what they note about Renne et al. (2005)'s Ar/Ar dates
and paleomagnetic data, I certainly have to reserve judgment
about new volcanic ash dates until the details of how they were
performed are published. Also, Schwenninger et al. (in press)
make an excellent defense of their OSL dates, which were
obtained from baked sediments associated with the Xalnene
Ash, which underlies and, thus, is older than the Valsequillo
gravel and volcanic ashes, lahars, and archaeological
sites, which it contains. If the Xalnene Ash is 38,000 -
43,000 years old, it raises obvious questions about any
million year BP dates from the volcanic deposits, which
overlie it. More discussion about the dating of the Xalnene
Ash will appear in Huddart et al.(in press).

raab also wrote:

"The posts above also indicate imaginary dogma is not imaginary.
Dogma is in the eyes of the beholder."

There is nothing either dogmatic or imaginary about a number
of radiocarbon (C14) and one Electron Spin Resonance (ESR)
dates, which Gonzalers et al. (2006) obtained from the
Valsequillo gravels, which contain the Hueyatlaco and related
sites. They are:

C14, 25.08 ± 0.13 K BP, organic + ash ball, Barranca Caulapan (OxA-12913)
ESR, 27.8 ± 3.8 K BP, mammoth molar, Barranca Caulapan
C14, 27.8 ± 1.2 K BP, mollusc shell, Barranca Caulapan (OxA-13663)
C14, 30.6 ± 1.4 K BP, mollusc shell, Barranca Caulapan (OxA-14224)
C14, 36.95 ± 0.6 K BP, mollusc shell, Barranca Caulapan (OxA-14356)
C14, 38.9 ± 0.8 K BP, mollusc shell, Barranca Caulapan (OxA-14355)

Other dates from the Valsequillo Gravels, which have been published
in older publications and summarized by Gonzales et al. (2006)
include:

C14, 9.15 ± 0.5 K BP mollusc, W1896, Barranca Caulapan
C14, 21.85 ± 0.85 K BP mollusc, W1895, Barranca Caulapan
U/Th, 20 ± 1.5 K BP & U/Pa 22 ± 2 K BP bone, MB6
C14, 26 ± 0.53 K BP bone, KI266, Barranca Caulapan
C14, 30.6 ± 1 K BP mollusc, W2189, Barranca Caulapan
U/Th, 19 ± 1.5 K BP & U/Pa 18 ± 1.5 K BP bone, MB5

In this case, it sounds like you are the person, who is
dogmatically rejecting any evidence, i.e. the above dates,
because it does not fit your preconceived notion of how old
you want to believe the Valsequillo sites to be. Given that
the above dates from the Valsequillo gravel support a
respectable Pre-Clovis age for the Valsequillo sites, I find
it rather laughable for anyone to argue that they part of
some Clovis-First conspiracy to defame and discredit people,
who disagree with them.

Raab wrote:

“Skeptism is not an end but a means.”

The above dates, vertebrate fossils, and other evidence
provide ample proof that there is a very valid basis for
being skeptical about the Valsequillo sites being hundreds
of thousands years old as you and others argue. Thus, in
case of the Valsequillo sites, I find your complaint about
skeptism being an end, not a means, sounds like the typical
crybaby whining and moaning, a person often hears from
alternative archaeologists, about how mean, evil, and
nasty conventional archaeologists are and always have
been simply because how the evdience is interpreted. :-)
:-) :-) In many cases, the individual alternative
archaeologist is the person at fault for being the Rondey
Dangerfields of archaeology in not "getting any respect"
from conventional archaeologists.

The unsung and unappreciated person in the history of the
Valsequillo sites is Dr. Pichardo, who published several
carefully done studies of them, which provided solid faunal
and geochronologic evdience that they were valid Pre-Clovis
sites. For some reason, he and his research seems to
be typically ignored by alternative archaeologists.

References Cited:

Gonzalez, S., Huddart, D., Bennett, M.R., Gonzalez-Huesca,
A., 2006, Human footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000
years. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 25, pp. 201-222.

Huddart, D., Bennett, M. R., Gonzalez, S., and Velay, X., in
press, Documentation and preservation of Pleistocene human
and animal footprints: an example from Toluquilla,
Valsequillo Basin (Central Mexico). Ichnos,

Renne, P., Feinberg, J. M., Waters, M. R., Arroyo-Cabrales,
J., Ochoa-Castillo, P., Perez-Campa, M., Knight, K.B.,
2005. Age of Mexican ash with alleged 'footprints'.
Nature vol. 438, pp. E7-E8.

Schwenninger, J-L., Gonzalez S., Huddart, D., Bennett, M.,
and A. Gonzalez-Huesca, in press, The OSL dating of the
Xalnene ash: A reply to comments by G. Duller on ''Human
footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years''.
Quaternary Science Reviews.

Best Regards

Paul H.

"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
William Faulkner, Act 1, Scene III, Requiem for a Nun (1951)



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2006 10:26AM by Paul H..