donald r raab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For valsequillo the dates claimed always have been
> 250k. The dating techniques with mutiple tools
> have always returned the same results. This NOT
> claiming dates. the dates have been proven with
> dating technology. Not accepting the dates from
> tools proven around the world does NOT make them
> invalid.
>
> Your points about HOW are important. The how is
> NOT primary to a site. That is secondary to
> explaining the site itself. And certainly
> explaining how does NOT validate the site itself.
> Valsequillo has existed for 60 years. There have
> been multiple digs and re-digs. the geologists
> each time with stratigraphy and dating tools
> returned the same dates. If that wa the rsult say
> in Africa NO ONE would be skeptical about the
> results.

Until you can tell me how Home erectus would have gotten to Valsequillo (from where?), I don't think it is worth my time discussing it.

Bernard