donald r raab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lets see.
>
> 1. 4 or 5 digs and redigs. EACH return to the
> site gets the same results. The dates and
> stratigraphy are the same. And those dating tools
> have been validated around the world. They are
> not experimental.

The correct dating of statigraphy does not prove the artifacts are the same age. And when you have an anomalous site that is a quarter of a million years out of whack with the rest of the world's stratigraphy, then the probabilites are next to impossible.


> 2. Archaeologists claim the site is not real
> becuase it is impossible. That is NOT science.


The science involved is sound and proven to as high as a 90% confidence level depending on the total numbers involved. While it may not technically correct to use the word "impossible", the probabilities are so high against that it becomes a trivial difference between impossible and next to impossible.


>
> 3. Additionally the how is used to say there is
> no evidence about how they could have done it so
> the site is not real. A non sequiter.

Yes, the dates in the pit and the artifacts are real, but not the associations between the two. The site (or the ones you have mentioned previously) flunks the Folsom requirements.


>
> 4. The site is labeled controversial so
> everything touching it is enveloped by the
> innuendo.

You are igoring the ovewheming evidence as to why it is controversial.
You are ignoring the requirements demanded for the acceptance of the Folsom site.


> No matter if the majority of
> archaeologists dispute it.

The majority of scientists understand the probabilities demonstrated by the math involved,
amateurs that can't do the math don't.