donald r raab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are already there. it is called clovis
> forever. Not going there.


Your junk sites simply don't pass the test for good science. Clovis does, try to accept that.

>
> What are you talking about?

Just exactly what I said, try reading my comment and the abstract again.

> You are really out
> there lost in clovis.

Thanks, I'm really hooked on good science.


> The abstract link is about valseqiuillo; NOT the
> same area site involving claimed footprints. is
> that too hard to understand?

Your reply is hard to understand since the paper is a review of the Valsequillo area.

> I realize the clovis
> types like to mix the two because then they extend
> the failure (reported by gonzalez footprints) with
> The other valseqillo site (the controversial dated
> one to 250-k). One is wrong so both are wrong.

Of course, neither site passes the requirements for Folsom. And until the second one does it is wrong also.


> No; Well you are plain wrong no matter how much
> you try to spin it.

Lack of evidence is now spin?
>
> The abstact has how many controversial labels in
> that short paragraph? By every date claim type?
> Well the dating techniques and tools work.

No one said they didn't. There isn't a direct date on anything but dirt at Velsequillo.


> They
> have been used all over the world.

Who claimed they weren't?

So what was the direct date on the carved bone?