Friday, July 3, 2009

940,000 B.C.

Charles W. Naeser was a nuclear chemist who made uranium hexaflouride for the Manhattan Project and was friends with Fermi, Gamow, and Teller.

"Much is known about Early Man in the Old World, where new discoveries continue to expand our knowledge base. Unfortunately, in the New World our knowledge is largely limited to Clovis and younger cultures. The study of potential pre-Clovis sites is not encouraged, and those who report a possible pre-Clovis site do so at significant risk to their career." -- Charles W. Naeser, chemist, April 2007

"As a scientist I am embarrassed that it has taken more than 30 years for archaeologists and geologists to revisit the bone and artifact deposits of Valsequillo Reservoir. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, data were presented that suggested Early Man had been in the New World much earlier than anyone had previously thought. Rather than further investigate the discoveries, which is what should have been done, they were buried under the sands of time, in the hope that they would be forgotten." -- Charles W. Naeser, chemist, April 2007

"I determined fission-track ages on zircons from two of the tephra units overlying the artifacted beds. The Hueyatlaco ash yielded a zircon fission-track age of 370,000+/-200,000 years, and the Tetela brown mud yielded an age of 600,000+/-340,000 years. There is a 96 percent chance that the true age of these tephras lie within the range defined by the age and the plus or minus value. Now, there were four different geological dating techniques that suggested a far greater antiquity to the artifacts than anyone in the archaeological community wanted to admit." -- Charles W. Naeser, chemist, April 2007

Irwin-Williams, C., et al., Comments on the Associations of Archaeological Materials and Extinct Fauna in the Valsequillo Region Puebla Mexico, American Antiquity, Volume 34, Number 1, Pages 82-83, Jan 1969

Szabo, B.J., Malde, H.E., and Irwin-Williams, C., Dilemma Posed By Uranium-Series Dates On Archaeologically Significant Bones From Valsequillo Puebla Mexico, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 6, Pages 237-244, Jul 1969

Corliss, W.R., The Hueyatlaco Dilemma, Science Frontiers, Number 21, May-Jun 1982

Steen-McIntyre, V., Approximate Dating of the Tephra Using the Microscope: 'Seat-of -the-Pants' Methods to Roughly Date Quaternary Archaeological and Paleontological Sites By Associated Pumice and Volcanic Ash Layers, Proceedings, 2002

VanLandingham, S.L., Corroboration of Sangamonian Age of Artifacts From the Valsequillo Region Puebla Mexico By Means of Diatom Biostratigraphy, Micropaleontology, Volume 50, Number 4, Pages 313-342, 2004

González, S., et al., Human Footprints in Central Mexico Older Than 40,000 Years, Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 25, Issues 3-4, Pages 201-222, Feb 2006

VanLandingham, S.L., Diatom Evidence For Autocthonous Artifact Deposition In the Valsequillo Region Puebla Mexico During Sangamonian (sensu lato = 80,0000 to ca. 220,000 yr BP and Illinoian (220,000 to 430,000 yr BP)), Journal of Paleolimnology, Volume 36, Number 1, Pages 101-116, Jul 2006

Hardaker, C., The First American: The Suppressed Story of the People Who Discovered the New World, 2007

Egypt Discovers What May Be Oldest Human Footprint, Reuters, Aug 2007

Egypt Footprint 'Could Be Oldest', BBC, Aug 2007

Huddart, D., et al., Analysis of Preservation of Pleistocene Human and Animal Footprints: An Example From Toluquilla Valsequillo Basin (Central Mexico), Ichnos, Volume 15, Numbers 3-4, Pages 232-245, Jul 2008

Roach, J., Oldest Human Footprints with Modern Anatomy Found, National Geographic, Feb 2009

Earliest 'Human Footprints' Found, BBC, Feb 2009

Wilford, J.N., Prints Show a Modern Foot in Prehumans, The New York Times, Feb 2009

Oldest Human Footprints Found In Kenya, Telegraph, Feb 2009

1 comment:

Louis Hissink said...

Evolution is how a Victorian Era scientist would explain Biblical Creation during the passage of some undetermined period of time.

Fundamentalists would argue that it occurred instantly.

So is the progression of life forms deduced from an imprecise interpretation of the stratigraphic record evidence of evolution, or as a record of life forms suited to a particular environment? And thus nothing to do with complex life forms evolving from simpler ones.