testing done by Dr. Pugati of other organic material (pine pollen) from the same level which yielded the same date range as the first tests. The pine pollen does not have the problem that the original dating of ruppia cirrhosa seeds had. Pine pollen dating is reliable.
Another dating test was done using OSL, (optically stimulated luminescence). That yielded the same date range as the ruppia and pine pollen.
Three separate, independent tests give the same dates.
The reluctance of Rachal to accept the dates is looking like the old Clovis First theorists who refused to accept evidence of sites earlier than Clovis ones in the Americas. Dr. James Adovasio, who excavated the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in western PA ran into the same kinds of opposition when that site yielded dates of 14,000+ years. In an interview, he referred to the people who refused to accept those dates as the Clovis Mafia.
It is the nature of science to question and challenge new information as it becomes available. It's part of the testing and verif8cation process and exchange of information. But, when people challenge the validity of 3 separate tests and date findings that agree with each other, then I question the motives of the challengers.
Edit to add:
https://www.sci.news/othersciences/anthropology/white-sands-footprints-radiocarbon-dating-12332.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
