no doubt disease spread both ways, I read a DNA book recently that discussed some of that...there also would've been a exchange of helpful and harmful DNA that affected both sub-species, some genetic disease we have today it seems we may have inherited from Neanderthals and high altitude adaptation of Tibetans is suspected to have originated in Neanderthals or Denisovans...advances in DNA research is opening a whole new world of info to Anthropologists that they couldn't have imagined back in the 70's.
My longest shot was not a clean kill. It was a kill however -- eventually. It took a second shot with my 44 mag revolver to finish it.
I've found two of them, both in the Indianapolis area. One was in my backyard. It's good example of a Robbins Point, 500 BC to 1 BC, made of Wyandotte chert (light grey-brown). Classic arrowhead size and shape, broken tip. The other was in a local park where I was doing trail work. I thought I was picking up some black plastic trash, turns out it was a black chert spearpoint, broken along one side. Best match I find is among the Early Archaic points, about 7000 BC. Neither one is as old as a Clovis Point, so I can't compare. The workmanship on my two is okay, but not amazing. I know they're not worth anything, but I like them a lot.
well I'm envious, I've never found anything I've got an old work buddy who had a system for finding projectile points, in the spring when the farm fields dried out he'd go for a walk after very windy days and the points would be laying on the surface on top of little mounds as the wind blew away the loose surrounding soil. Fields along rivers were his most prolific areas for points, likely because those same areas were prime game hunting terrain for the natives.
Don't shoot the messenger! Even though I've laid it on the line for you, you still don't grasp the difference between scientists (whose endeavors improve the lot of mankind), and opportunists whose endeavors er, don't! I have no intention of wasting any more time on this discussion with you. I know a closed mind when I see one.
I was being truthful, peer review is not a process you understand, it's a hostile process and often humiliating not a friendly chat among friends covering each others back...if there's are flaws in the study peer review will point it out and shred the research findings... and why subvert a anthropological discussion on Neanderthals into a accusations of scientific conspiracies and peer review then bring NASA into it?... seriously, why?
I understand and believe that for all spheres of science except this one. Because intrinsically, NASA is the root source of all the information?