If I were to be asked, “what is more important, discovery of a few apelike creatures in Africa purportedly aligning with a popular scientific axiom (axiom: an idea not demanding evidence in order to be accepted as true) or the discovery of ‘cultural’ evidence of early man in the Americas,” I would unhesitatingly go with the cultural evidence.

However, in the case of stone tools, their study additionally involves the step-by-step real-time processes by which they were made using undisputed physical evidence to “prove” these processes, so it involves a level of science beyond the speculations of paleontologists and biologists.

This conflict between submitting to a popular theory that one was trained to believe while at the same time being open to adjusting ones opinions based on new evidence is the legacy of Louis Leakey (Fig. 1).

In our modern science mentality Leakey’s work in Africa promoting the popular paradigm that man evolved there and then slowly spread through Europe and Asia is regarded as important while his work at Calico Early Man Site—a site in the Americas with signs of human culture dating to c. 50,000-200,000 years old (Figs. 2, 3, 4)—is derided by promoters of the standard paradigm as an embarrassment (see Chris Hardaker’s, The Abomination of Calico, part 1, PCN #6, July-August 2010).

First, here is a list of enlightening articles related to Calico published in Pleistocene Coalition News the past three years:

With Calico now being threatened in a manner inappropriate to archaeology combined with the passing of two of the Coalition’s primary members,Virginia’s husband, David McIntyre, and Sam VanLandingham, as well as many difficulties for the main pillar of the Coalition, Virginia, I thought it a good time to put in a little extra work and offer this ‘unedited’ transcript of Dr. Leakey’s 2nd talk, “The Problems of Calico.” It is, in fact, the only verbatim transcript of the talk. It shows Leakey’s confidence in Calico as influenced by his 47 years of experience making stone tools and doing experimental flaking, his research and discoveries in Africa and Europe, as well as his studies of other controversial sites. He explains the differences between human-made artifacts and what the mainstream tries to brush off as ‘geofacts.’ The latter is something that the public buys without looking into the evidence. Fig. 4 will give the reader an opportunity to make up their own minds as to whether or not artifacts from Calico—in cases identical to artifacts from Europe—are man-made or nature-made.

The original recording from 1970 from which the transcript was made was provided by Fred E. Budinger Jr., former Director of Calico Early Man Site. Painstaking work over headphones was necessary after noise reduction, rumble, hum, and hiss removal, and EQ to bring some clarity to the voice in order to transcribe the recording word for word along with research to confirm difficult to hear sections. Apart from deleting a few repeated words this transcript is verbatim and contains much information not in the original publication. From the re-mastered audio one can hear Leakey’s passion and enthusiasm for Calico.

The new transcript reproduced below begins at Leakey’s first complete sentence in the original as, unfortunately, the first few paragraphs were not recorded. Dr. Leakey is talking on the topic of distinguishing between human-made flakes of stone, i.e. artifacts, and similar-looking objects created by nature. The rest of the transcript will appear in Issue #22 of PCN. The re-mastered audio will be available on the Coalition homepage shortly after this issue goes to press. All emphasis in italics represent emphasis by Leakey. Words in [brackets] are uncertain.

Louis Leakey speaking:

“You get situations on beaches. I’ve seen it at Weymouth; and then I did study there of what waves do in a storm when on the pebble beaches of Weymouth. And then Desmond Clarke who says in a similar study (I think of Eastborne or somewhere else and under storm conditions on a pebble beach) stones are hurled at each other and a certain number hit each other in such a way a flake comes off. But the number is infinitesimal and scattered over a length of beach, not a concentration in a small area with nothing elsewhere. There’s a uniform scatter.

I’ve seen what can be done in outwash glacial gravels. And I would just simply say that I want you to realize that in claiming that the artifacts which we have found and which we are going to show a proportion to you (not too many show you all but a relative good sample) this afternoon, I have from the very beginning taken into very close consideration this question of whether or not these could have been the work of nature. Any one single one just possibly could. But when they are in concentration—it’s a limited area—and when we put down pits into the fan elsewhere without getting that concentration—sometimes getting none at all or getting a singleton—then it is much more convincing still.

And I think you can say that there’s another thing about the site which will be elaborated I hope by Tom Clements, presently. The fan deposits which you have seen are not a great mass of stones moving down together but stones mixed up with sands and gravels.

And finally on this point—not the other points covered—on this point, finally, I would say that nature is never selective. [We have] beds of a French site—Belaise—or the [charred place] where you’ve got natural flaking and many other sub-sites, nature pushes off flakes of good material and bad material. A piece of chert that’s heavily riddled with holes is pushed off so the flake that comes off it is riddled with holes and irregularities.

And one of the most striking things, even with the cortex flakes at Calico, is that almost without exception—and I can only think of two exceptions in my mind—they are not flakes struck off of a bad piece of chert; they are flakes struck off a selected piece of chert or a piece of jasper.

There are [inaudible 3 syllables] and again, there are other materials besides cherts and jasper available in that fan; and we do not have those flakes until the few in limestone.

This selectivity is something nature never does. Nature is pushing off flakes at random. Man pushes off flakes, knocks off flakes, for a specific purpose.

[Fig. 4 is a blade from Calico dismissed as ‘nature-made’ by mainstream scientists compared with an identical piece called a ‘human artifact’ by the same scientists. It is provided so the reader can see the type of evidence Leakey is describing and what mainstream keeps from the public eye. Hopefully this comparison will be an easy one for anyone wondering whether or not the objects from Calico are evidence of early humans in the Americas.]