A better question might be how good is your evidence that Colvis "people" were not Paleoindians?
In regards this article: This is an excerpt of an article, so the word choices are those of original writers. Additionally, Folsum Points are, in general, later than Clovis Points. Folsum points have generally been considered to have derived from the basic Clovis design, although they have been not been found over as wide an area of North America as the earlier Clovis points, some of which are found on the eastern seaboard.
Re your comments "...Folsom points and associated Clovis culture appear in the USA eastern seaboard sites pretty much at the same time as the Solutrean culture disappears from the archaeological record in western France...."
These are the dates I have seen:
Folsum 10000-11000BC (uncertain if this is calendar or RCYBP)
Colvis 11,500 to 10,900 (RCYBP)
Solutrean 20,500 to 17,000BC (RCYBP)
The gap between Solutrean and Clovis is one of the chief argument against Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley's "Solutrean Hypothisis." For my own part the overwelming, massive predominance of Asian origin DNA in the Americas is the basic support that the people in the New World prior to early European exploration could be classed as "Paleo Indian."
You might want to read this is a link for the Megalithic Portal's report on Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley's "Solutrean Hypothisis" and the links in comments for that story.
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road