I think it doesn’t. A lot of conspiracy theorists use a technique where they start with something that is true, some facts A and B, and then C is controversial.

I think it doesn’t. A lot of conspiracy theorists use a technique where they start with something that is true, some facts A and B, and then C is controversial. You let your guard down with A and B, and are more susceptible with C. He is honest with the extraordinary proof he needs, but his article never much strays from pure speculation. It’s a nice flight of fancy. A lot is lost to history, no doubt, which skews our understanding greatly, especially prehistorical. But that is Dozens of steps away from finding a laptop from 10000bc or marsial burial chambers and having your advanced civilization theory stick. The article felt like shoehorning theories / finds to make them stick in his view.