3 ms·
This article doesn't really point to a single concrete reason that the title might be true. Its pure navelgazing.
by idiotsecant 5y ago
This article doesn't really point to a single concrete reason that the title might be true. Its pure navelgazing.
- happytoexplain 5y agoDoes it need to? It's hard to expect "concrete" reasons for "might"s and "may"s. Even without them, the information is still interesting.
- InitialLastName 5y agoA) It's anthropology. There is nothing concrete available; the entire field is an attempt to learn things by investigating human societies. In this case, the allegation is that a specific tribe have enough stories about human-like but non-human creatures in their region to be taken seriously (in conjunction with the established presence of non-human hominins in that region in the fossil record) as a record of recent history. B) The article is promotion for a book, which I would hope would have a more cohesive presentation of evidence.
- prepend 5y agoIf the book had anything compelling it would already be news. It’s an interesting and fun subject, but I expect the book is as full of facts as this article.
- wincy 5y agoIt’s easy to find “facts”, when I was 12 or so I got a book about the Bermuda Triangle and was thoroughly convinced that Atlantis was real and had advanced technology in ancient times.
- usrusr 5y agoOnly of you consider advertising a subspecies of navelgazing. Available in May 2022.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bayesian_horse 5y agoThe author points to 30 eyewitnesses he has spoken with and that the current evidence doesn't rule out his proposition.