3 ms·
Because eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable? There’s not a shred of physical evidence?
by ZanyProgrammer 4y ago
Because eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable? There’s not a shred of physical evidence?
- krageon 4y agoTheir point is people get convicted on "not a shred of physical evidence", but plenty of eyewitnesses. Why are the rules for punishing someone so much more lax than the rules for whether or not something can exist?
- lkrubner 4y agoThis researcher is claiming 30 eyewitnesses: "These include reports of sightings by more than 30 eyewitnesses, all of whom I spoke with directly." That's a lot of people. This not comparable to the 90 year old granny who squints and says "Yes, officer, that's the man, I'm sure that is him." About this: "There’s not a shred of physical evidence?" Why does there need to be physical evidence? As he asks in the article, why aren't the observations recorded enough?
- nescioquid 4y agoCould it not be that these people (like others elsewhere) have a folk tradition about "little people"? Could the tradition have its roots in a prior encounter with fossils of this hominid? Hardly enough to surpass reasonable doubt, I think.