[contravariant]

> An analysis also needs to start by testing a null hypothesis, not deciding on the conclusion and setting out to "prove" it.

> I do not think that in its present form, the evidence presented in this study is as robust as it should be.

> the manuscript in its current condition is deemed incomplete and inadequate, and should not be viewed as finalized scholarship.

I mean they sound polite, but if you strip back the polite language and understatements they're pretty much calling the authors quacks.

[koheripbal]

Which is fair. Scratch marks around the cave were said to be attempts at art. The fact that the bones were in a cave made them conclude that they were "burying" their dead rather than the more plausible conclusion that they died in the cave as a result of some water or gas flooding.

The original paper is just garbage