Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

A40 t1_jef2f05 wrote

Thanks for that, Chet. And our next item features other wild speculations...

34

ryschwith t1_jeggy3q wrote

I don’t know, the paper has some pretty compelling data. Certainly not a slam dunk—I’d like to see the symbols interpreted/recorded by someone not directly associated with the study to remove possible bias from that process, for example—but solid enough to be worth getting more eyes on it.

11

A40 t1_jeghjr2 wrote

The 'symbols' look like this (make them bigger/smearier): . . .

(They might be mosquitoes. Or spits. Or signatures.)

−2

Muroid t1_jegky7a wrote

What they look like is kind of irrelevant. If they’re consistent, they’re consistent. If they’re not, they’re not.

15

ryschwith t1_jegkyqu wrote

If they were random splotches they wouldn’t fit well to the expected patterns.

9