[Ansteorra] Inca's in Norway???

[Cisco Cividanes]

The paper was reporting a theory, and as it stands the theory is not 
beyond the realm of possibility.

And I don't think that the 'reasonable' comment is appropriate either.  
To my mind that is just as presumptuous as you are accusing them of being.
A LOT of today's hard facts were at one point laughed at when they were 
in the theory stages years back. Just so long as no one tries to teach 
*this* as fact prematurely, I don't believe the charge of  
'sensationalism' fits.

Lord Ivo Blackhawk


> It's sensation, not science. 
>
> Body X, found in Scandinavia, has a particular deformation of the 
> skeleton. 
>
> Bodies A-W, found in South America, have until now been the only 
> bodies in which that particular deformation has been seen. 
>
> The journalist concludes that Body X must be from South America. 
>
> A _reasonable_ person would conclude that the cause of the deformation
> may be more widespread than previously known, or that Body X had the
> same deformation as a result of a mutation or disease which was unique
> to Body X in the Scandinavian population. 
>
> If Bodies 1-25, also found in Scandinavia, exhibit the same skeletal 
> deformation, _then_ it becomes a much more interesting problem, but 
> so far there's only Body X, from which the journalist generalizes. 
> It is unwise to generalize from a single instance. 
>
> The journalist is in the business of whipping up circulation, which he
> does by shouting "Zebra!" and pointing, every time he hears hoofbeats.
> I'm more likely to look at the source, say "Horses again", and go back
> to whatever I was doing. 
>
>