Claims of a past purple age now turning up in regular science literature

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150805-neanderthals-strange-large-eyes

The author of the BBC article is clueless as to what the huge hominid eyes were about. Again, basically, they are what you can anticipate finding amongst creatures living on planets aligned with brown dwarf stars. Other examples include lemurs, tarsiers, owls, owl monkeys......

I think Ill go along with the many forensic anthropologists and facial feature reconstructors. Theyve been able to develop what I assume is an accurate depiction of H n.

Vendramini is primarily a huckster and professionally a showman. SO I would suspect his motives (and they dont lean toward scientifc knowledge)

And then, eventually, Barney!

In other words, your earlier comment:



just got blown to hell (the BBC article is obviously not based on a single anomalous specimen) and so now I'm still wrong because you simply like other analyses which, like your own, simply do not amount to a real attempt to deal with the available evidence, better than you like Vendramini's analysis which does?

Have you ever considered trying to rise above being a goofball?

Vendramini had but one specimen that he observed (out of a bunch of others)> I wonder what the stat breakout of the eye socket diameters were measured for the BBC article?

Vendrmini drew some weird unsubstantiated conclusions while BBC's science staff drew less certain conclusions for its own.
So we hqve now seem whqt competing hypotheses look like in the rel world.
Vendramini says that the bigger eye sockets were in parallel with hirsute md flesh eating monsters who liked to get some nookie on the side by raping the cave Hss ladies.

BBC states nothing about the "Mad, hirsute flesh eating cannibals that he defined as the Typical Hn"

Science usually works it out with best evidence since, after all, its ALL circumstantial.
You are jut too quick to buy into any fringe "theories" that pop up. I say , let em fight it out because we know that Vendrminis on reconstructions were falsified(He over accentuated the nares and eye orbit diameters ) even the BBC ones arent nearly as huge as Vendrminis .

Ill satnd by my above assertion that you are easily convinced by the least scientific stories. You are rather gullible, were you always that way???. What abut multiple hypotheses and extraordinary evidence?
How bout ANY EVIDENCE?