Sigh it’s now clear that you’re not discussing this in good faith so I won’t engage any further. For anyone else bothering to follow the comment chain down this far, this guy is purposely misinterpreting the articles to create the slightest hint of weakness in a part of the evidence and dismiss the whole thing. Read the articles yourself and then decide if they’re “close to definitive” or not.
Sigh it’s now clear that you’re not discussing this in good faith so I won’t engage any further. For anyone else bothering to follow the comment chain down this far, this guy is purposely misinterpreting the articles to create the slightest hint of weakness in a part of the evidence and dismiss the whole thing. Read the articles yourself and then decide if they’re “close to definitive” or not.
Purposely calling out bias is now misinterpretation?
Ya, you’re in the ‘alternative facts’ world where reality doesn’t matter so long as it backs your narrative.
Find a source that’s not biased, and doesn’t reference your original biased source and I’m interested.
The bottom link seems to meet your criteria, but it doesn’t seem like you care.