> Piltdown was rejected 70 years ago, so hardly a current example

Well of course it wasn't a current example -- to quote their original comment:

> Quite frustrating how archeology swings over the years from "we'll believe anything" to "we won't accept any claim without a preserved example". While some of the excesses of the past were clearly excessive ... [emphasis added]

In other words, they feel that historical examples of fanciful theories being mainstream has resulted in an over correction to modern archeology requiring unreasonably strict proof standards.

(There is a certain irony in a user called "AlotOfReading" not reading a fairly short comment carefully...)