alt Hacker News“The breaks indicate a very large area of impact and devastation,” she says. “It’s likely the individual was killed by a siege engine.”
So it’s likely, which means it’s not confirmed as the headline implies.
“The breaks indicate a very large area of impact and devastation,” she says. “It’s likely the individual was killed by a siege engine.”
So it’s likely, which means it’s not confirmed as the headline implies.
I don't get the nitpicking here. Scientifically correct, since circumstantial. Meteor is also possible, but very unlikely.
The probability regimes in which science is dealing often only leave marginal room for alternative explanations.