Is anyone else troubled by the submitted article coming from Fortean Times? That's not usually considered a reliable source, as it doesn't fact-check the way many other publications would.
I was troubled, but read the article. It was a little breathless, but seemed okay.
Though I didn't like clicking through a link on HN and seeing, essentially, "Garden of Eden located!" I was suspicious enough that I googled Gobekli Tepe and found this Smithsonian article:
I read all the links from Wikipedia entry and searched for more articles before submitting, but I liked this one.
But all articles I found beside the Wikipedia one, had something I didn't like; they were boring, less information, or had needless speculation. But the submitted one despite the speculation had extra detail.
I never heard of Fortean Time. I didn't know of their reputation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
Is anyone else troubled by the submitted article coming from Fortean Times? That's not usually considered a reliable source, as it doesn't fact-check the way many other publications would.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortean_Times