But then, he doesn't give his source, just leaves it to be inferred, as he left it to be inferred that the photo was taken in Arnhem land. I'm not sure how much it's just that he's being deliberately non-academic, and how much he's carried away by his eagerness to make his case, but it's a real defect; sometimes he jumps to very debatable conclusions, and could easily mislead in places.

Aargh. I hate it when somebody pointing out a historical put-up job takes shortcuts with their own case -- it feels intellectually dishonest, and I always worry that if I notice the flaw, someone opposing the argument definitely will.

(There was a series of anti-smoking ads in the late 'nineties or early oughts that drove me up the wall because they combined "trying to hard to be cool and edgy," with "logical flaws obvious to any reasonably intelligent teenager.")