It was a reasonable interpretation based on careful observation, but it could not be fully confirmed with the tools available at the time.

The scientific community’s skepticism — its demand for better evidence before accepting the extraordinary claim — was not wrongheaded.

It was appropriate.

The subsequent history of the Manis case shows how the scientific process is supposed to work: a claim is made, evidence is presented, skepticism is applied, the claim is held in abeyance pending better evidence, better methods are developed, the claim is re-examined with those better methods, and the claim is either confirmed or modified based on the new evidence.

In the Manis case, the claim was confirmed — substantially strengthened, in fact, through the sequential application of AMS dating, CT scanning, protein analysis, and 3D reconstruction.