"It probably WAS a chimp. I don't have too much faith in what these so called scientists find. They've been wrong before."
I see. You must have information they don't have, then, I suppose. You've examined these remains and, in your expert judgment, have decided they are chimps. Is that correct?
Phooey! Anyone who studies primates can tell the difference between a chimp's bones and of a hominid's bones. I could even do it, and I'm not even in that field.
If you have a reason for thinking these are chimps, let's hear it. If you're just blowing smoke, well, never mind.
Scientists have been proven wrong before. I don't remember all the details but apparently they had thought part of a skull that was found was the remains of early man. It turned out to be that of a chimp or gorilla.
The case is less "have reason to believe they are chimps" and more "have reason to doubt anything and everything from the source, and considering we only found one, and we dont have much evidence, we may assume they are wrong."
Either that or "we found a pygmy or dwarf corpse that decayed rapidly"
Point is, this article is a sure jump of the gun. It focuses on only one possible outcome, and provides little information.
If they had more information, they should provide it. Or have you never seen a magazine selling Sea Monkeys?