I look at the raw data scans like in Fig 2, and for the life of me am not convinced they just make stuff up in the other charts. It's just one of those things where being so not familiar with the raw data makes it hard to really see it for what it is. Similar to how some people don't understand FLIR images are heat readings and not black&white video. Lot's of "fun" TV shows trying to prove/disprove something underground with ground penetrating radar, yet the results are just never really convincing unless "you want to believe". Otherwise, they are very Rorschach looking to me. It's almost like the raw data is someone drawing a circle, and then the pretty charts is where someone drew the rest of the fucking owl.<p>I guess this says more about my level of disbelief of any new studies like this though