Ancient bones found off California coast could rewrite human history 40%

By Ross O'Keefe0%

7/7/2026, 6:47:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Framing Effect, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 29.8% saturation with 162 hits. Analysis detected 1,248 faulty-reasoning hits from 543 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.8% and a BS Rank of 40% (13,294 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.70% of the article peer group.

Findings from a mysterious remote chain of islands off the coast of California are rattling bones in the science community as bone-pickers find traces of a “vanished world.” 
The Golden State’s Channel Islands, located several miles off the SoCal coast, are home to the remnants of revelational lost civilizations intriguing enough to make Indiana Jones blush. 
A banner finding in the area has been the 13,000-year-old remains of the “Arlington Springs Man,” the earliest dated adult found on the continent. 
A new documentary highlighted the extraordinary discovery, which has changed science's thinking around where and when humans first migrated to North America. 
Because of the finding of the “Arlington Springs Man,” scientists believe humans could have been on the continent earlier than the Clovis culture recognized as landing in the area first. 
The “Arlington Springs Man” was found on Santa Rosa Island among the four northern Channel Islands, which also include San Miguel, Santa Cruz and Anacapa. 
Other major islands in the archipelago include the Southern Channel Islands of Santa Catalina, Santa Barbara, San Clemente and San Nicolas. 
Evidence found on the Channel Islands suggests humans could have arrived via boat instead of crossing an inland ice corridor. 
If true, it would overturn the conventional thinking that Americans crossed a land bridge from modern-day Siberia and traveled south. 
Instead, ancient humans could have used “kelp highways” to assist them in traveling by boat along the Pacific shoreline to settle in the Channel Islands. 
“This connects with the whole idea of a coastal migration, an ancient coastal migration where people would have been using watercraft and going around glaciers when they encountered them and working their way down until they came to California,” UC Santa Barbara anthropology professor John Johnson said. 
Johnson believes the people who arrived on the Channel Islands evolved into the Chumash tribe, native to California's central and southern coast. 
“People showed up on this island 13,000 years ago or thereabouts and evolved through time into the group we know as the Chumash,” he said. 
Bones of the man were discovered 37 feet below sand, mud, and gravel in 1959. 
Other findings from the Channel Islands include the bones of pygmy mammoths, a type of dwarf mammoth native to the northern Channel Islands. 
The tiny mammoths were much smaller than the popular woolly mammoth, coming in at around 4.5 to 7 feet high at the shoulders and weighing about 2,000 pounds. 
Wooly mammoths were several times bigger, coming in at 14 feet tall and weighing about 20,000 pounds. 
The mini mammoths are thought to have gone extinct around the time that humans arrived on the Channel Islands and when worldwide climates began changing. 
No exact cause has been determined for their disappearance. 
Europeans arrived on the islands in 1542, with Portuguese explorer Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo making landfall. 
Cabrillo chose to winter on the islands after storms forced his ships to turn back before sighting the San Francisco Bay. 
“This was the furthest projection of Europe into a world that they knew nothing about,” one historian said. 
Cabrillo would die there after shattering a limb during a skirmish with indigenous tribes and dying from the complications of the injury in January 1543. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%Ross O'Keefe: 3.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 9.0%Ross O'Keefe: 1.5%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias9.0%This article: 10.3%Ross O'Keefe: 3.4%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic10.3%This article: 8.7%Ross O'Keefe: 0.9%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.7%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 1.5%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 1.3%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.6%Ross O'Keefe: 11.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect18.6%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.7%Ross O'Keefe: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Ross O'Keefe: 1.8%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Ross O'Keefe: 15.0%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 2.3%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 2.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 2.4%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.9%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 4.3%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.3%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 1.4%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 1.3%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.4%Ross O'Keefe: 5.2%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority7.4%This article: 3.7%Ross O'Keefe: 1.6%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 3.7%Ross O'Keefe: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.7%Ross O'Keefe: 4.3%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization8.7%This article: 4.6%Ross O'Keefe: 0.9%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring4.6%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.2%Ross O'Keefe: 10.4%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion12.2%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.0%Ross O'Keefe: 3.1%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.2%Ross O'Keefe: 1.1%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof9.2%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.2%Ross O'Keefe: 2.8%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal5.2%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.3%Ross O'Keefe: 3.4%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.3%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.6%Ross O'Keefe: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading4.6%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.2%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 29.8%Ross O'Keefe: 4.6%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote29.8%This article: 3.3%Ross O'Keefe: 2.4%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection3.3%This article: 16.8%Ross O'Keefe: 11.0%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice16.8%This article: 8.7%Ross O'Keefe: 0.6%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination8.7%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 0.2%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 1.9%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ross O'Keefe: 1.4%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

543 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker17%attributed speech449writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Johnson • 47 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Johnson • 22 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Johnson • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Johnson

100%flagged-word coverage
94 attributed words100% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Indoctrination+50.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%John Johnson: 50.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote+24.4 ptsWriter: 25.6%John Johnson: 50.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.3 ptsWriter: 20.3%John Johnson: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%John Johnson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.