You're being overly dismissive. There's quite clearly a substantial amount of research here, and in a cursory reading I detected no explicitly bombastic claims, which are usually indicative of crankwork.
Sure, it's not peer-reviewed, and his other articles might look quite loony, but he does highlight some anthropological discrepancies in this piece. Not everyone can have their articles peer-reviewed.
Sure, it's not peer-reviewed, and his other articles might look quite loony, but he does highlight some anthropological discrepancies in this piece. Not everyone can have their articles peer-reviewed.