Amen brother! God has been very, very patient with all the wickedness for a loooooong time. Things are about to get old school Biblical real soon, trust that.
What reals? According to these BS articles all the "real" evidence was destroyed. Slapping in random pics of unrelated sideshow attractions and photoshops only hurts their credibility.
Just means one of the clickbait articles used some old "clickbait" for flair amongst their newer bullshit photoshops.
The NYT article never uses the word "giant" or mentions the skeletons being unusually tall. Just that the male skulls were "much larger than any race to inhabit america today" but the "presumably" female skulls were "smaller". It sounds more like sensationalism over perhaps slightly large skulls perhaps because they were covered in "baked clay"?
they have been doing that for over a century:
https://newsinstact.com/earth/smithsonian-confess-the-destruction-of-giant-skeletons-and-evidences/
Where are the case document sources about the case in the 1900s about the bones? Going to need more than an article for this one boys.
https://archaeology-world.com/the-mystery-behind-the-18-giant-skeletons-found-in-the-usa/
includes NYT as source
Amen brother! God has been very, very patient with all the wickedness for a loooooong time. Things are about to get old school Biblical real soon, trust that.
Goliath's people were about 6ft tall while Davids taller people were 5ft tall. Presumably from malnutrition.
snopes says this is satire, and in this case I believe them. All the photos in the article are clearly bullshit.
I believe some stock photos are fakes. People have been creating fakes to discredit the reals.
What reals? According to these BS articles all the "real" evidence was destroyed. Slapping in random pics of unrelated sideshow attractions and photoshops only hurts their credibility.
But you don't dispute evidence of giant rabbits, elephants, lizards, etc. It's only humans you doubt. Why?
username checks out.
https://www.ancient-code.com/mystery-18-giant-skeletons-found-wisconsin/
there are NYT articles that corroborate the claims in the article.
Just means one of the clickbait articles used some old "clickbait" for flair amongst their newer bullshit photoshops.
The NYT article never uses the word "giant" or mentions the skeletons being unusually tall. Just that the male skulls were "much larger than any race to inhabit america today" but the "presumably" female skulls were "smaller". It sounds more like sensationalism over perhaps slightly large skulls perhaps because they were covered in "baked clay"?
Woah. Never knew this. Thank you for sharing.