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.
Doubt what? These articles themselves are either satire or poorly fabricated clickbait. They don't even count as a claim of anything as far as I'm concerned, let alone "evidence". They aren't even taking themselves seriously. Let me see something that isn't obvious bullshit, and the NYT snippet they cannibalized doesn't actually make such outlandish claims. It rises to barely above a rumor a far as the actual information it contains.
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"?
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?
Doubt what? These articles themselves are either satire or poorly fabricated clickbait. They don't even count as a claim of anything as far as I'm concerned, let alone "evidence". They aren't even taking themselves seriously. Let me see something that isn't obvious bullshit, and the NYT snippet they cannibalized doesn't actually make such outlandish claims. It rises to barely above a rumor a far as the actual information it contains.
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"?