>>5041593
>pop sci
Where did the 'sci' part come from? You sound like a retard saying "Um wikipedia isn't a source" because you're too nil-witted to look up the sources wikipedia conveniently lists and often links to for you. This is similar to the "Um actually no paleontologist believes this! It's just paleoartists" non-argument, which is 100% false too. Paleontologists commission art for papers all the time and it's typically very inaccurate on purpose because it gets more media coverage that way.