I suppose it depends how you define “interesting”
I can do no better than quote ( albeit in relation to another of their articles) :
There is absolutely no reason to ever visit Ancient Origins. 95% of their articles are just rehosted versions of content from places with better intentions. 5% of the content is pure pseudo-science BS. It is particularly insidious to put legitimate research next to stuff like this.
Note the rhetorical strategies used in this article. It never says the "mummy" is real, it just asks questions. It leads with legitimate instances of significant paleoanthropological discoveries in hay to suggest that what you know might just be wrong, as if scientific skepticism was an excuse for not trusting bad research. It never specifically quotes any criticism (e.g. "Gosh, those cross sections of the limbs look an awful lot like twigs and glue), but demands that you have an open-mind about this.
Heck, just look at the number and type of ads they run to see that all they're here for is making money.
Unfortunately for Pyramidiots, the geographical centre of the earth was calculated more recently, and more accurately, as somewhere in Turkey.
Not that they’re likely to let that little discrepancy dissuade them from spouting “alternative” explanations for the construction of these (and hundreds of other) pyramids.
Pass me Occam’s Razor quickly.....