Your first link is to an article that cites no real sources that actually back up what the article claims. The external sources it cites either do not say what it claims they say, or they are opinion pieces with no cites to their sources. Most of the cites, however, are just links to early articles on the same site that similarly lack any basis.

The standard MO of that site is to make up something, occasionally even actually labeling at as speculation. Then in later articles they mention it in passing, just saying they have written about it before, and citing back. Then in still later articles, they mention it as fact, and cite one of their secondary articles.