posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:26 PM
To those who seem to be posting skepticism without evidently reading the article:
#1 if you read the article, the "car/tractor" is baked clay... not a far leap of imagination there, easy to sculpt for pete's sake they were writing
#2 no one in the serious archaeological world goes brandishing outlandish claims without warrant. If they say they estimate it to be around 7000
ish... then it's because of the dig layer from which it came. Yes, some things are difficult to carbon date, but this item may have been found in the
proper strata or they found pollen or some-such...
point being, no museum of repute would make such a claim without proof... the archaeological world would not allow it. You must understand how
difficult it is to even have a paper published some times. It goes without saying that anything that rocks the foundations of what we know is heavily
scrutinized! Let's be real here!!
It's not like this is some guy without a degree saying he found this artifact in his back yard while digging a hole for a swimming pool!
This article has run in rather reputable archaeological magazines. How can we lowly armatures refute what science has accepted as proven?
There have been stranger things found that are verified as authentic.
edit on 3-1-2012 by Invariance because: grammar