Why use the words hoax and fraud so prominently? Im sure its because an "avocational" and not a professional made the find. Man has been depicting animals in artwork for tens of thousands of years, do you think he forgot how to etch and sculpt while crossing into the Americas? Kudos to Mr Kennedy for his passion about our past, and the countless hours he has spent in search of it. Without the efforts of this "amateur" this spectacular find may have never been seen and appreciated.

As you can tell from the way I wrote the post, I hope the artifact is real and agree with you that there is no reason why it could not be true. That would be truly wonderful.

I don't hold anything against Mr. Kennedy either. I'm an amateur fossil collector, too. So no, I don't use the words hoax and fraud because of who found it. I use the words to urge caution. Every scientist I've talked to about this has been cautiously enthusiastic. Let a paper on the artifact run the gauntlet of peer-review. Then we can relax and enjoy it.

Why are theories, loose ones at most, so often taught as fact by National Geographic? Sometimes their imaginations go so far into the bizarre and senselessness to challenge any part of the Bible. Really, they do go pretty far at it a lot.

First of their entire basis on the theory of evolution and the idea that man descended from apes is so crazy! One of their greatest arguments is the physical similarity between different species of primates as well as some common DNA matches.
None of this means that one has ever come from the other. At most all it means is that there are species on the planet, surely including humans that have many things in common with others.
Did the snake evolve from the lizard or did the lizard evolve from the snake? Did the eagle evolve from a humming bird at some point?
Lastly, there have been no great evidence in any of these finds that monkey children suddenly started coming out of mama monkey's womb as monkey humans and then human monkeys until finally, humans. Yes we have dug up plenty of skeletons of species that resemble both monkeys and humans but how does this prove some wild timeline?
Does any real science actually suggest that lower primates existing in the world now might someday start evolving into a new round of humans? Or that we ourselves might spawn off an evolution of a whole new species? Do you suggest that some later species might someday dig up our bones and call us Lucy too?
This spirit you call natural selection is as mysterious and allusive as the so-called force in Star Wars.
To say that brown rabbits evolve to white rabbits in snowy climates leave questions that kill the theory. During the process of brown rabbits creating multi-generations of brown rabbits how could a force without a conscience, without intelligence, or without a plan, like your natural selection, (and you forget that the word selection is evolved from the word choice) randomly have the hindsight to start producing rabbits with lighter fur in the on going generations of mother brown rabbits? And to say that the coat is turned white from generations of the species' experience makes no sense either. I am sure that brown rabbits in the snow would surely choose for their young to have white fur, but if there is not a higher force in the game, how could mother rabbits manipulate their offspring’s' coats?
The whole realm of life evolution makes no sense. How the smallest of cell life just came to be (from a comet?) and over a special amount of time become millions of very unique and complex forms of plant and wildlife. This is a portrait of a puzzle being put together by it's own self.
I'm not a holy roller but I can honestly say that genesis makes more sense than any of this. The universe being created in seven days is less absurd than my life being the result of apes at some point in history birthing my ancestors.
Life, the universe is so much damn more complex than your theory that a everything is the result of the making of a few things. Every leaf of grass, every form of life and otherwise had and will always be specifically created. A portrait, a quilt of many different colors, none from another but all put together.
Though things are capable of being altered or changed, reversed, or enhanced, these are not evolution. These are reactions to specific actions. Such as the pug would never of been created from the wolf without the conscience of man. If natural selection does exist then it truly must be the God of the Bible and it's Genesis.

Wow, it looks totally fake, the artists rendering of the animal looks too contemporary. If there was anything similar in the art history of pre-columbian culture it might be possible. But come on NGM! Oh, and Zac, if you have a comment to make at least keep it short and on-topic. You only succeed in making Creationists seem like irrational, crazy folk when you write a diatribe which has nothing to do with the discussion.

Evolution is all around us and happens every day. Like it or not.

Half a century ago mankind invented antibiotics that were extremely effective bacteria killers. Now, half a century later, we are in an arms race. The bacteria have spawned antibiotic-resistant varieties. Varieties that simply didn't exist half a century ago or our drugs wouldn't have worked then.

Every time we invent a new drug and kill 99.999% of these bugs, one or two happen to be insensitive to it and become the dominant variety. That's evolution in its purest form.

Don't think it can't happen to mankind as well. Google for "The Vadoma Ostrich People". They didn't exist either a century ago.

Chris;

I know most of these articles stem from the local Florida articles but what about the engraved mammoth from Jacob's Cavern or the geometric engraved stones from Blackwater draw and Gault? I'm certainly biased but I think this has been getting a little too much of the "First" hype.

What most concerens me and I'm surprised none of those interviewed mentioned it is the three dimensionality (check out the trunk and tusks) that would be exceedingly unusual either here or in the old world.

The vaunted French cave paintings are all fraudulent- or at least are of very recent vintage. They were painted by cultists probably in the late 1800's or early 1900's. That is why, when "discovered", the paint would adhere to the impressed finger. No mystery there.
Modern man is so intent on linking all men together from a single being. But, as has been stated, proving evolution is a tricky business.
In fact, men were seeded on Earth more than 60 thousand years ago by a space-faring super-civilization. Their planet of origin? Vega 4 in the Scapus Major galaxy.
They brought plants and trees as well.

I have seen the artifact.
Mr. Kennedys collection of paleo- artifacts adds suspense and renewed interest in solving the mystery of what happened to VERO MAN.

I disagree with the comment that says you have used "fraud" and "hoax"too prominently. I feel that your piece comes across as guardedly optimistic. There have been so many hoaxes that it seems only natural to approach such an unusual find with caution - and not just because it's an "avocational" find.

I do agree that my initial reaction when I looked at the drawing was that it seemed far more modern and three-dimensional than other prehistoric drawings.

As long as I'm here posting a comment, I'd like to do my part to stop the ubiquitous and ever-growing error of using the contraction it's for the possessive pronoun its. people don't think they need an apostrophe on his, hers, ours, theirs, or my/mine.