This is the perfect example of how Pseudo Science attempts to disquise itself as Applied Science (actual science based upon the laws of phyics...i.e., facts). Your link professes to deal in FACTS, not assumptions, conjectures, speculations and opinion.
Read from the very first paragraph of this supposed FACTUAL article, 3rd line .........".......ARE 'BELIEVED' TO HAVE BEEN". A belief is not a fact.
When reading the entire article you find it laced not with any application of science but an application of "creative writing".
Descriptive, imaginary words and phrases are heavily used. "According To", "They likely", then they present a supposed scientific report from an institution called NATURE SCIENTIFIC .........that delacres that "SUGGESTS.......a contray hypothesis", all with no presentation of facts in evidence only opinion.
Reading further we find "ACCORDING TO RESERACHERS........yada, yada, yada"......more opinon laced propaganda
The report even admits to SELECTING certain objects to date in order ensure.....a date they were projecting. Omitting the reason why other objects were omitted from the dating process in question. Could it be? Those dates did not fall in line with the projected sought after dates of predetermination?
Creative Writing:
Creative writing - Wikipedia