Some very interesting ideas here, unfortunately mixed with many that I cannot honestly accept. An object this transparently destructive and significant takes more work to sell than what's here. The article could've been much improved by having more ambiguity and letting sparse given details paint a picture for the reader.
The precise details of the first addendum are what push the article from being questionable in canon to being absurd regardless. The existence of "numerous technologically advanced civilizations approximately 10,000 years ago" is more than enough for an article by itself, and glossing over it indicates that this story was not ready to leave the drawing board.
A camera having been manufactured 10,000 years ago does not sound any more credible when one calls it a "camera-like device"… 2/5
Simeon: Well, have you heard of ████'s ███?
Error: Subtlety not found