A good scientist is a skeptical/cynical scientist.
And never forget the two main rules of understanding scientific findings:
1) pay no attention to what media reports say about a scientific finding. Read the paper instead. The media almost never gets things right and very often completely misrepresents them.
2) One paper is the same as no paper. Don't even think about entertaining the notion that what a single paper says is actually true. Wait until there are other papers from researchers trying to reproduce results.
The cynical skepticism isn't a bad thing, especially as you've pointed out, so much stuff has been published that would make it necessary. Wholehearted acceptance, blindly, on anything new is just not a sound practice. Even if reviewing and confirming the material only takes minutes, it was at least reviewed and confirmed.
>All that evidence after nearly half a million years is a miracle of a find.
I really hope this doesn't turn out to be one of those too good to be true finds. I hate that the nature of academic research is making me so cynical