Perhaps the 65000 years people didn't leave any descendants. Or perhaps that DNA research wasn't definitive.
You say there are multiple things that contradict it. What are the others? It can't be evidence of people being there at more recent times -- that doesn't contradict evidence that they were there earlier.
"Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link)"
But that's obvious. The field of paleontology/archeology works with any evidence that suggests older. One confirmed finding of "older" is enough to redate and trump multiple newer findings.
In other words, dating an archaeological finding gives you a lower bound of how long there has been human activity on the site. Finding something older does not contradict previous results - and there are good reasons why older things are more difficult to find so absence of evidence is not (strong) evidence of absence.
No one has proven there's no 9th planet for instance. No one's proven drug X doesn't help with disease Y.
Multiple things have pointed to way less than 65,000 years (As per link)
Of course conformity with theory is also a problem, we think it's 50,000 years so we make our study on X (aka DNA) conform with this.
But both articles are HN worthy and one is wrong. So if you're not skeptical then there's a problem with your world view.