top of page

Three Plus One Equals None: Archaeological Contradictions

By Steven & Evan Strong


There have been some recent distressing developments in regard to the desecration of two deliberately unregistered sites near Kariong and Mullumbimby, which are both incredibly important sacred places, so much so that we are compelled to defend and respond. In seeking out the causes of this continuous destruction of sacred sites all over Australia, we have decided to analyse the recurring academic preference to ignore any archaeology found in Australia that contradicts their absolute historical truths. We intend to dismantle then reassemble this endorsed intransigence with the assistance of two papers, one short article in the magazine Nexus and a very heavy rock.

                The first paper chosen is as much a biased polemic as it is an archaeological critique, despite the inherent contradictory agenda it’s worth is in the questions raised in canvassing the repeated academic recalcitrance, denials and blinkered approach to pick and choose what is convenient and self-serving. Before beginning this report, we have to concede that the author of this paper, Alexandra Marshall, is lacking in one fundamental academic pre-requisite. Beside or near her name is no degree, academic institutional posting or peers in support provided. This means for many ‘experts’ there is no need to look, read or discuss. A name without an acceptable academic qualification is a seminal sin of omission.

                Nevertheless, it could be that despite lacking one solitary mainstream tick, her analysis of one example of this institutionalised denial when discussing the Out-of-Africa theory that so many insist is factual, has credentials. We believe that the reasons she supplies in explaining the refusal to address the contradictions and tenuous assumptions that underpin this conventional ancient narrative concerning human evolution and pre-history, is very close to the mark.

                It is undeniable that her opening comments clearly call into question many of the current mainstream theories sanctified by the Australian archaeological ‘experts.’ She begins her analysis/polemic with an observation we are totally on board with. “Those who lived through the last two decades will be well acquainted with the increasing rigidity applied to scientific theories that also hold political value. We have returned to an age where the truth of a theory comes second to its significance as scaffolding maintaining the validity of lucrative ideological and economic causes.”(1)

                Marshall begins her investigation by citing Charles Darwin’s work and the initial hostile reactions of mainstream critics noting that “it was the scientific institutions themselves that fought to hold back progress, fearing the wraith of their benefactors, the moral outrage of society, and the insult of peoples’ life’s work being proven wrong.”(2) Granted the uproar over Darwin’s research is over a century and a half old, and of the three reasons given then some are less of an issue now, but we believe the acknowledgement that any radical advancement in archaeology will challenge what is assumed to be true and confront those who hold fast to theories manifestly crumbling at the edges, has been the main culprit during recent times.

                Marshall stated that the “scientific establishment has long been an unhelpful gatekeeper, which makes the current pretence of being the ‘sole source of truth’ even more laughable … The catch-cry ‘trust the science’ harks back to those dusty, power-hungry, archaic establishment scientists. Trust is a measure of faith, not fact.”(3)


Back to the Present

Once establishing an antagonistic historical precedent when Darwin’s work was first released, Marshall then addressed the current popular explanation in relation to Out-of-Africa theory, which she claims, “is a sin against evolutionary science.”(4) She begins by making a concession even the most devout advocate of this theory would be forced to momentarily concede before closeting away such diversions in deepest recesses of their brain. “And yet for some time there has been a suspicion that the out of Africa theory may be wrong. It has been a cascade of little things. A fossil here. A clash of migratory patterns there. A gradual accumulation of facts that chip away at the grand theory.”(5)

The Out-of-Africa Theory Map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spreading_homo_sapiens_la.svg (From: NordNordWest, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)


Falling Into the Same old Trap.

To begin with, it must be acknowledged that there is an inherent contradiction that underpins the thesis of this paper, as Marshall expands upon her scientific rebuttal by relying on the same scientists who espouse this theory she discredits. She dismisses the geography of ‘where’ it happened, but when it comes to how, it is all about the same traditional approach. What she is claiming is that as we all know that we evolved from apes and that is known to be incontestably true, and if the first apes in this planet did not originate in Africa, but Europe, then that must mean sapiens evolved and emerged in Europe first.

                However, as the reputed archaic evolutionary ‘missing link’ between apes and hominids has never been found, there is no absolute empirical certainty in her acceptance of this mainstream theory. Moreover, all primates, apes, monkeys etc. do not have sutures but a hardened inflexible sagittal keel, having sutures means that hominids alone have the capacity and elasticity in the skull for it to expand. However, according to the scientists, our ancient parents did not have sutures. More importantly, why is it all monkeys and apes since inception maintain similar height, weight, speed of movement, vocal ranges, and despite miniscule variations, the same facial features, while humans share nothing? We all have different faces, fingerprint patterns, voices and even heartbeats. We can stand half-a-metre tall or up to two-and-a-half metres, we can weigh between thirty to three hundred kilograms, while some humans cannot reach a top speed of ten kilometres per hour, yet others can move at over thirty kilometres per hour.

                And so the variations in humans continue, unlike every other animal on this planet except those that have been genetically interfered with, we are inbuilt to be not the same, but different in every respect. However, Marshall is adamant we had a non-sutured mummy and daddy ape who shared everything genetically, if so, who made these sutured babies hard-wired to share nothing in common. That theory seems no more unstable and tenuous than the Out-of-Africa theory. Despite this contradiction, Marshall does raise some associated observations that are of value when reporting the discovery of “an 8.7 million-year-old fossil from Anadoluvius Turkae has been found in Central Anatolia in Turkey (sic).”(6)

Anadoluvius Skull https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anadoluvius_skull.webp (From: Ayla Sevim-Erol, D. R. Begun, Ç. Sönmez Sözer, S. Mayda, L. W. van den Hoek Ostende, R. M. G. Martin & M. Cihat Alçiçek, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

                As expected, Marshall sees this as the pivotal cross-over point in humanities’ evolution, she opens by refencing a report appearing “in various scientific journals after being published in Communication Biology,”(7) discussing the discovery and implications of this 8,700,000-year-old “fossil ape.”(8) It was “part of a group known as the Late Miocene apes that have been found across this region and in Europe, with more than one sub-species discovered. They are a common ancestor sitting above gorillas, humans, chimpanzees and bonobos in the Tree of Life. Those researching the find believe this species moved from the Mediterranean into Africa around 8 million years ago.”(9)

                To validate this potential pathway Marshall quoted directly from Professor David Begun who said that “these findings contrast with the long-held view that African apes and humans evolved exclusively in Africa. While remains of early hominines are abundant in Europe and Anatolia, they are completely absent in Africa.”(10) Marshall is correct in noting that “at this particular time, South-Eastern Europe contained the ancestors of rhinos, giraffes, and other animals more commonly associated with Africa.”(11) She felt that it is not inconsistent in assuming these apes also took the same southern route towards Africa, which is sound, but whether or not apes are part of modern human ancestry when there is no missing link or conclusive genetic proof, is no less than debatable.


Returning to Home Base

Marshall is correct in stating that “it was always believed that African-born humans colonised Europe,”(12) and of course those same Africans are supposed to have settled in the completely unpopulated Australian mainland. She is adamant that “humans are of European origin, not African,”(13) and she feels that once proven this completely changes the politics and ancestry of the Original people of Australian, who are merely a European off shoot.

                From this point on after criticising mainstream for being servants to expedient politics, her alternative offering is that we must accept a global modern human European ancestry, “or do we go with the creation narrative that Aboriginal people have been here since the time of creation therefore giving them eternal privilege over other Australians.”(14)

                Of course, the claim of “Aboriginal”(15) privilege above all others has never been made by any Original Elder or spokesperson, yes many have insisted to be worthy of equality with other Australians, which is still an incredibly long way off, but as for demanding much more in perpetuity, that is a lie. But Marshall is now lost to her prejudices when declaring that all non-Original people are subject to vilification and racism by the Original oppressors. She complains about having to endure “their offensive and hateful demands that we should go back to England.”(16) I do not know anyone who is a white Australian being subjected to this extreme bitter racism, but I do know of many white Australians who repeatedly expressed the same racist rant given freely to newly arrived Muslims, Asians, Sudanese and people from all over the world, and that even includes white English immigrants coming just after WW2 being insulted and mocked for their ethnicity. Until reading this allegation, as such ridiculous claims as these are so patently untrue, I was quite stunned, as the reality is her article is not about archaeology or a critique of mainstream science, but merely a racist diatribe camouflaged within a façade of science and archaeology.

                However, within this descent into prejudice there is one accidental grain of truth, she did admit that some Dreaming stories mistakenly claim that Original people are neither African nor European but have been here forever, “since the time of creation.”(17)


A “Peer-Reviewed Publication, Florida Atlantic University”(18)

This paper gets plenty of academic ticks, as this publication was co-authored by “Amanda Owings, Ph.D., Emory University; Henry Socrates Lavalle Sullasi, Ph.D., Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil and Omer Gokcumen, Ph.D., State University New York at Buffalo.”(19) Not only do we have three Ph.D.s on one team, those who sponsored this research tick the same boxes as the “research was supported by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the Fundacao de Amparo a Ciencia a Technologia de Pernambuco.”(20) So, in combination whatever the findings, it has credibility, academic stature and is underpinned by good science.

The Alcobaça archaeological site, in which the skeletal remains of Brazil-12 (northeast Brazil) were unearthed. Credit: Henry Lavalle, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco and Ana Nascimento, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco

                The difference is this time around the typical appearance of “unexpected and surprising results”(21) was not ignored as is the norm in Australia, but thoroughly investigated and documented. “Using DNA from two ancient human individuals unearthed in two different archaeological sites in Northeast Brazil-Pedra do Tuburao and Alcobaca-Florida Atlantic University researchers in collaboration with Emory University have unraveled the deep demographic history of South America at the regional level with some unexpected and surprising results.”(21)

                Two aspects of their “unexpected”(22) findings have particular relevance to Australian Original people and validates our long-held proposition that in ancient times they sailed around the earth. Their brief was to identify “key genomic evidence”(23) and establish “ancient migration events.”(24) What was a “surprise”(25) was that there were “migratory waves involving the initial Indigenous peoples of South America near the Pacific Coast.”(26) What only amplified their “surprise”(27) was “strong Australasian (Australia and Papua-New Guinea) genetic signals in an ancient genome from Panama.”(28)

                Further on in their observations they openly concede that “there is an entire Pacific Ocean between Australasia and the Americas, and we still do not know how these ancestral genomic signals appeared in Central and Southern America without leaving traces in North America,” said Andre Luiz Campelo dos Santos, Ph.D., first author, an archaeologist and postdoctoral fellow in FAU’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.”(29)

The first southern North American groups entered South America and spread through the Pacific coast settling the Andes (yellow arrow). At least one population split occurred soon after, branching the first groups that settled the Atlantic coast (green arrow) from the groups that gave rise to the ancient populations of Southern Cone. New Migrations may have then emerged along the Atlantic Coast, with a possible origin around Lagoa Santa, heading north toward Northeast Brazil and Panama, and south to Uruguay. Eventually, Uruguay and Panama were linked by a south-to-north migration route closer to the Atlantic coast (purple double-headed arrow). Credit: Florida Atlantic University

                Credit where credit is due, this admission of ancient Pacific connections would certainly be radical in conventional Australian mainstream conversations, but alas, even though these researchers are open to new evidence and paradigms, they still investigated with blinkers firmly attached, thrice over.

                First up, their study is far less intensive and lengthy than that involving David Reich (Harvard University) and a team drawn from six universities that spent over three years analysing an extensive collection of genes dawn exclusively from Amazonian tribes which had deliberately kept away from all the trappings and genetics of everyone else. So pure were their genes, they only married to partners from the two tribes. That being the case, Reich and his team felt an analysis of this degree of genetic purity would resolve the issue of American ancient ancestry. Reich did candidly concede that each time the results came in they tried to find ways to alter, reposition or amend. It made no difference, the closest and strongest genetic matches were in Australia and Papua New Guinea, which was co-joined into one huge landmass called Sahul until 8,000 years ago. Reich did concede that before the study he was convinced the Clovis migration from Asia to Alaska then throughout America at around 12,000 years ago was correct in acknowledging the first human presence in America, but was now demonstrably proven to be wrong.

Australia to Amazon Connections

Map of Sahul https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Sunda_and_Sahul.png (From: Maximilian Dörrbecker (Chumwa), CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

                These results came out about three years ago and should have been acknowledged in this paper to give some context and a background setting that is very Original in genetics. So too the 55 skulls Dr. Walter Neves found in Brazil which “were people of the same race as the Australian Aboriginies,”(30) all are of Australian Original ancestry should have been mentioned in their analysis.

Then, “to further add to existing complexity, researchers also detected greater Denisovan than Neanderthal ancestry in ancient Uruguay and Panama individuals,”(31) but were remiss in not connecting the genetic dots. While beginning in the right direction they noted that “Denisovans are a group of extinct humans first identified from DNA sequences from the tip of a finger bone discovered around 2008.”(32) This is observation is undeniably correct, but alas past that fact another sin of omission and comparison has occurred. Of all the people on this planet, Australian Original people have the highest percentage of Denisovan genes. The unbroken rule is that if you have a Denisovan reading of over 2% you must have Original genes, my reading is 4.7%.

The figure depicts the deep ancestries of the ancient individuals of the Americas and archaic ancestry in ancient South America and Panama. The pie chart radius reflects the proportion of shared archaic ancestry in the individual. Credit: Florida Atlantic University

                John Lindo, Ph. D., Assistant Professor department of Anthropology Emory University, was cognisant of some of the implications in conceding that “it’s phenomenal that Denisovan ancestry made it all the way to South America.”(32) If he had known of my Original/Denisovan reading of 4.7%, then threw in the work of Reich and Neeves, he may not be so amazed. All this reading of mine does is to provide a second incontestable genetic link between the Australia and the Original settlers in America.

                Which of course leads on to a third mistaken observation that once again could be resolved if trying to construct a ‘big picture’ American setting. To exclude the Australian Original people from being in attendance in North America is both wrong and another example of ‘blinker research.’ If they had looked elsewhere, they would have come across Silvia Gonzalez (John Moores University, Liverpool) extensive research conducted on west coast of USA. Gonzalez was convinced that the original inhabitants in North America were from “Australia”(33) admitting that “the skeletal evidence pointed strongly to the unpalatable truth”(34) that “the first migration came from Australia.”(35) From her perspective it was simply a matter of look, compare and observe that the ancient “distinctively long and narrow heads discovered in Mexico and California predated by several thousand years the more rounded features of the skulls of native Americans.”(36)

Stefan Longren’s paper on this Original presence in America was published in National Geographic and his research in Baja California was equally unequivocal. His study of a skull named Luzia from Brazil convinced him that “her facial features matched most closely with the native Aborigines in Australia.”(37)

Knowing that it is agreed by the chosen ‘experts’ that the Asian migration to America took place at around 12,000 years ago, any date that extends further cannot be due to any Clovis settlement. That makes a date of 37,000 years at Topper, South Carolina, non-Clovis property and solely Australian Original. Archaeologist, Albert Goodyear (University of South Carolina, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology), was part of a team that was packing up after digging down some two metres in a trench next to the Savanah River. Even though they had found some Clovis archaeology, and their task was complete, for reasons unknown Goodyear remained behind and he decided to continue digging. He dug down another four metres to a level estimated to be 37,000 years-old before unearthing a collection of ancient artefacts which included a variety of stone tools and a hearth. A small piece of charcoal was analysed employing a Carbon 14 count and gave a date of no less than 37,000 years. The solitary date, of itself, rewrites so much of American and Australian pre-history.

                In summing up the case for an ancient Original presence throughout the entire American continent, Silvia Gonzales proposed that there were “two migration waves”(38) and there was a considerable amount of time between the first colonisation and those that followed some time later. She believes that “the older ones got extinct, and you cannot see those populations today.”(39) She believes that the Australian Original sailors used “watercraft … island hopping … fishing … all the way.”(40)


Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Not only is that subheading the title of one of our previous books, but it also sums up the plight the Original rock we will be examining has to endure. The reason why this rock is required now is simply because our claims that Original people sailed to America along with other distant location, necessitates building boats capable of crossing oceans and the associated technology needed which is well beyond the reach of all stick, stone and bone tool kits. When the British invaded Australia they saw no boats/canoes anywhere that had the capacity to sail on the open seas and carry a crew large enough to negate in-breeding, they understandably assumed that technological vacuum was always the case. They made the claim that these people were the most primitive on the planet, and because of their backwardness and stagnation they legally forfeited the right to own the land they had been on since the beginning. One of many examples of their technological deficiencies was their false allegation that unlike the American Indians and Indigenous people across the planet, these people could not even invent or use the bow and arrow.

                What the first British to arrive could never see or be told about was that way back such advanced technology was commonplace, and that this rock, along with hundreds of others, is part of an almost forgotten ancient legacy. We will begin this brief examination by stating what the rock is not. It is neither a weapon nor any type of tool/utensil and serves one specific ceremonial function. As to what is that role is unknown at present, but what we do know is that the answer and response is there right now, waiting to be sung up.

                It weighs a few grams over two kilograms and measures at its widest points 16 cms (length) x 8 cms (width) x 7 cms (height). It has a separate holding and resting position. When held in hand while in ceremony, there is a small right-hand platform to place the index finger, and three slight depressions further around for the three remaining fingers. The over-sized thumb rest was constructed through the removal of a section of this rock we estimate to be 10 cms (length) x 5 cms (width) x 1,5 cms (height).

So many of the rocks we are working with are symbiotic holding rocks, a few are not to be held but stand unsupported and are capable of generating power/energy/magic of their own volition, but this rock does both, which makes it unique as there is no other rock that is to be held and also independently stands upright and alone within the collection we are tending. The rock has two resting sides, one has an almost level and flat side that sits perfectly in the right palm when held, and what is so intriguing is that on another side there are three resting points, and each is only one or two millimetres in width. Once positioned on a flat surface the rock is clearly designed to be stable and so well balanced that it needs a bit of effort just to make it move. All deliberate and so delicately poised, this rock is as enigmatic as it is powerful.

The thumb rest is the largest we have seen, and the only one that was re-coated with molten rock after extraction. No other rock in our ensemble has any residual coating on the thumb rest, and on this rock there are two impact points where the grey coat is missing and beneath is the artificial thin black veneer that coats the rest of the rock. Beneath this black coat is a light grey base rock and cut into the top black layer of silicon and resin are a huge diversity of lines.

                As with so many aspects of this rock, it is replete with precedents and lacking in comparison. Of the four main thicker lines, two are continuous in circumnavigating all four sides, and if the thumb rest had not been formed and removed, the other two lines would have also been continuous. All are straight, as it is with all of the star language scripts, but there are many other lines of three widths that are not straight, which deals with ‘so below’ business. There is also some small pecking, and complimentary to above that are nine larger patches.

                The most revealing and compelling feature of this rock is its weight, it is too heavy to randomly carry, and for what purpose? To pick up and carry a rock weighing that much that is neither a weapon nor tool seems pointless, but because it is designed to be static, removing it from wherever it was positioned was not required, as it was never made to be mobile.

There are two truths clear to see and deduce. The time, tools and effort in removing a large percentage of this rock is all about creating a sacred loop between silica and skin that is meant to illuminate and energise the person who is holding this rock. The technology and processes responsible are unclear, but what is not in dispute is that there is no way any application of a stone, bone and stick tool kit was any part of this equation.


The Big Picture Just got Bigger

As Marshall correctly observed the officially endorsed creation narrative is an ever-changing repositioning of the goal posts. In Australia, the supposed entry date of Africans arriving on Australian shores began at twenty-thousand years and now sits somewhere between sixty-five and a hundred-and twenty thousand years, with a very impressive site on the coast of Victoria ready to extend the minimum time ashore to one-hundred-and-fifty thousand years.

Outside Australia, according to the experts at the end of the last century there were two hominids roaming around the countryside, it was all about Homo sapiens sapien and some crude robust Neanderthals and no-one else. Twenty-three years later amendments and many additions have been made to the hominin class list, which currently stands at sixteen, and no doubt there are more to come. So, in less than a quarter of a century the hominid numbers have increased by no less than 800%.

In recent times almost everything that underpins theories relating to the appearance of modern humans has been questioned and criticised, and in some cases is barely hanging in there while lingering on ‘life-support.’ When Alan Wilson and Rebecca Cann released their seminal genetics paper on the molecular clock and the actual time when Homo sapiens sapien first walked in Africa, their calculation of 250,000 years, occurring in Africa, was regarded as the final verdict. Wilson and Cann also subscribed to a monkey/ape genesis, which still remains the conventional belief, but not so the date when sapien’s first appeared, which has now been trebled.

A paper we discussed in an earlier article was using rigorous science compiled by highly credentialled academics. We found no fault with their reasoning and empirical evidence that gave a date of over 750,000 years ago when both Neanderthals and Denisovans were successfully coping with a massive change in climate in Europe. As this monkey giving birth to human’s theory also has Denisovans and Neanderthals as offspring, which means soon after the separation of species the three-progeny set off on different genetic paths. There are other papers affording similar time scales, in fact so many that one global archaeological expert, Chris Stringer, has basically conceded that not only the timing is way off, but even the locality of Africa is now no more than a possible contender. Once it became obvious that the oldest hominid remains were no longer a sole province of Africa starting at around four million years, while in Greece and Bulgaria both have dates greater than seven-million years and in Siberia a figure just short of ten million years remains unchallenged, any claim of Africa first is no less than tenuous.


Nexus-Global News

To top off all the archaeological chaos, obstinance and ‘horses for courses’ there is a short article in a magazine called Nexus that provided some rudimentary details centred around the claim that a “study suggests early humans nearly became extinct 900,000 years ago.”(41) This is all about one of the sixteen different hominids wandering around the planet, what is unusual about this discovery is that the hominid Heildelbergensis did, according to their most recent dating, “nearly became extinct around a million years ago!”(42)

What was being claimed as solid science relates to “our early human ancestors”(43) whose “population dropped down to just over a thousand people. Not only that, it is thought the population stayed at this low rate for over 100,000 years.”(44) The supporting science is quite solid an, “international team of scientists sequenced the DNA of over 3,000 people from different backgrounds and parts of the world and used the data to help them try to work out past population size.”(45) The paper and final results were “published in the journal Science suggest that the total population of our ancestors-a species called Homo Heidelbergensis- could have dipped as low as 1,280 for around 117,000 years.”(46)

The model of a Homo heidelbergensis head at the Natural History Museum in London, England https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Em_-_Homo_heidelbergensis_model_-_2.jpg (From: Emőke Dénes, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

What was quite ironic and utterly contradictory was the last paragraph of this short summary. Noting that those involved were acknowledged “experts”(47) it was stated that they “hope to use this information to help them better understand our human ancestors and human evolution around a million years ago.”(48)

If we momentarily pause, reflect and backtrack to the current evolutionary theories, just over twenty years ago modern humans were originally deemed first present at around 250,000 years ago and that has been extended to an upper level of perhaps 800,000 years ago. If this hominid was already wandering through the countryside well before the time when monkey mummy and daddy gave birth to what would become sapiens with sutures, where is the kinship connection? If so, how can this being with a larger brain and incredibly robust features be related to us? According to accepted evolutionary theories this individual existed before sapiens, looks absolutely nothing like us and is much more stocky, intelligent, thick-boned and robust. To put this conundrum in its simplest terms, how can any hominid that exists before our genesis and clearly does not share the same assumed parents, be related through genetics, skull morphology or blood? Are they claiming this being, that is neither a monkey, chimp nor ape,is the fabled missing link?

What only muddies the waters, is their claim that an “extreme cooling climate”(49) was responsible for the plummeting of their population. However, the paper validating a presence of Denisovans and Neanderthals who were wandering through the plains of Europe nearly 800,000 years ago, was also during a period of sudden cooling. The researchers made many references to the resilience and adaptability of both populations to descending temperatures and dwindling resources as their numbers did not decline, but actually increased.

For any who might respond by alleging that modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans were much smarter and adaptable, my response would be measure the skull. The Heidelbergensis skull is clearly much larger than any Homo sapiens sapien skull yet found, and around the same size as both Neanderthals and Denisovans. That being a scientific fact, if this much more primitive looking individual is smarter than us and as smart as the other two, why would a sudden cooling cause such a decline in numbers?

Equally contradictory is the scientific truth that a related hominid with a larger brain than any modern sapien was alive and kicking over one-million-years ago. Our current crumbling version of human evolution is supposed to be a gradual steady increase in brain size leading up to the current-day pinnacle. Regardless of what was omitted or concocted, the ever-present archaeological truth is that Denisovans, Neanderthals, Heidelbergensis and three other strands of hominids all have larger skulls and are more intelligent than modern humans. Through our estimation if the size of the brain is the principal indicator of intelligence and the planet is indeed a continuous classroom, then out of the hominid class of sixteen, Homo sapien sapiens would be accorded a rank of seventh.


Conclusion

Whether this chaotic source of contradiction is provided by a racist with an agenda, a team of respected academics or one very heavy rock with inscriptions and lines of inquiry, everything has been turned upside down and down under. It has never been ‘humans-from-apes’ or ‘Out-of-Africa.’ The critical hidden truths have always been that ‘humans from as-on-top’ and that location where Homo sapiens sapien life began has never been anywhere else but ‘Out-of-Australia,’ first and foremost.    


REFERENCES:

(1): Alexandra Marshall, 30th Aug. 2023. “What if the ‘out of Africa’ theory is wrong?” The Spectator Australia, https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/what-if-the-out-of-africa-theory-is-wrong/

(2) – (17): Ibid.

(18): Gisele Galoustian (Florida Atlantic University), 1st Nov. 2022. “Ancient DNA analysis sheds light on the early peopling of South America: Study provides most complete genetic evidence to date of complex migration routes in Ancient Central and South America”, New Release EurekaAlert / AAAS, From: “Genomic evidence for ancient human migration routes along South America’s Atlantic coast”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/969421

(19) – (29): Ibid.

(30): “Aust Aborigines ‘first’ Americans”, Courier Mail, 13 April, 1996 (See: http://web.archive.org/web/20050615232149/http://indigenousaustralia.frogandtoad.com.au/letter/newspaper.html )

(31): Gisele Galoustian (Florida Atlantic University), 1st Nov. 2022. “Ancient DNA analysis sheds light on the early peopling of South America: Study provides most complete genetic evidence to date of complex migration routes in Ancient Central and South America”, New Release EurekaAlert / AAAS, From: “Genomic evidence for ancient human migration routes along South America’s Atlantic coast”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/96942

(32): Ibid.

(33): Reuters, 7th Sept., 2004. “Did the first Americans come from Australia?”, The Sydney Morning Herald, https://www.smh.com.au/national/did-the-first-americans-come-from-australia-20040907-gdjp1i.html

(34) – (36): Ibid.

(37): Stefan Lovgren, 3rd Sept. 2003. “Who Were the First Americans?”, National Geographic, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/who-were-the-first-americans

(38): Robin Williams (Presenter), Martin Redfern & Pauline Newman (Producers), and Silvia Gonzalez (Guest), 11th Feb. 2006. “Oldest American footprints” The Science Show – ABC Listen,

(39) – (40): Ibid.

(41): Nexus Magazine Pty Ltd, Oct. – Nov. 2023. “Study Suggests Early Humans Nearly Became Extinct 900,000 Years Ago”, Nexus: Alternative News Magazine, Vol. 30, No. 6. (Nexus Magazine Pty Ltd: Maleny, QLD). 11. (From: BBC, 2nd Sept. 2023. “Study suggests early humans nearly became extinct 900,000 years ago”, BBC Newsround, https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/66686192 )

(42) – (49): Ibid.

366 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page