Over Seven Billion Sapien Faces, and None are the Same

Over Seven Billion Sapien Faces, and None are the Same

By Steven & Evan Strong

07/07/21

That undeniable fact, that no two people on this planet share exactly the same face, means that any comparison between sapiens and all other life-forms creates a conundrum that under present circumstances and paradigms cannot be solved. Be it ever so minor there will be differences in the arrangement of one human mouth, two ears and eyes, and it is that accelerating divergence in presentation which breaks every rule Nature has set into the genes of all life-forms that evolved solely from Earthly stock.

                All other animals on Earth, in general terms, share the same shape of face, body, manner and speed of movement, height, weight and diet. Not people, our eyes, facial shape, fingerprints and hair are a mixture taken from every palette and totally unique. Why so? All donkeys, horses and zebras have distinctive faces, they may stem from a shared ancestry, but still remain the same in general form and features within each species. With each of the three standing at differing heights and looking similar to each other, that is a genetic pattern shared by all species everywhere, except humans. We can stand between half a metre to two and a half metres tall, weigh forty or four hundred kilograms and still breathe, run at top speed at forty kilometres an hour or four, and so the gulf continues in every comparison. It comes down to a very simple act of visualisation, if asked to imagine and draw a lion’s face, every attempt will look roughly the same, however, if the same task was set in drawing a human face, everything goes.

                What is interesting is that all visual renditions of many ancient hominids, be it Australopithecus via Lucy or the supposedly brutish Neanderthals, all bear the same features and faces. Makes sense to do so as that is the global norm, but what does come out of any comparison to all hominids is that Homo sapien sapiens have a genetic predisposition that runs in reverse. Something else contrary has been added to the gene pool, and in looking around for candidates there doesn’t seem to be anything on offer on planet Earth.

Six Scientific Papers

While each of the six papers or commentaries chosen that address different parts of the human evolution narrative, all have the same inherent weakness that underpins all observations and conclusions. No matter what issue they are investigating, all have the same underlying assumption and limitation. The gene pool they have constructed is exclusively earth-bound and until the off-world genetic contribution is included, nothing else matters and whatever follows has to be wrong.

                Despite this fundamental flaw in methodology, in combination there is some clarity that slowly begins to rise to the surface. The first paper attempts to resolve why only one of what they feel were “nine species”(1) of hominids survived. What this paper intends to resolve is that “nine human species walked the Earth 300,000 years ago. Now there is just one.”(2) If for no other reason than being hamstrung by traditional models, Nick Longrich proposed a rhetorical question, “did we kill the rest?”(3)

                In setting the scene for this mindless genocidal mass-slaughter of every hominid bar Homo sapiens sapien, a roll call of eight past casualties is given with one understandable equivocation. The candidates listed include Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis “and the mysterious Red Deer Cave People in China,”(4) along with the increasing spread of little people which currently stands at three (Homo naledi, Homo luzonensis and Homo floresiensis).

                This list was justifiably agreed to be provisional, simply because “given how quickly we’re discovering new species, more are likely waiting to be found.”(5) And Longrich was right, since that tally Homo hiedelbergensis, which was mistakenly classified as a type of Neanderthal, is now agreed to be a separate species of hominid. That brings the count up to ten and will soon become eleven, once the flat-headed species we have found is formally recognised.

                Irrespective of what the final count will be, the crucial point is that “by 10,000 years ago, they were all gone.”(6) In trying to fathom what could cause such a dramatic thinning of the hominid ranks, it begins well when correctly ruling out any form of “obvious environmental catastrophe.”(7) Then comes the mistaken assumption, knowing this extinction was not due to “volcanic activity, eruptions, climate change, asteroid impact,”(8) all that is left behind is the emergence of a new intellectually superior hominid with homicidal tendencies which is the prime suspect.

Survival of the Fittest, Homicidal or Aggressive

The premise is deceptively simple, the sapiens were smarter and very angry. Anyone who wasn’t one of them was spear and axe fodder. Kill them first and ask no questions. No motive exists beyond it is an inherent urge for modern humans to kill whatever or whoever, whenever. So stridently held is the belief that sapiens are genetically hot-wired to indiscriminately kill, any who suggest we are not that bad or violent are naïve and blind to the human condition.

                “Optimists have painted early hunter-gatherers as peaceful, noble savages, and have argued that our culture, not our nature, creates violence. But field studies, historical accounts, and archaeology all show that war in primitive cultures was intense, pervasive and lethal.”(9)

That just isn’t true in pre-Cook Australia. Men in conflict is a universal constant, but in Australia there were rules of contact. All battles occur on neutral ground, and no-one ever invaded another’s tribal estate. There was no collateral damage, women and children were never harmed directly or indirectly. There is a witnessed written account compiled by ex-soldiers from the Napoleonic wars of a tribal battle between Bundjalung tribes involving thousands of warriors that took place over three days. The fighting was as fierce as that seen on any European battlefield, but after three days no-one died, some hobbled but all walked away. At times when one side seemed to be gaining the ascendancy, fighting was halted, a meeting took place and tribes would swap sides to maintain an even balance. Whenever a warrior fell, the women would tend to his injuries, gather the spears, but always stood apart. The intention was never to kill but settle old scores and grievances. It was never sadistic warfare, but more an intense physical game that involved throwing sticks, stones and wooden shafts with sharp points.

With Homo sapiens sapien fully armed with “clubs, spears, axes and bows, combined with guerrilla tactics like raids and ambushes,”(10) driven by a violent disposition and complete lack of respect for their neighbours, thus creating a “devastatingly effective”(11) impact throughout the planet in clearing the hominid ‘decks.’ According to this research in ancient tribal times “violence was the leading cause of death among men in these societies.”(12) In pre-historic times, before papyrus, books and ink how can any academic predict the population, death rate or personalities of those living hundreds of thousands of years ago? Where is the evidence? There is no empirical justification to invent such archaeological fantasies.

The “Ultimate Weapon”(13)

All the others are dumb, and we are just too clever. According to this research, “the ability to cooperate, plan, strategise, manipulate and deceive may have been our ultimate weapon.”(14) The problem is that the stereotypical image of a hairy stooped brutish Neanderthal is now agreed to be false. Neanderthals, Denisovans, Heidelbergensis and, of course, the flat-headed skulls have much larger brains than any modern human. That being the case how can any scientist claim the species with the fifth largest hominid brain is more intelligent than the four who all have larger skulls? Now that is woefully bad science. Neanderthal villages had hot water, Denisovan jewellery is exquisite in make and design, while at the same time sapiens were supposedly dribbling and grunting while living in damp cold caves.

                Despite these agreed, albeit reluctantly, hominid facts, this was ignored for bloodier pastures. “Our elimination of other species wasn’t a planned, coordinated effort of the sort practised by civilisations, but a war of attrition. The end result, however, was just as final. Raid by raid, ambush by ambush, valley by valley, modern humans would have worn down their enemies and taken their land.”(15) To be at “war”(16) with “enemies”(17) is modern terminology transplanted backwards simply because this is how we behave today. The problem with this so-called “war”(18) is that it is agreed that the innocent parties who caused no offence were massacred, and all our distant ancestors are mindless murderers. Either way this is a miserable blinkered story based on no evidence and low expectations.

At war With the Denisovans

This hypothetical battle between psychopathic sapiens and the other ten hominids from my intuitive and genetic perspective is an uncomfortable fit. How can it be my Denisovan reading is 4.7% if all hominids lived in terror whenever a sapien turned up? If anything, my Denisovan genes supports the ‘hippy’ mantra of make love not war. But it could be my extremely high Denisovan genetic content is a freak occurrence, the result of a forbidden one-off illicit love affair. When constantly at war, different species/tribes only meet in a face-to-face situation on the battlefield, there is no bedroom here. So, in an attempt to seek clarity as to what type of relations and interactions existed between Denisovans and sapiens, we consulted three recent papers and it seems there is little animosity and a lot of conviviality.

                The first paper (“New Evidence in search for the Mysterious Denisovans”) was compiled by academics from Adelaide University and is very recent, being released to the public on March 23, 2021. The “lead author and ARC Research Associate from the University of Adelaide, Dr. Joao Teixeira, said: “In contrast to our other cousins the Neanderthals, which have an extensive fossil record in Europe, the Denisovans are known almost solely from the DNA record. The only physical evidence of Denisovan existence has been a finger bone and some other fragments found in a cave in Siberia and, more recently, a piece of jaw found in the Tibetan Plateau.”(19)

                That information is based on scientific facts, but what came next relies solely on assumptions and convenience cobbled around the Out-of-Africa theory, and ignores eight sites in Australia confirming a human presence that are all dated at over 60,000 years. Nevertheless, the Australian academics stated that “we know from our own genetic records that the Denisovans mixed with modern humans who came out of Africa 50,000-60,000 years ago both in Asia, and as the modern humans moved through Island Southeast Asia on their way to Australia.”(20)

                After their excursion into blurring the lines between science and conjecture, the researchers return back to what is actually known as opposed to that which is presumed. They agree that Denisovan “ancestors were likely to have been in Island Southeast Asia at least 700,000 years ago,”(21) past the date anything else should be couched around could and maybe, but never definitely.

                “Co-author Professor Kris Helgen, Chief Scientist and Director of the Australian Museum Research Institute, said: “These analyses provide an important window into human evolution in a fascinating region, and demonstrate the need for more archaeological research in the region between mainland Asia and Australia.”(22) Dr. Teixeira added to the need to look further and that there is more to be found in confiding that “this opens up two equally exciting possibilities: either a major discovery is on the way, or we need to re-evaluate the current fossil record of Island Southeast Asia.”(23)  This is not a case of either or, both this “discovery”(24) and re-evaluation apply and need more research. What does have to be added to that re-evaluation is some of the recent archaeology found in Australia we are currently researching.

                What is crystal clear in this interaction between different hominids is that there is no indication of hostility or animosity, quite the opposite. The genetic evidence is clear cut, genes, babies and affection was being shared and exchanged. As for the spears, axes and deception some commentators proclaim as fact, there is nothing in this research that gives any credence to the global battlefield and mass genocide Longrich proposes.

“Ancient Siberian cave hosted Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans-possibly at the same time.”(25)

This is the heading Elizabeth Pennisi thought succinctly summed up the results of a recent genetic analysis just released through a paper that “gives unprecedented insight into the past.”(26) The science they used is ‘cutting edge’ and was first theoretically proposed less than five years earlier. This scientific examination of dirt was released exactly three months to the day after the Adelaide University paper, and once again follows down the same peaceful, co-operative path. Not only were they making babies together, the chances are high they were also living and loving together.

                Their work at a Denisovan cave in Siberia, who were occupants for no less than “300,000 years,”(26) found that they were not the only residents. What was already known before this revolutionary genetic analysis began was that within this cave were “eight human fossils unearthed”(27) which included a “pinkie, three bones from Neanderthals, and even one from a child with one Neanderthal and one Denisovan parent. The cave also contains sophisticated stone tools and jewellery at higher, later levels. But no modern human fossils have been found there.”(28)

                Considering the small sampling they “are not much to go on, so Elena Zavala, a graduate student at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and colleagues teamed up with Russian researchers to see what kind of DNA was present in the soils of the three-chamber cave.”(29) DNA has been extensively used in determining species and assorted archaeology through bones, but extracting human DNA from the soil successfully first took place just “4 years”(29) ago.

                “After 2 years of analysis”(30) providing “728 soil samples”(31) to analyse, “the researchers found human DNA in 175 of them.”(32) That means just over 24% of the soil sampled had Homo sapiens sapien DNA, which proves that all three hominids were in this cave. Whether they were there at the same time is not completely proven, but having the bones and genes of one child of mixed genes identified makes this liaison extremely likely. What is certain is that “their work confirms that Denisovans were the cave’s first inhabitants, about 300,000 years ago. They disappeared 130,000 years ago, only to be followed by a different set of Denisovans, who likely made most of the stone tools, some 30,000 years later. Neanderthals appeared on the scene about 170,000 years ago, with different groups using the cave at various points of time, some overlapping with Denisovans.”(33) And if we could add that not only did they overlap, they also procreated children.

                “The last to arrive were modern humans, who showed up about 45,000 years ago.”(34) Knowing that previous research has a Denisovan presence in this cave until around 15,000 years ago, it seems reasonable to assume that since my Denisovan genetic reading is 4.7%, cross-hominid procreating was also occurring in this cave. As for this simplistic notion of slaughter at your will, we will leave the final word on what this science demands to be acknowledged to Ron Pinhasi. As we do, he rejects this crude and heartless notion of survival of the fittest, knowing that these results suggest “a more complicated interplay between archaic and modern humans.”(35)

The Newcomers on the Hominid Block

A decade ago, no-one knew anything about these Denisovans, and what only reflects that state of flux inherent in all Denisovan research, and for that matter all hominid research, is that uncertainty is still continuing. A paper by Matthew Warren, “Biggest Denisovan Fossil yet Spills Ancient Human Secrets,” which was published in 2019 focuses on the Denisovan jawbone found on the Tibetan Plateau and what could be.

                All credit to the researchers, in supplying a minimum Denisovan age of “765,000 years ago,”(36) it is clear they are not only aware of but approve of the recent research finding that Neanderthals and Denisovans were separate species living on the plains of Europe 765,000 years ago. Equally, in general terms, we do not dispute their observation that “some modern humans from Asia and Oceania carry traces of Denisovan DNA.”(37) Although I would add my 4.7% Denisovan contribution is more than a trace and more like a sizable deposit.

                Unlike the remains found in the Denisovan cave in Siberia, the 160,000-year-old jawbone’s DNA content was exhausted and because of this “the team faced a problem.”(38) “Instead, the scientists looked for ancient proteins, which tend to last longer than DNA. In dentine from the teeth, they found collagen proteins suitable for analysis. The team compared these with equivalent proteins in groups including Denisovans and Neanderthals, and found that they lined up closest with sequences from Denisovans.”(39)

                These recent discoveries are merely the preliminary event, there is more to come. It is all so tenuous, as Katerina Douka correctly observed, “let’s not forget that as recently as in 2010 we had absolutely no evidence that Denisovans existed, and that these hominids ever met, let alone that they interbred repeatedly and co-existed for millennia.”(40) What is clear in any report on Denisovans is that making definitive proclamations on some genes in the dirt and less than half a dozen bones is pointless. While found in Europe, Tibet and Siberia, but genetically dominant in the Original people of Australia, there is very little that can be stated as factual, and what has been agreed to just doesn’t fit into the traditional evolutionary narrative. That date of 765,000 years ago means the timing for when Homo sapiens sapien split from Neanderthals and Denisovans was thought to be no more than 250-300,000 years ago five years ago, now it has retreated backwards in time by a factor of three.

                Not only is the timing dramatically different, so too the geography. The accepted hominid and Homo sapiens sapien historical narrative always originates in Africa, Australia, Asia or Europe was never mentioned is dispatches, until now.

The Even Newer Newcomer on the Hominid Block

If there was ever any doubt that the entire evolutionary pathway from monkeys to humans’ package was in total disarray, surely the most recent hominid found in China is literally the ‘final straw’ in this implosion. The major consequence is unequivocal, in that “the discovery of a huge fossilised skull that was wrapped up and hidden in a Chinese well nearly 90 years ago has forced scientists to rewrite the story of human evolution.”(41)

                What has been analysed has “revealed a new branch of the human family that points to a previously unknown sister group more closely related to modern humans than the Neanderthals.”(42) But what immediately upsets the conventional apple cart is not so much that no-one knew of this “sister group,”(43) it is more to do with its physique and size of its head that poses questions, that as of now have no answers. Professor Chris Stringer (“research leader at the Natural History Museum of London”(44)) claims that not only is it “a wonderfully preserved fossil,”(44) but that it “is one of the most important finds of the past 50 years.”(45)

                Of all the unexpected features Stringer was quite candid in remarking that one really stood out, in that “this guy had a huge head.”(46) With such a massive brain, far larger than any sapien past or present, one would expect to see it surrounded by gracile facial features similar to ours. Not so here as “the skull has a unique combination of primitive and more modern features, with the face, in particular more closely resembling Homo sapiens.”(46) However, the size of the cranium does not, it is much bigger. Measuring 23 centimetres in length and “more than 15 cm wide,”(47) this skull “is substantially larger than a modern human’s and has ample room, at 1,420 ml, for a modern human brain”(48) with plenty of room left over. Beneath a rather archaic looking “thick brow ridge, the face has large square eye sockets”(49) as opposed to the sapien spherical eye sockets.

                So, this individual has a larger brain, different eyes with a “primitive”(50) brow ridge and in combination, looks a bit like the ancient Australopithecus Lucy and a bit like us, but clearly has the capacity to be more intelligent than either hominid. But it doesn’t end there, not only is this a more intelligent specimen, physically it is far superior in build, height, endurance and strength. Believed to be “a male, about 50 years old,”(51) he has a “wide, bulbous nose”(52) that allows him to “breathe huge volumes of air, indicating a high-energy lifestyle, while sheer size would have helped him withstand the brutal cold winters in the region.”(53) What seems very clear, is that according to Professor Xijun Ni (Paleoanthropologist at Hebei), “Homo Longi is heavily built, very robust.”(54) Even though the entire skeleton is not available to measure, thus making it “hard to estimate the height … the massive head should match a height higher than the average of modern humans.”(55)

                 Being more intelligent, more robust, taller, with a far heavier build than any sapien, was this species, which is now extinct, also killed for pleasure by rampaging homicidal sapiens? If so, the question must be asked if being dumber, weaker, smaller and less fit than their innocent victims, what advantage did Homo sapiens hold over Homo longi? The answer is unequivocal, none whatsoever.

                At this present juncture, the only sensible question remaining doesn’t relate to whether it is a superior hominid model than modern humans, but to its classification. Is it a new species or an off-shoot of the Denisovans? Denisovans also have a bigger brain than humans of today, and due to the paucity of recovered Denisovans bones, no expert has any idea as to how they look. While “the Chinese researchers believe the Harbin skull is distinct enough to make a new species,”(56) Stringer is more circumspect and “is not convinced.”(57) He is, at the moment ‘sitting on the fence,’ suggesting that “we have to be cautious. What we need is much more complete skeletal material of Denisovans alongside DNA.”(58)

                Irrespective of whether Denisovan or a new species, it is the superior physique and intellect in primitive packaging that asks questions that sit well outside conventional theories and expertise. As Professor Mark Maslin (Earth System Sciences, UCL) correctly observed this skull “adds even more evidence that human evolution was not a simple evolutionary tree but a dense intertwined bush.”(59)                                      

The Long-Forgotten Home Base

When attempting to make any sense of this ever-expanding hominid “intertwined bush,”(60) it seems of all the hominids it is the Denisovans who just keep asking questions. Who, when, where and with who and even exactly what they look like, is primarily unknown. However, amongst all these unresolved avenues, there is one certainty, the highest reading of Denisovan genes is carried by Australian Original people. This fact, accompanied by the rapidly increasing stockpile of archaeological evidence supporting our belief modern humans evolved in Australia first, compels us to return to Australia for the answers, and eventually, the ultimate truth.

                The next scientific paper that goes some way towards fleshing out a ‘big picture,’ was “approved February 17, 2021,”(61) and the researchers were attempting to understand why Australian Original genes is the dominant factor when investigating what were “the origins of the founding populations in America.”(62) The heading they chose was concise, succinct and entirely correct, as they knew for certain there was a “Deep Genetic Affinity Between Coastal Pacific Amazonian Natives Evidenced by Australian Ancestry.”

                There are two central findings that they feel are unchallengeable. In this comprehensive genetic comparison “we show the Australian genetic signal is present in the Pacific coast region, indicating a more widespread signal distribution within South America and implicating an ancient contact between Pacific and Amazonian dwellers.”(63) And therein remains an insurmountable historical hurdle, every accepted narrative of humans in Australia maintains that once a few stray Africans made landfall, it was no-one in or out until the colonial invaders sailed into the Pacific. The belief is whoever came either forgot or abandoned knowledge of the boat that crossed the ocean. However, this proven inter-continental close contact can only come about through a boat or better.

                As to whether it was from America to Australia, which the current theories would demand, that just isn’t the case here, as it is clear this genetic exchange was from Australia to America in very ancient times. “We demonstrate that the Australasian population contribution was introduced in South America through the Pacific coastal route before the formation of the Amazonian branch.”(64)

                When beginning this examination of a “dataset which is currently the most comprehensive set of genomic markers from South American populations (383 individuals; 438,443 markers),”(65) they were aware of earlier genetic work headed by David Reich establishing a genetic link between two Amazonian tribes and Original people of Australia. After an exhaustive comparison relying on the best possible genetic science, “our results showed that the Australasian genetic signal, previously described as exclusive to Amazonian groups, was also identified in the Pacific coastal population, pointing to a more widespread signal distribution within South America, and possibly implicating an ancient contact between Pacific and Amazonian dwellers. In addition, a significant amount of interpopulation and intrapopulation variation of this genetic signal was detected.”(66)

                In the simplest terms, the current expectation that America was settled by an Asian population no earlier than around 13,000 years ago is manifestly lacking, the researchers are adamant “that at least two streams of migration are necessary to explain the present-day genetic diversity of Central and Southern American populations.”(67) The Original people of Australia “reached this region through the Pacific coastal route.”(68) As there is an expanding list of human occupation dates in America running into six figures, and with Dr. Walter Neeves the current custodian of 55 ancient Original skulls found in South America, there is no other explanation available that does not include Original mariners sailing to America across thousands of kilometres across the ocean.

An Even Dozen, Plus one

The next member of ever-increasing hominid roll call just turned up during the writing of this article. First news of this discovery appeared in Nexusfeed, July 2 edition, and from the moment I sighted the introductory sentence we knew that this discovery had to be included. “New early human discovered in 130,000-year-old fossils at Israeli cement site.”(69)

                It is more a brief overview than a report on the investigations so far, but of one fact no-one can dispute, it is a “long-extinct human.”(70) Professor Israel Hershkowitz, who heads the team of academics, noted that this “partial skull and jaw”(71) “could not be matched to any known species.”(72) Unlike the most recent ancient bones found in China which is claimed to be part of “sister group”(73) to Homo sapiens sapien, this individual is “very unlike modern humans displaying completely different skull structure, no chin, and very large teeth.”(74)

                Two words stood out in this article, “no chin.”(75) Until now, I thought all hominids had chins, from Lucy onwards I had never seen any reconstruction lacking in a chin. Irrespective of timing or brain size, hominids bear shares six common features, sutures in the skull thus allowing an increasing cranium, they also have two eyes and a forehead above, one nose and mouth with a chin below. Then along comes this ‘chinless’ “human.(76)” Professor Hershkowitz would have been acutely aware of this rule-breaking anomaly and implications, but alas he also is beholding to the current acceptable theory of monkeys evolving into crude hominins which developed slowly into the presumed pinnacle in this chain-Homo sapiens sapien.

                His solution was to propose it is “pre-Neanderthal,”(77) but in doing so cancels out a fundamental principle that underpins all accepted theories of modern human’s evolution. According to all theories, no matter whether Africa, Australia or anywhere else was the original source, we, along with Neanderthals and Denisovans shared a common ape-like parentage. These parents are pre-Neanderthal, Denisovan and Homo sapiens sapien. It goes like this, these unique apes had children that eventually split three ways. If this being is pre-Neanderthal and its ancestor, so too it must mean this is also pre-Denisovan and sapien. Logically, this being has to be the common ancestor of each of the three more advanced hominid proto-types, and as some theorise, the actual missing link.

                But without a chin, which all three hominids have, that proposition is short on credentials and steeped in convenience. If indeed the species Homo longi has such a clear difference in facial features and tooth size, suggesting it is directly related to any other hominid is genetically contradictory. We feel that checklist of six shared facial characteristics must be fully ticked off before claiming a link to any of the hominids currently found. This being is no less than one tick short of the full compulsory compliment of six.

First no Chin, now no Forehead, it all Comes out Differently

Granted this release is merely a report and is scant on details and measurements, but even so being chinless of itself seems to be an insurmountable deviation from the hominid norms. Perhaps, once more details come in some very obscure connection may add some weight to a hominid classification, but the next ancient candidate is also deficient in essential facial features. It’s not another chinless skull, but four skulls all found in Australia that are completely lacking in any forehead. Past the brow ridge there is nothing further going up, it all immediately recedes backwards.

                The four Australian flat-headed skulls we are aware of have been written about by us extensively, and if seeking more specifics and details rather than repeat ourselves, we would recommend going to our web site and reading these articles. What we do intend to briefly itemise are the fifteen main points of divergence they exhibit from all hominids.

                The second of the four flat-headed skulls is missing no less than one suture, and more than likely the other two. This was commented upon often by both the professionals involved in the skull reconstruction, and automatically disqualifies any hominin classification which always require three sutures. All four skulls are flask-shaped, being widest at the back (17 cms), not the middle as is the customary shape of all hominids. The eyes of the reconstructed flat head are 46% larger than Homo sapiens sapiens’ eye sockets and of a different shape, being more like a rounded square than spherical. The flat-headed skulls are both longer and wider than sapiens and the nose begins much higher, close to the crest of the eyebrow ridge. That positioning creates a differently shaped triangular nose if compared to the more circular sapien nose. And it is that ridge, which is depressed at the mid-point if a hominid, which actually sticks out peaking at the centre.

                Now we get to the two most dramatic departures from all hominid models. Above the eyebrow ridge there is nothing, no forehead is visible if standing face to face with this being. The Homo sapiens sapien model skull we have has a 6.5 cm forehead visible above the ridge, the reconstructed skull has a small, recessed rise of 0.5 cms, then keeps receding for 19 centimetres as the angle slopes well past 180 degrees. Even Lucy has the semblance of a forehead, this is so different, it starts off at 170 degrees at the brow ridge juncture and one centimetre past that, drops below the horizontal. As for where the neck is positioned and how it is formed, outside being further back and looking nothing like ours, it is anyone’s guess.

                No less extraordinary or unique is the humerus bone laying beside the skull and skeleton at a burial site I had the privilege to investigate. Normally this upper half of the arm is a bone measuring between 28-32 centimetres. Gibbons, who are renowned for the length and strength of their arms, can have a humerus bone of 35 centimetres in length. However, there is no primate, ape, monkey or hominid that has a humerus bone measuring even close to 40 centimetres. The bone beside the skull was 43 centimetres in length, and that is not the final number as the elbow joint was missing. That means it could be no less than 45 centimetres long, and that places it in an exclusive Earth-bound category numbering one. In what pushes the boundaries even further, is that this appendage had no real function on this planet as the bone was exceptionally thin, being no wider than an inch at its widest point.

                So, in total, we know of four skulls and bones in Australia that belong to a species that has eyes so large they really couldn’t operate in the glare of daytime, arms so long and thin they could swing from side to side and do very little else, and what comes out of this is a being not suited to the intense light and heavy gravity of this planet. The one positive is that because every feature of these four skulls is dramatically different from all other hominids, if crossing the genes, the end result has the potential to look so different from each other, which is exactly what we are today.

The Numbers Don’t add up

With hominids popping up all over the planet and Australian genes in America and Denisovans, and researchers finally admitting a ‘re-write’ is required, there is still the mistaken belief Africans sailed to Australia 50-60,000 years ago left on the table. There is no specific Original Dreaming story describing anyone coming from Africa to settle an empty continent, not even close. Equally, if they came from Africa, it seems they came empty-handed as there is no African fauna or flora in this country. Beyond those omissions there are six recent archaeological additions bearing dates that challenge what is assumed to be a fact. Indications of very ancient human activity, of which all are dated in six figures, and another containing homo sapiens sapien bones are consistent in refuting any humans entering Australia whether the hypothetical date of entry is 50,000 years or even 150,000 years.

                There are numbers coming out of Lake George (128,000 years) and the Great Barrier Reef (180,000 years) that both contain massive surges of charcoal beginning at those dates, which continues onwards from that point. Gurdup Singh, who is agreed to be Australia’s foremost expert in field studies employing the extraction of core samples, is adamant that this sudden acceleration in charcoal is due to humans using the Original land-management practise of fire-stick farming. At Jimium (Northern Territory) there are two contentious dates, both over 100,000 years that have been argued over for the last decade. Neither critic or advocate is disputing the methodology or science, but those of a sceptical disposition claim the samples tested were hidden in the shade before burial. Outside being there at the time, we still cannot see how people today can tell us where shadows were so many yesterdays ago. They could be right, and equally, could be wrong.

                The massive rock engraving of a saltwater crocodile found in the desert at Panaramitee (South Australia) has never been questioned as to whether this is Original creation. So too, no-one has claimed or hinted at saltwater crocodiles being so far inland at any time before 60,000 years. In fact, the last time this area was wet enough to support any crocodile, let alone one with a two-metre head, spans back to just under 100,000 years ago. At Lake Mungo are two ancient heads and bones of two Originals, both the male and female were dated by eminent archaeologist, Alan Thorne, to be over 60,000 years old. Being close to one thousand kilometres from any beach or sea water.it was assumed that locations so far inland like this one, would not be settled for at least 20,000 years after the theoretical Africans first set foot in Australia. That inland date means first entry had to be no less than 80,000 years. That date, as with the other five runs counter to all Out-of-Africa and into Australia theories.

                Needless to say, even though each date has academics and sound science in support, other mainstream ‘experts’ are less enthusiastic and, in each case, have mounted spirited critiques. It is fair to say, that in each of the five sites with dates way too big, the majority verdict amongst approved academics is inevitably in the negative. The most vocal critic of the Mungo Man and Woman date is the person many call the ‘grandfather’ of Australian archaeology, Jim Bowler. He originally found Mungo Man and was insistent that a date of 45,000 years is appropriate. The main reason he gave was that a date of above 60,000 years runs contrary to central tenet in the out-of-Africa theory that led onto an entry in Australia somewhere between fifty to sixty thousand years ago.        

“Warrnambool, Where Human History may be Rewritten”(78)

This site has gained a lot of publicity, if it wasn’t for the fact Jim Bowler is the head scientist and is stridently supporting a date of no less than 120,000 years with promises from him of more dates to follow, we sincerely doubt the coverage would have extended past one day. Once again, advocates and critics are not questioning the science applied, especially since “this layer has been dated by techniques known as optically stimulated luminescence, thermo luminescence and amino acid racemisation at 120,000 years of age.”(79) But this time around those disputing has assembled two alternatives that verge on the utterly ridiculous.

                It is coastal location and “layered into the cliff and scattered upon surrounding dunes are the leftovers of ancient feasts and campfires proven to stretch back at least at least 35,000 years.”(80) So far all ‘experts’ are on side and comfortable with that base, but “deeper that that, however, lies a mystery with the tantalising prospect of upending accepted understanding of the prehistory not only of Aboriginal Australia, but of human’s trek out of Africa.”(81) If it is “proven to be the result of human manipulation, blackened stones in hearth-like circles and broken shells found embedded in the cliff at point Ritchie, a place known to the Indigenous people of south-western Victoria as Moyjil, would mean that Aboriginal people lived there about 120,000 years ago.”(82)

                Accepted Australian models of how this continent was first populated always begin at Northern Australia, taking between 15-20,000 years to reach the far south of Victoria. Unlike the other sites this is not a one paper release then look away. “Their findings-six papers written by a total of 17 academic authors-were published by the Royal Society of Victoria several months ago, stirring widespread interest in archaeological and scientific circles. There was, unsurprisingly, scepticism too.”(83)

                So entrenched are many of the mainstream critics they had to find as many different alternatives as possible, but really had to walk a very fine line in suggesting this is all down to seagulls or maybe an intense bushfire burning on rock and sand. “One problem is that seagulls are known to drop and break open shells.”(84) However, never before has there been found or seen an instance where all the seagulls choose exactly the same spot to drop and smash shells thousands upon thousands of times. Moreover, according to the sceptics this is also the same place rocks were placed and arranged which was then burnt by a bushfire that “requires a consistent hot fire burning for a minimum of 45 minutes to an hour, like a campfire.”(85) It is literally impossible to imagine any fire, of any size on the beach burning fiercely for nearly an hour. During the last intense bush fire season in Australia, one of the worst on record, people in and near coastal towns fled to the beaches to escape the oncoming fire. The authorities demanded they did so, and there is not one recorded time, then or in the past, where the fire set the beach alight. That proposal is so illogical and manifestly untrue, I find it hard to believe anyone would make such a suggestion or put their name alongside.

                Common sense did prevail when compiling these reports as the scientists gave these options very little credence noting that “marine shells, stones in unexplained depositional context and fire resemblance to hearth, successively diminish the possibility of a natural explanation. That absence leaves the currently unlikely option of human agency as the most likely alternative.”(85) Bowler openly conceded many academics will object, and he candidly admitted he also doubted the dates coming out of this site for some time but has now relented, and made the point often that this research is incomplete and there is more to come.

Putting this Altogether

The hominid census count is far from complete, many have bigger brains than sapiens, one is chinless and another has no forehead, two hominids look incredibly ancient but have bigger brains than modern humans and there is plenty of proof that Australian Original Homo sapiens sapien were wandering throughout the Pacific a very long time ago. If you put all of this together, none of these facts belong to any accepted theory of hominid and modern human history and evolution. Many of these reports and papers are prefaced by the recommendation that a rewrite of the past is required, but none venture past admitting the current explanations fall short at many levels.

                It seems to us that all six investigations are directly or indirectly reliant upon what went on in Australia if seeking a solution. The reason we are the only species on this planet that runs along an exceptionally divergent path, is simply because the flat-headed beings do not come from the Earth, but elsewhere. These ‘star-people’ shared their knowledge, genes and destiny with just one species of hominids: Homo sapiens sapien. As to why one out of at least a dozen sapiens was chosen is unknown to us. It could be that our genes were the best at accommodating cross-fertilisation, maybe we were the most advanced in the magical and esoteric realms and they felt that was something worthy of pursuing, or something else again.

                Whatever the reason they came, lived with us and inseminated, until this truth is factored into every account of how human’s evolved and developed, anything claimed after that omission is fundamentally wrong. The Original flat-headed beings are not hominids, it is a simple as that. All the other hominids are kin to each other and us, these four, and many others, came from another planet in a different constellation. It just has to be that way, no sutures, a massive flask-shaped head that slopes backwards, eyes like an owl and overly long limbs that are as thick as a twig, a round nose and so much more that is not part of any hominid genetic package, which means that this non-hominid was never born on Earth.

                So, there it is, the six papers plus a few late additions all sought answers regarding some aspect of the human passage, and we responded in suggesting the answer to all the questions raised return to Australia somewhat like a boomerang. The facts are simple, these beings are Aliens and they were buried beside Original humans and given acknowledgement and respect. That part is ticked off, as to why a new strand of hominid is recovered virtually every month, and each look different, are of differing height, brain-size and facial features suggests that once again Alien genes were involved. Could it be these hominids numbering over a dozen today, which have been reluctantly accepted to be living beside each other for some time, are the outcome of earlier genetic hybridisation that had varying degrees of success?

                We can’t be sure about the hominid ancestry but are utterly sure Homo sapiens sapien is a hybrid of many planetary origin. From that partnership one cardinal truth is clear and needs to be the first sentence written in the oft proposed re-evaluation and rewriting of the history of modern humans and many hominids. Once that is done, anything past that initial foundation point must always begin with the first genetic truth, that we are all Galactic Citizens.  

REFERENCES:

(1): Nicholas R. Longrich , 22nd Nov., 2019. “Nine Species of Human Once walked Earth. Now There’s Just One. Did We Kill The Rest?”, Science Alert,  https://www.sciencealert.com/did-homo-sapiens-kill-off-all-the-other-humans 

(Originally from: The Conservation, https://theconversation.com/were-other-humans-the-first-victims-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction-126638 )

(2) – (18): Ibid.

(19): University of Adelaide. (2021, March 23). “New evidence in search for the mysterious Denisovans“. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 6, 2021 from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210323084732.htm Originally written by Kelly Brown.

(20) – (24): Ibid.

(25): Elizabeth Pennisi, Jun. 23, 2021.  “Ancient Siberian cave hosted Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans—possibly at the same time”, ScienceMag.Org, from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/ancient-siberian-cave-hosted-neanderthals-denisovans-and-modern-humans-possibly-same

(26) – (35): Ibid.

(36): Matthew Warren, 01 May 2019. “Biggest Denisovan fossil yet spills ancient human’s secrets”, Nature, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01395-0

(37) – (39): Ibid.

(40): Elizabeth Pennisi, 2021.  “Ancient Siberian cave hosted Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans—possibly at the same time”, ScienceMag.Org …

(41): Ian Sample, 26 June 2021. “Massive human head in Chinese well forces scientists to rethink evolution”, The Guardian (Australian Edition), from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/25/massive-human-head-in-chinese-well-forces-scientists-to-rethink-evolution

(42) -(60): Ibid.

(61): Marcos Araújo Castro e Silva, Tiago Ferraz, Maria Cátira Bortolini,David Comas, and Tábita Hünemeier, April 6, 2021.”Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives evidenced by Australasian ancestry”, PNAS, Vol. 118, No. 14 (e2025739118), from https://www.pnas.org/content/118/14/e2025739118

(62) -(68): Ibid.

(69): Archaeology World Team, 2 July, 2021. “New early human discovered in 130,000-year-old fossils at Israeli cement site”, Nexus News Feed, from https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/ancient-mysteries/new-early-human-discovered-in-130-000-year-old-fossils-at-israeli-cement-site

(Originally from: archaeology-world.com; June 26, 2021; https://tinyurl.com/y77ls4h9)

(70) -(72): Ibid.

(73): Ian Sample, 2021. “Massive human head in Chinese well forces scientists to rethink evolution”, The Guardian …

(74): Archaeology World Team, 2 July, 2021. “New early human discovered in 130,000-year-old fossils at Israeli cement site”, Nexus News Feed …

(75) – (77): Ibid.

(78): Tony Wright, December 30, 2019.”The Coast Diaries: Warrnambool, where human history may be rewritten”, The Age, from https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-coast-diaries-warrnambool-where-human-history-may-be-rewritten-20191226-p53n0t.html

(79) – (85): Ibid.