Down by, Via, and in the Sea: a Seagull did it!
By Steven & Evan Strong
The most recent reports on three archaeological discoveries are so radical and sensational in their implications that, if actually true, all historical books which deal with anything prefaced by BC have to be rewritten. Fundamental theories that seemed to have morphed into historical facts such as Darwinian influenced accounts of human evolution, the denial of earlier more advanced civilisations and the importance of magic, along with the mistaken belief humanity evolved in Africa which led on to the Out-of-Africa exodus of modern man are now no longer facts, and they have to be regarded as seriously questionable flawed suggestions. It is that cut and dried, the pedigree of the science supporting three separate pieces of research is of the highest level, and if the conclusions are correct then virtually everything claimed to be known about humans before paper and books, is called into question.
According to the conclusions of these three investigations, the science is adamant “nothing similar has ever been found,”(1) the archaeology strongly suggests that there is an Australian site “which challenges global theories about how people migrated out of Africa and dispersed around the world”(2) and the chemical analysis of five ancient rings reveals “a hybrid of metallurgy, chemicals, homeopathy and magic, there are no shovels or mines in the final product. There is clear evidence of an alchemist versed in the art of magic.”(3) If the researchers are mistaken then the books, universities and experts are correct and the status quo prevails, however, if these intriguing findings are correct, then ‘all bets are off.’
“Humans might have lived at this coastal site 120,000 years ago-the trick lies in proving it”(4)
This is the opening headline on the first page of the most recent report on the discovery of what many believe to be human shell middens that has a date of no less than 120,000 years. The science underpinning this timing is rock-solid and not under question by either critic or advocate. The only point of contention is whether the site is due to human activity, if so, all experts are in agreement that would mean all accepted assumptions relating to human evolution and global migration are wrong.
There are three explanations given in relation to the middens at Point Ritchie, two experts validate the authenticity of the site, while a third and fourth academic express reservations, but never rule it out. Alas, what is symptomatic of every coverage of Original archaeological concerns, is that the person with the least input is the chosen Original spokesperson who liaised with the archaeologists when examining the remains on a coastal headland at Moyjil (Point Ritchie, Warrnambool, Victoria). From our perspective and mandatory approach, the first step is to consult with the proper Old Way Keeper of Lore and culture and branch out from that agreed foundation. Therefore, when “Gunditjmara man John Clarke says according to his cultural beliefs, his people have been part of the world forever.”(5) He knows this is not a beginning date, things go back much, much further, “as far as Mara man John Clarke, from Eastern Marr Aboriginal Corporation is concerned, the official age of human activity at Moyjil doesn’t matter.”(6) Whatever number is declared, like so many in this country when it comes to the supposed ‘first occupation date,’ what seems to happen is a few years later it stretches backwards a little further.
So much for the eternally last group consulted, with a token reference given, this report sets out two sets of scientific arguments, for and against this massively inconvenient set of numbers being no less than 120,000 years. The whole tone of the paper is all about which interpretation of chemistry, geology and archaeology is more convincing. At no stage is this utterly unacceptable assumption of Original humans living here forever is canvassed or whispered about in the background. It all comes down to the opinions of four scientists, two for, one probably not and the fourth is expressing reservations from the grandstand. As for John Clarke’s science and mathematics, it has too many noughts to be discussed in polite circles, so it is back to the males with degrees from approved universities in deciding whether this site is indeed an Original occupation site that is over 120,000 years old.
What has to be made clear is that this investigation has been neigh a decade in duration and is ongoing, and there are clear hints of more to come of greater antiquity. Equally, of the many scientists and archaeologists involved the majority verdict is in the affirmative, and even in the case of the one critic, he never rules out that the site is the result of human activity expressing his “reluctance,”(7) but never outright denial.
Bowler’s Admission of a Previous Error
From our viewpoint the most important sentence in the report Evan handed me, related to what Jim Bowler was now convinced is true. The problem is that this commentary on Bowler’s research and sensational date is in contradiction to his earlier quite guarded comments. Three years earlier Bowler was more sceptical than Professor Ian McNiven is today, he had announced an occupation date spanning back to 90,000 years, but it was wrapped around equivocations. Back then Bowler was just as convinced the science applied was solid, but he refused to endorse the date-simply because it was so radical. He needed more and said so, he wanted another date of the same or greater antiquity.
It was a contradictory reason to equivocate upon, as he had in 1983 signed off on a joint paper written by himself, Gurdup Singh and Peter Ouwendyke, based on core extractions taken from the outer reaches of the Great Barrier Reef. They agreed that the huge increase in charcoal deposits found from 186,000 years onwards was due to Original people using ‘fire-stick farming.’ Nevertheless, Bowler refused to commit, but once this much older date came out he has cast away any doubt. “He said the evidence at Moyjil showed humans were there at least 120,000 years ago,”(8) it was a conclusion reached incrementally and certainly reluctantly, as he openly conceded that supporting such a date was “terrifying.”(9)
“We have to deal with what we’ve got,” he said.
“If I pretended I was not convinced they were people that would be a greater evil than running the risk of starting scandal by claiming human occupation at 120,000 years, which many archaeologists would see as scandalous and unjustified.”
“I have to bite that bullet.”(10)
The “Bullet”(11) Bitten
To begin with, it was Dr John Sherwood (Deakin University) who initiated proceedings. Sherwood was first alerted to the mystery of Moyjil by the “former deputy director of the National Museum of Victoria, the late Edmund Gill,”(12) who was also troubled by the midden and rocks that seemingly cracked because of the intense and repeated incidences of fire used in cooking sea food and shells. Gill “pointed out the unusual deposits to him a few years before his death.”(13) Sherwood agreed that there are features and fractures present that just do not fit, and from that point on Bowler and others joined him on site and beside these middens.
“Our story starts after that 125,000-year-old sea level starts to drop. This becomes dry land again and it’s a flat rock shelf. For some reason, blackened stones start to appear on it, then the sand buries those, and eventually we get shells and charcoal all the way through it.”(14)
“Those blackened stones-which some members of the team believe have been fractured by being repeatedly burnt-the discarded shells and the charcoal are at the centre of the research project.”(15) Both the rocks and shells, along with some of the surrounding sand, “have all been separately dated to that period of 120,000 years ago.”(16)
All of this science is not challenged, there is only one point of difference, in that “how they got there is unknown.”(17) From Dr. Sherwood’s perspective, “it’s only the age that makes everyone so cautious.”(18)
“Sea Birds”(19) and “Wildfire”(20)
There are three objections raised that give rise to doubt and scepticism. Dr. Sherwood was aware of the two on-site alternative agencies noting that “you can argue that sea birds might have collected the shells, but then you have to explain the blackening of the stones. And if that was a wildfire, it would have to have been a very intense wildfire to blacken stones right through and crack them. That’s basically our dilemma.”(21)
In resolving this “dilemma,”(22) those who propose that any sea bird collects shells from near and far then waits until returning to the same location, as do the entire flock, before consuming the contents of the shell, we need more specifics in identifying a genera, not a vague hint of flying feathers and a beak. Apparently, upon eating the flesh of the shell all the birds carefully stack the shell and associated remains in one pile. What is the name of this bird? What bird dines communally at the same spot and cleans up after? There is no answer, birds do not make middens, humans do and that is it.
No less ridiculous is the notion of intense bushfires blazing on any beach. During the last huge outbreak of fires in Australia, so many fled to the beach for refuge, safe in the knowledge no wildfire burns on sand, bare rock or ocean. That is the 101 of survival when any fire is out of control, that being an eternal truth, the idea of middens and rocks experiencing any cracking or shattering due to the intense heat of a bush-fire has as many precedents as there are communal shell stacking birds, there are none whatsoever. It seems a touch bizarre that Dr. Shepherd has to even address such poorly assembled alternatives, and unless these hypothetical birds can be named or beaches burnt often identified, these explanations should be summarily dismissed.
Another eminent defender of orthodox archaeology, who was not part of the investigating team, Bert Roberts, claims Moyjil is not a “standard”(22) site “because it lacked obvious signs of human activity, such as stone tools.”(23) First up, Roberts knows of no other site of this antiquity, his comparison will be against locations less than half the timing. If so, who knows what the toolkit was or wasn’t in these much older times? Knowing that every traditional account has an entry date via Africa at around 60,000 years or earlier somewhere in northern Australia, with an expectation it would take at least 20,000 years until sites like this southern location were first be settled, there is nothing to use as a comparison thus making any claim as to what tools and implements they had so long ago impossible to prove.
If we did accept that the tool-kits Roberts is familiar with from about 40,000 years are identical to those of a time scale at least three times older, what actual tools are needed when fishing and gathering shells? For all shells, anything with an edge to pry and lever with, be it a natural stone, another shell or hard wood would be sufficient. In catching fish, all fibre nets decompose quickly, so too do three-pronged wooden fishing spears. In fact, all the bulkier, thicker tools found at many non-coastal sites are far more prevalent when hunting marsupials. But down on the coast, fish, shells, and even seals require the most basic of utensils and none would age well.
It’s all About the Maths
This is really all about one recurring festering archaeological truth that refuses to go away, the six-figured date is just one nought too many. “Dr. Sherwood said without the complexity of the 120,000-year-old date, which challenges global theories about how people migrated out of Africa and dispersed around the world, it’s likely the site would be considered to contain evidence of human activity.”(24)
What is as revealing as it is endemic in the current conservative climate, is the reflex denial Sherwood and Bowler had to overcome. “Before we knew the age was 120,000 years, when we just knew it was old, archaeologists said to me, ‘if you don’t tell me how old this is, I’m prepared to believe this is a human midden,” Dr. Sherwood said.”(25) The overriding truth is that the mathematics is way past inconvenient and “it’s only the age that makes everyone so cautious,”(26) especially since, as Professor McNiven conceded that if legitimate, which he “wouldn’t say is out of the question,”(27) then Moyjil “is a game-changer.”(28)
Changing Names and Games
If this midden was dated at 40,000 years or less, neither McNiven or Roberts would feel compelled to object, nor would they raise such illogical scenarios that are lacking in precedent or the name of this hypothetical bird. Neither a duck, seagull or albatross dines communally, co-operatively or to any set routine. When food is available it is eaten where it is found or taken back to one nest, never a mound by the seaside. Equally, intense bush fires that can melt rocks on the beach by the sea and sand does not happen in Australia. Beaches are the primary safe haven when raging fires are nearby. Rock platforms, sand and sea water do not ignite, burn or even smoulder during any bush fire season, to suggest otherwise is unscientific, and as unproven as it is grossly unintelligent.
The reason Bowler has had “sleepless nights”(29) is not because he may be wrong, but simply because he has no choice but to be right. Three years earlier he hedged his bets, not anymore, it is what it is. What follows is that the Out-of-Africa and into Australia 50-60,000 years ago theory, is patently incorrect. No-one has ever suggested this hypothetical exodus out of Africa took place any earlier than 75,000 years ago, that figure now has to be doubled. Then, throw in a boat designed and constructed to sail across huge expanses of oceans so long ago with no proof and the Original belief they were created in Australia, never from Africa, and a completely different narrative comes into play and demands immediate consideration.
If this research stood alone in questioning so many fundamental historical cornerstones, it could be placed on a ‘holding pattern’ pending confirmation as Bowler did until he had no choice but to commit and “bite the bullet.”(30) But that is not necessary, there are so many contradictory papers and reports turning up each day, the only difficulty faced is deciding not what to include, but what to omit. The next paper handed to me was always going to be next in line, once the word “orichalcum”(31) was sighted in the headline, the five rings demanded an audience and my pen.
“Orichalcum, the lost metal of Atlantis, may have been found on a shipwreck off Sicily”(32)
“A group of naval archaeologists has uncovered two hundred ingots spread over the sandy seafloor near a 2,600-year-old shipwreck of the coast of Sicily.”(33) In total, 86 ingots “were made from orichalcum, a rare metal that ancient Greek philosopher Plato wrote was from the legendary city of Atlantis.”(34) According to Sebastian Tusa (“Sicily’s superintendent of the Sea Office”(35)) he felt “that the precious ingots were probably being brought to Sicily from Greece or Asia Minor.”(36) Tusa stated that the discovery of this “mysterious metal”(37) is of immense importance simply because “nothing similar has ever been found.”(38) He added, “We knew orichalcum from ancient texts and a few ornamental objects.”(39)
According to Plato orichalcum in Atlantis held the same status as gold. Such was its esteem the whole citadel of Atlantis “flashed with the red light of orichalcum.”(40) The interior walls, pillars and floors of the Temple of Poseidon and Cleito in Atlantis “were completely covered in orichalcum, and the roof was variegated with gold, silver and orichalcum. In the center of the temple stood a pillar of orichalcum, on which the laws of Poseidon and records of the first son princes of Poseidon were inscribed.”(41)
What is interesting, and more than a touch typical of the current compartmentalised thinking in academia, the person who wrote this article correctly concedes that “experts have hotly debated the metal’s composition and origin.”(42) But there in the next two sentences are the most obvious and important clues that assist in resolving this ‘debate.’ What is agreed is that the ancient Greek accounts insist that “orichalcum was invented by Cadmus, a Greek-Phoenician mythological character.”(43) For any that missed that clear directive, the following sentence restates the same process, in that Cadmus “is said to have created orichalcum.”(44) To invent or create has nothing to do with mining, sieving, panning, extracting or digging an ore or rock positioned in the earth. To invent is make something different and unknown from known materials. Throwing some dirt or crushed rocks into a fire is not an invention or creation. This hybrid metal is not due to any mining venture, but solely down to blending and assembling elements under the guidance of an alchemist of the highest degree, whose name happens to be Cadmus. Such is the incredible importance of Cadmus and the metal he created in a laboratory, he “was the founder and first king of Thebes.”(45)
Orichalcum was mentioned by Pliny the Elder, Homer, Plato and was also acknowledged “in the Antiquities of the Jews (1st century AD)- Book V111, sect.88 by Josephus, who stated that the vessels in the Temple of Solomon were made of orichalcum.”(46) Long considered a myth, as is Atlantis, it is now agreed to be the real item. This article does serve one purpose well in declassifying its mythical status into a fact, however, when it comes to defining the composition of orichalcum and its origin, this introduction falls short. If seeking to “finally unravel the mystery of the origin … of this enigmatic metal,”(47) the answer as to the reality of that fabled and fallen civilisation can be found within the recent chemical analysis of two Atlantean and three Lemurian rings.
Part 3 of this Archaeological Trilogy
Our most recent report on the chemistry of the five ancient rings, continues where the 86 crude ingots of Orichalcum began in establishing its authenticity. That these five rings once resided in either Atlantis or Lemuria has been proven beyond chemical doubt in our previous article. Beyond the science and facts, many observations and inferences were made, but one does need to be developed a little further in response to one particular deity/being mentioned twice in this article.
What was made very clear in the chemical analysis and in the comparisons of the five rings and Sicilian ingots, is that although all rings have an orichalcum base, additions and deletions were made. What is even more significant in determining origins or caves, the variation and range in the percentages of each of the five standard elements (copper, zinc, lead, iron and nickel) is very wide. Then there against this huge variation are instances of almost complete duplication. The copper/zinc content of Atlantis Ring 1 is 99.53%, while that of Atlantis Ring 2 is 99.36%. So too is that seemingly intentional replication in the input of copper and zinc repeated in the Lemurian rings. Lemuria Ring 2 measures 95.22%, whereas Lemuria Ring 3 carries a load of 95.25% copper and zinc For any inclined to dismiss this synchronicity in proportions as coincidental, surely the fact that both Lemuria Ring 2 and 3 share the same tin percentage of 1.12% is a ‘bridge too far.’
We feel the variation is too great and exact replication is by design for this to be sourced from an ore or mine, but rather five examples of elements intentionally assembled by an alchemist par excellence. Or perhaps Cadmus, would see this more as created or invented than assembled. That this ancient myth is finally proved factual in 2020 through application of the best science available, makes one wonder whether other ‘myths’ are no less factual.
The chemical breakdown indicates that orichalcum is a customised invention that never repeats itself, outside the elementary base of five other elements can come, go or be swapped. Of course, the two elements added to this orichalcum template in Lemurian rings, titanium and chromium, were discovered in the 1790’s and first used in industrial processes in the twentieth century. Paradoxically, the rings are obviously incredibly ancient yet bear the modern-day hallmarks of the most advanced technology of today.
Five Rings, Eighty–six Ingots and one Midden
The geography is all over the globe, whether Sicily, Atlantis, Lemuria or Australia, whatever the archaeology they combine in telling a completely different story of our ancient past and evolution. Whether the remains of dinner and breakfast down by the sea, a Roman shipwreck carrying precious metals supposedly mythical or five rings mystical, the results always run down a path that has no academic credence, but happens to be true. What is also true is that Original people come from here, the civilisations of Atlantis and Lemuria did exist and most importantly, these ancient rings not only exhibit technology no less than the equal of today, but they are charged with magical powers and an independent will/inclination.
What is as alarming as it is symptomatic of societies and institutions that deceive and lack trust, is that the traditional fictional historical tale is clearly wrong, but nothing changes. If the past is an edited version written by monarchs, generals and opportunists, then this is the right time to reset and re-orientate to a far more esoteric global disposition. And in moving forward as the earth begins to ramp up its inner vibration, we have to first clearly understand our true history, capacities and why magic must return. Right now, a massive change in all Earthly circumstances is nearly upon us, and Atlantis has fully returned while Lemuria is calling. The best way to decide which invitation to accept is to understand human history is intentionally circular in entrapment, and if most of it is hidden, then it gets so much harder to choose well and break the chains that bind us.
These shells, cracked rocks, “sleepless nights,”(48) the ancient cargo of ‘mythical’ orichalcum ingots, along with five rings sourced from the ancient ‘mythical’ civilisations of Lemuria and Atlantis all fall outside the embrace of all accepted historical accounts. So, with the change nearly upon us, it is time for a global spring clean beginning with throwing out the rubbish, the lies, constructed false history, revisions and bad intentions. Yet another part of the cleansing, is the acknowledgement that Original people came from nowhere but Australia and carry Pleiadean genes and were in Australia when it was part of Lemuria.
That’s all in the past tense, when it comes to the present and future sense, both the sacred rocks, bones and magic rings are still here and make no mistake, they will be heard. Past that it all depends on who wants to listen come December 21 at 9:02pm.
(1): Archaeology World Team, March 23rd, 2020. “Orichalcum, the Lost Metal Of Atlantis, May Have Been Found on a Shipwreck off Sicily”, Archaeology World, https://archaeology-world.com/orichalcum-the-lost-metal-of-atlantis-may-have-been-found-on-a-shipwreck-off-sicily/, 09/09/20.
(2): Sian Johnson, 5th Sept. 2020. “Ancient Aboriginal site Moyjil could rewrite the global story of human migration”, ABC News, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-05/moyjil-coastal-site-at-warrnambool-of-global-indigenous-heritage/12629934,
(3): Steven & Evan Strong, 24th Aug. 2020. “Come Together: The Rings of Atlantis and Lemuria”, Forgotten Origin: The Out of Australia Theory, http://forgottenorigin.com/come-together-the-rings-of-atlantis-and-lemuria
(4) -(30): Sian Johnson, 5th Sept. 2020. “Ancient Aboriginal site Moyjil could rewrite the global story of human migration”, ABC News, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-05/moyjil-coastal-site-at-warrnambool-of-global-indigenous-heritage/12629934,
(31) – (47): Archaeology World Team, March 23rd, 2020. “Orichalcum, the Lost Metal Of Atlantis, May Have Been Found on a Shipwreck off Sicily”, Archaeology World, https://archaeology-world.com/orichalcum-the-lost-metal-of-atlantis-may-have-been-found-on-a-shipwreck-off-sicily/, 09/09/20.
(48): Sian Johnson, 5th Sept. 2020. “Ancient Aboriginal site Moyjil could rewrite the global story of human migration”, ABC News, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-05/moyjil-coastal-site-at-warrnambool-of-global-indigenous-heritage/12629934,
Thank you for sharing useful information with us. please keep sharing like this. You might like the following article also.