- Dear Jeff -
-
- I send this to you because I'm confident your audience
would appreciate some help interpreting what has happened in the last couple
of days in the world of mainstream anthropology, an event famed Darwinist
Richard Dawkins calls the most important development in their field in
decades--the discovery of tiny "human" fossils on an island in
Indonesia.
-
- As with all such discoveries, this creature is trumpeted
as "human" for no other reasons than it walked upright, and it
was found to be too recent (18,000 years ago) to qualify as a so-called
"pre" human. Like all those other prehumans, it has not a bone
in its body that looks human. The bones are all more robust, relatively
speaking, than humans, the arms are longer, the fingers are longer, and
the skull is about as far from human as can be imagined. Larger nasal opening,
larger eye sockets, pronounced brow ridges, no forehead, tiny brain, but
teeth clearly more human-like than chimp or gorilla-like.
-
- This, my friends, is "human" in name only.
What it REALLY is, but what no mainstream anthropologist will dare consider,
much less agree with, is an Agogwe, the smallest and most human-like of
the four main types of Hominoids. I write about this extensively in Part
III of my book, "Everything You Know Is Wrong," but the gist
is this...
-
- Around the world, on every continent except Antarctica,
exist living relics of the Miocene Era (25 million years ago), when about
50 species of tailless apes lived and far outnumbered monkeys in the fossil
record. Of those apes, many had "short arms" unsuited for quadrupedal
movement. (Quadrupeds need arms longer than their legs to move efficiently
and comfortably.) Short armers had arms the same length as their legs.
(Humans have arms shorter than their legs.)
-
- Thus, the "short armed" Miocene apes are left
off the radar of modern anthropology because it is obvious they could only
have moved comfortably in an upright posture. But since bepedality is considered
a trait that our primate ancestors somehow "learned" as they
emerged from trees to make their way on savannas (filled with feral cats
they could not have hoped to compete with), anything that looks like it
might have walked out of the Miocene has to be blotted from the record.
Why? Because if there were upright walkers millions of years ago, then
what are fobbed off as "prehumans" were not prehuman at all,
but a continuation of Miocene apes that walked upright. This would leave
humans off the archeological flowchart of life on Earth, which at present
simply can't be considered because of the ugly can of worms it would open.
-
- If I'm right and mainstream anthropologists are wrong,
then what are their precious, indispensible prehumans? Hominoids. Bigfoot,
Sasquatch, Yeti, Abominable Snowman, Almas, and last but not least, the
pygmy of the group, generically called the Agogwes. They are small, 3-4
feet tall, hair covered, and dominate folklore tales all over the jungles
of Indonesia, Sumatra, Java, etc. (exactly where the new Hobbit bones were
found). These creatures have been known and written about for 40 years.
There is nothing new about them except to the mainstreamers who wouldn't
be caught dead educating themselves to things they have been trained to
believe are "impossible."
-
- It is ironic that, to defend their position, the mainstreamers
who discovered the Hobbit bones are now saying, "We think they're
humans because people on the island have folklore stories about them that
go back hundreds of years." Now, what happens when WE Hominoid researchers
say to THEM, "Folklore stories of Hominoids go back hundreds of years
on every continent except Antarctica"? They virtually scream at us
that we're being "unscientific" and should be dismissed as idiots
or worse for even suggesting that the myths and legends of benighted savages
should be taken at face value.
-
- To cut to the chase and give you something you can take
to the bank, the Hobbits are flatly and definitely not human. They are
the bones of Agogwe type (pygmy) Hominoids. No tests will be performed
that will show they are remotely related to humans. If mitochondrial DNA
can be recovered (which should be possible because it's been recovered
from 30,000 year old Neanderthals), it will be in the range of difference
from humans that Neanderthals have proved to be. (Neanderthals are representative
of the Almas type of Hominoid and not human, either.) Time will show that
what I'm saying is right and the mainstreamers are wrong. Book it.
-
- Lloyd Pye
- lloydpye@cox.net
|
