The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution

[BruceF]

If 780K years ago was the split of modern humans from the common ancestor with Neanderthals/Denisovans, then it might relate to what the Cs called a mixing of Nordic genes with the Neanderthal gene pool already on earth. This could be more neoteny even if it wasn't the original neoteny related split.

If by Nordic they refer to the Pleiadian alliance of worlds, then yes it would be exactly that, this splicing and modification of existing genes occurred just before the new types of hominin lineages began (including Neanderthal and Denisovans) at 780Kya. Some of the tall bluish Pleiadians are occasionally mistaken for being of Nordic appearance from what I have found in Ufology literature. I am saying this very much off the cuff in a way with no supporting evidence, but that is because I have already supported this argument with evidence in my wife's book so I feel comfortable just throwing it out there despite how nuts it may sound. I believe we are the first people to give solid science for this specific claim - that Pleiadians created large-brained humans, and that Pleiadians are a legitimate type of ET that visited this planet in a physical sense in remote prehistory. I am doubtful any of them are still physical now.

 

[BruceF]

In a way, I'm looking for the arrival of Kentekkians if it can be discerned in the record. Already we know that Toba blew around the same time Cs said that Kantek exploded - 70KYA. I'm even wondering if the latter event is the real one and the rest is symbolic info? Of course, there could be a connection between the Toba eruption and other events in the wider solar system at that time. A number of paleoanthropologists note that Toba apparently didn't have much effect on Africa, so if it caused a bottleneck, it wasn't there.

Then, there is the problem of species: could a group of human beings evolve on another planet and be able to interbreed with Earth types? If so, that suggests serious genetic maneuvering solar-system-wide.

So I'm keeping my eyes open for 70KYA events.

I am very much drawn to 70Kya (approx) being the time of an axial pole shift, I don't discuss that in the book but it was in my head. We do know that a star passed through the solar system at that time, and as well as Toba exploding a large rock shelf collapsed off the coast of Africa due to another volcano collapsing, right on the same dating of 73Kya Scientists find evidence of a MEGATSUNAMI caused by a collapsing volcano | Daily Mail Online

I know that Hapgood calculated one of the past earth crust displacements to be at close to 70,000 years ago, which is very intriguing. I don't know anything about the mentioned planetary explosion, but certainly, this was a period where SHTF!

I can only imagine ET mixing with hominins by means of advanced technology, which is something I have already mentioned in my comments earlier this evening. It does seem (this is merely claimed and I can't prove it) that DNA is an alien terraforming technology seeded on Earth and one known to many ET races, that would perhaps enable various ET groups to have knowledge of how to work with our genome and they may also be based on the same advanced genetic technology if DNA is the product of an elder race, responsible for seeding many planets over billions of years. Of course, now I am going into speculation and offer this only as a thinking point in response to the highlighted topic of aliens coming here and mixing with humans.

 

[BruceF]

Fenton's book is a real eyeopener, though it is indeed written for people with knowledge on the subject. Diagrams, photos of fossiles and geographical areas and a summary timeline would greatly have conveyed the message of the book. Perhaps a follow up book will include that. Stringers book sounds interesting and almost a most in order to fill in the gaps.

One such image to aid the visually minded could have been the one below, which shows Sahul that Fenton mentions and which shows what the landmass likely looked like in those days when the sealevels were much lower. Somewhere it mentioned 150meters lower. The Wallace line and the land of Sunda, both mentioned by Fenton is also shown in this map.


The C's mentioned:


So the landmass that was destroyed, was that 'simply' because sealevels rose due to the impact and/or possible water transfer from another planet? Those inhabiting the Northern areas and who didn't drown, might have seen a good reason to move away and discover other lands.

I have had a few legitimate complaints about my lack of images and graphs, if I ever write an updated version of the book I will rectify this. I neglected to include any images due to my dislike of relying on permissions for copyright. The book has not done very well really, despite help from Graham Hancock, as the media just won't talk about it, even alt media has largely ignored it, I think questioning Out of Africa is a major taboo and as such nobody wants to touch this matter (or very few anyway).

The map image is indeed important and should have been one I included as a minimum, it enables readers to appreciate why we do not find the likely settlements of hominins reaching Australia between 1,000,000 to 800,000 years ago, these sites are all under the ocean now. It is easy for people to say that we should have early fossils from Australia if hominins reached that landmass, but really it is not that simple!

As for Atlantis, as far as I am concerned the source of that legend is the flooding of Sunda at the end of the last ice-age, I am not alone in thinking that of course, but I do perhaps have a unique perspectives thanks to my incredibly focused analysis of archaeology in the region. I have also linked the ancient symbolism of Northern Sahul (which bordered Sunda of course) to the site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey. There are also links to many other ancients sites, from the Andes to Cambodia and even Western Europes megalithic cultures. I would like to write a book on that, but honestly with the depressing sales of all my works so far I am feeling more and more like just giving up on writing up my research. These days people seem to be more interested in baseless takes of Martian supersoldiers or gold miners from planet X - more serious evidence-based investigation is a bit out of fashion!

 

[Martina]

I read a book by Timothy D. Wilson: Redirect: Changing the Stories We Live By https://www.amazon.com/Redirect-Changing-Stories-We-Live/dp/031605190X
in which is explained that African Americans have pretty much same IQ as ''white'' Americans, because they perform better when IQ test is named Puzzles and Riddles

 

[Laura]

Okay, I see the reasoning for the 780KYA hook, and we already know the 70KYA period is important. I wonder if there is anything in the geology that shows up for 780KYA? It would be kind of hard for the astronomers to extrapolate back that far for comets and such; they peter out after awhile and turn to dust.

I'm sort of plodding through Coon. Geeze, he says some amazing things and, because of his education/bias, misses some pretty big clues I think. I'm putting some notes together on it that I'll share when I figure it out myself. Meanwhile, he does an analysis of Swanscombe Man. Here's the online scoop on that fella:

Swanscombe man - ScienceDirect

Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Volume 64, Issue 4, 29 December 1953
Summary
Stone hand-axes of Acheulian type have been found in Pleistocene deposits at numerous localities in Western Europe, Africa and south-western Asia, and were evidently made for scores of thousands of years. Only one undoubted braincase of an Acheulian hand-axe maker is known: that comprised by the occipital and parietal bones discovered by Mr. A. T. Marston in June 1935 and March 1936 in the Middle Gravels of the 100-ft. Terrace of the Thames, in the Barnfield pit at Swanscombe, Kent. Professor W. E. Le Gros Clark and Dr. G. M. Morant have reported that in so far as it is preserved this skull shows no feature which distinguishes it from skulls of Homo sapiens. However, it has some primitive traits, and the question of its relationship to Neanderthal Man on the one hand and to modern man on the other is still open to discussion. Comparison has been made with the Piltdown and Fontéchevade braincases.

The first important discovery of Palaeolithic implements in association with remains of extinct animals in the 100-ft. Terrace at Swanscombe was reported by Henry Stopes in 1900. The stratigraphy, palaeontology and archaeology of the Swanscombe high-terrace deposits became known in considerable detail as a result of the subsequent investigations of Messrs. Henry Dewey, Reginald A. Smith, R. H. Chandler, M. A. C. Hinton, A. S. Kennard and A. T. Marston. It is now possible to sketch the ecology, to determine the precise geological age, and to discuss in general terms the culture of Swanscombe Man.

In reviewing the Swanscombe dating evidence, the opportunity is taken to consider the claims to antiquity of various human remains found in Pleistocene deposits containing flint hand-axes. The Swanscombe skull alone among these stands up to the fluorine test of contemporaneity with associated fossils. It is now referred to the closing stage of the Second or Great Interglacial period (indicating an antiquity of at least 100,000 years).

Wikipedia tells us that this is all changed now; it's a woman and it's 400KYA and therefore MUST be Neanderthal:

Swanscombe Heritage Park - Wikipedia

The area was already famous for the finds of numerous Palaeolithic-era handaxes—mostly Acheulean and Clactonian artifacts, some as much as 400,000 years old—when in 1935/1936 work at Barnfield Pit uncovered two fossilised skull fragments. These fragments came to be known as the remains of Swanscombe Man. The bones were later found to have belonged to a young woman.[7] The Swanscombe skull has been identified as early Neanderthal, dating to the Hoxnian Interglacial around 400,000 years ago.[8] They are one of only two sites in Britain which have yielded Lower Paleolithic human fossils, together with the 500,000-year-old Heidelbergensis leg bones and teeth at Boxgrove. The skull fragments were found in the lower middle terrace gravels at a depth of almost 8 metres beneath the surface. They were found by Alvan T. Marston, an amateur archaeologist who visited the pit between quarrying operations to search for flint tools. A third, matching fragment of the same skull was found in 1955 by Bertram and John Wymer.

More:

Neanderthal woman in pieces

Posted by Rose on Feb 11, 2014 3:05:39 PM

She's 400,000 years old and her faceless skull is now mounted in an elegant display case in readiness for the Britain: One Million Years of the Human Story exhibition opening at the Museum on 13 February.





Could this 400,000-year-old skull, belonging to an early Neanderthal woman, be one of the first Neanderthals in Britain? The skull is one of more than 120 specimens and objects on show in the Britain: One Million Years of the Human Story exhibition.


The early Neanderthal woman's skull was found in Swanscombe, Kent and, despite its age, it reveals a great deal. Her brain left its mark on the surrounding bone. Faint impressions of folds and blood vessels show it was a similar size as a human's brain today.





The back of the Swanscombe skull has characteristic Neanderthal features, including a small pit where the neck muscles attached to the skull.


You'll see this striking specimen assembled as one exhibit in the exhibition, but look closely and you'll discover it actually comprises three parts.



Observing Museum curator, Rob Kruszynski, steadily hold the three skull pieces together at a recent photo shoot we attended, I listened intently as he recounted how remarkably well they fit together. Especially when you consider that they were found at different times in Swanscombe.





The central skull section (occipital) was found in June 1935 in Swanscombe, Kent, by a local dentist A. T. Marston. The left part (parietal) was found at Swanscombe in March 1936 also by Marston. And the right parietal was found years later in 1955, by archaeologists J. Wymer and A. Gibson. Select images to enlarge.






This graphic reconstruction of a Neanderthal woman model appears in the exhibition. © PS Plailly/E Daynes/Science Photo Library

Anyway, this is the same skull that Coon said was modern man and he gave the details on which he based his judgment.

Coon also mentions the Galley Hill skeleton as an early example of modern type man in UK. Here's a more recent article about it that we can only read the abstract of because you have to buy it (funny how that works):
Relative and absolute dating of the human skull and skeleton from Galley Hill, Kent - ScienceDirect

Relative and absolute dating of the human skull and skeleton from Galley Hill, Kent

Author: Ioannis C.Demetsopoullos, RichardBurleigh, Kenneth P.Oakley
Redirecting

Abstract
Over a period of some 100 years it has gradually been accepted that the human skeletal remains found in the late nineteenth century in ancient gravels at Galley Hill, Kent are not those of early man, but are of much more recent date. This conclusion was finally verified by means of relative (N, F) and absolute (14C) dating. Here we present the results of further analysis of the remains from Galley Hill for their uranium content by a method having general application to the relative dating of fossil human and other mammalian bone.

Then, I found this site about elongated skulls in Europe which includes some great images of the Ica skulls, but mainly what I was interested in was the Galley Hill Skeleton:

5. The Galley Hill Skull: an Extreme Elongated Skull

I am mentioning this skull because of its extreme elongation, and its antiquity.

This skeleton was found in 1888 in Galley Hill, in Kent, England, but left in place. It was studied by a couple of archaeologists over a period of many years, and was the debate of controversial theories, because it was present in a layer of soil that would date it to a period much older than the theories at that time would allow. In 1894 E. T. Newton carefully excavated it. Arthur Keith came to the conclusion that this skeleton was as old as the layer of soil it was found in, that is, about 250,000 years ago. It was thought that at that time, only a very primitive man existed, but the skeleton and skull showed that

"Certain it is that the remains found at Galley Hill are not those of a low type of man. In size, and in the richness of its convolutions, the brain of Galley Hill man does not fall short of the average man of to-day." (The Antiquity of Man by Arthur Keith, 1915, page 185)

"The skeleton does not show a single feature which can be called Neanderthaloid, nor any simian feature which is not also to be seen in the skeletons of men of the modern type. The Galley Hill man represents no strange species of mankind; he belongs to the same type as modern man." (page 186-187)

"The man was pronouncedly long-headed, the width being approximately 69 per cent, of the length. We have already seen that most of the Palaeolithic Europeans, especially of the Aurignacian period, had exceptionally long heads." (page 187)

That is a cephalic index of 69, what is classified as hyperdolichocephalous, or an extreme elongation. Interestingly, in that last quote, he mentioned that most Europeans in the Stone Age (2.6 millions years ago to 10,000years ago) were long heads! The Aurignacian period is from 43,000 years ago to 28,000 years ago.

You can find a detail description of this skull in The Antiquity of Man by Arthur Keith, 1915 from page 179 to 193.

The Galley Hill skull

Arthur Keith and the Galley Hill specimen

So, two cases where remains were re-analyzed to get them more in line with the Standard Theory.

 

[Martina]

I was reading this article about R. Lewontin to get more info about his work Commentary: The central questions of human genetics: Richard Lewontin’s 1968 senior lecture in Victor McKusick’s Bar Harbor short course | International Journal of Epidemiology | Oxford Academic this is one part:

''Why does it matter that some individuals have one allele and others a different one? Why are both, or more, types maintained in the population? The implicit explanation, honed through many models and mathematical analysis by population geneticists, is that these are consequences of natural selection regimens on the bearers of the various alleles. But the details were elusive and confusing in 1968, and remain so today with the exception of purifying selection on deleterious alleles. Lewontin uses the case of Rh (Rhesus factor, blood group) deficiency as an example. It was already known that maternal-fetal incompatibility at the Rh locus (child has the Rh antigen by inheriting a functional allele from the father and a deficiency allele from the Rh-deficient mother) would lead to fetal erythroblastosis, constituting strong negative selection. Why then is the Rh deficiency allele present at ∼ 40% frequency in Europeans? It is, justifiably, at a few percent in most other populations. What forces maintain such a deleterious allele at a high frequency across such a large geography? As a second example, how are the various common alleles at the ABO blood group locus maintained throughout humanity? Lewontin argued that finding out the answer to this and related questions should be the major goal of human genetics.''

My question is where did Rh negative blood groups came from? Internet is full of alien theories, is it Kantekkian mutation?

 

[Laura]

My question is where did Rh negative blood groups came from? Internet is full of alien theories, is it Kantekkian mutation?

There sure is a lot of nonsense about this. It simply means whether a person does or does not have a certain antigen in their blood. And there are a number of antigens or lack thereof. It's just the roll of the genetic dice, though it is controlled by a recessive gene I believe.

Rh blood group system - Wikipedia
The term "Rh" derives from the archaic term "rhesus factor", although it has long been known that the antigen from rhesus monkey red cells discovered in 1937 by Landsteiner and Wiener is not the same antigen as that seen in humans that the Rh blood group system describes. The term "Rhesus" is therefore generally avoided in modern use when describing this blood group system, although archaic terms such as rhesus blood group system, rhesus factor, rhesus positive, and rhesus negative are still sometimes erroneously used.

 

[Martina]

There sure is a lot of nonsense about this. It simply means whether a person does or does not have a certain antigen in their blood. And there are a number of antigens or lack thereof. It's just the roll of the genetic dice, though it is controlled by a recessive gene I believe.

Thanks, I'm glad I'm not an alien

 

[mkrnhr]

Coon also mentions the Galley Hill skeleton as an early example of modern type man in UK. Here's a more recent article about it that we can only read the abstract of because you have to buy it (funny how that works):
Relative and absolute dating of the human skull and skeleton from Galley Hill, Kent - ScienceDirect

The article has this result:

 

[Laura]

The article has this result:
View attachment 26666

So, they are saying that the test conforms with the previous fluorine etc analysis, but they give the RC date as 3310 +/- 150. However, the previous fluorine analysis said this:

The Swanscombe skull alone among these stands up to the fluorine test of contemporaneity with associated fossils.

It is now referred to the closing stage of the Second or Great Interglacial period (indicating an antiquity of at least 100,000 years).

 

[mkrnhr]

The introduction of Demetrsopoullos 83 doesn't dispute the antiquity of the Swanscombe skull. Here is a screenshot from the introduction:

The way i understand it, Swanscombe skull is ancient, but Gallery Hill skull is modern (maybe bronze age).

 

[anartist]

780,000 years ago is important as it falls in the middle of the period now recently calculated to be the time the ancestors of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans began to genetically diverge (750,000 - 800,000). Several studies have pointed to the Last Common ancestor living approx 800,000 years ago with a reasonable level of certainty (there is never absolute widespread agreement on such things). I have read papers that trace proteins, specific genes and of course the lineage divergence, all which support this dating. Archaeology already revealed long ago that human brain size went into rapid sudden increase close to 800,000 years ago, so it is perhaps not so surprising to find that much was happening in the genome around that point. I have also managed to finally pin down the dating of the fusing of chromosome 2 at this same point in time (750,000 to 800,000), specifically it occurs just before the divergence of the separate sub-species already mentioned. There are a number of anomalies that occur at this same moment, including genes that appear from the 'junk' (non-coding) DNA fully formed, and fragments of genes that appear to be cut, copied and re-inserted. My conclusion is that this is direct alien interference by means of a CRISPR type technology and also using a modified virus for horizontal gene transfer.

I have kept this line of research separate from my last book by inserting it all into my wife's books, as most readers of Into Africa are probably not ancient aliens theorists or open to that topic (I might be wrong). There is a bit more to this story but it goes beyond the genetics and hominin changes that we are talking about here.

I really hope this answer is helpful.

This is interesting, and brings to mind not only using viruses to change DNA, but also light. Light could be used for massive, general planet wide changes, followed by tweaking with viral changes specific to certain genome sequences. I wonder if this article represents an (un)conscious defence against viral change. sort of bolting the barn door afterwards?
https://gizmodo.com/artificial-genome-scientists-want-to-build-human-cells-1825693446

(L) And, wasn't it said that LIGHT was used to cancel certain DNA factors? (J) Exactly! (L) Okay, how do we block this kind of control?
A: You don't.

 

[Voyageur]

With hominins on Flores, Sulawesi and now in the Philipines all hundreds of thousands of years ago it is becoming hard for the mainstream to keep on saying there was no deliberate crossing of water happening in this early period. It is also important for my work as I have made it very clear I see the divergence of larger brained hominins (lineages leading to Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern humans) at 780,000 years ago as being a crucial moment in the story. Now we have evidence of movement of people around Island Southeast Asia not so very long after that time. What remains to be seen is who these people were, what sub-species. Homo erectus may seem the obvious bet, but there is a reason to suspect that the ancestors of Homo floresiensis might be the sailors and also may be our direct ancestors (due to skull morphology).

Finished your book 'Into...' BruceF, and see you are here joining this discussion. As a laymen in genetics, was surprised at how easily things seem to fit together in your telling, which was appreciated.

A couple of brief comments would be to say that your points about early seafaring, osit, seems spot on, yet it is hard or near impossible to nail down physical evidence, as you inferred also. However, the movement of groups overland vs. over water leads one to weight to the latter favorably. You also mentioned the dig at Lake Mungo (and another more substantial one a few hundred kilometers away) whereby 'Mungo Man' was 196cm. What you describe of him was in how he was laid to rest, and I though, now that was a very conscious burial when considering what the lower evolutionary time limit was at 40Kya., and then you pointed out that the skull was 2mm thick and where other finds are as thick as 13 mm or > (thick as motorcycle helmet). At .2 of a cm that is very thin indeed (amazing it even survived). That is curious find.

You mention lack of digs or evidence also in Australia (the former with the geological stratum's role and perhaps with just no real will to explore - with possible uncomfortable findings to be revealed) and a sea level 150m below current levels. There was a Wallace line map above that points to the expanding landmass (which also does not take the possibility of a rising landmass or sinking landmass). So, one sure has to wonder what is gone from our observable record underwater in terms of its vastness, as groups would tend to frequent or outright live by water, and a 150m rise ate up a lot of ground now lost to observation.

Look forward to your next in the series.

Also, thanks to those who offered the down load links for a number of other titles discussed above.

<Mango Man - Photo by Jim Bowler>

 

[Laura]

The introduction of Demetrsopoullos 83 doesn't dispute the antiquity of the Swanscombe skull. Here is a screenshot from the introduction:
View attachment 26667
The way i understand it, Swanscombe skull is ancient, but Gallery Hill skull is modern (maybe bronze age).

Well, as I mentioned, over in the elongated skulls thread: Elongated Skulls: Ancient Species, very distant from human? I've put a link to a page with a lot of images of the South American AND European elongated skulls. Pretty shocking. Reading down the page, there is the part about the Galley Hill skull that so enamored Coon which I posted above. Now, what is bothering me is something I remarked on in that thread, but deserves to be considered here as well, and that is the fact that
Coon frequently mentions that there are "many skulls" that had been found here or there, but he was only going to talk about the ones that had been "described and published." Usually, that was only a small fraction of what he said actually existed.

Further, looking at some of the images of European skulls on that same page makes it evident (at least to me), that there WAS some connection between the Ica type skulls of South America and those of the "megalithic peoples" as Coon refers to them. He usually trails off vaguely about the, saying only that they "arrived by sea" and no one knew where they came from.

Anyway, I am MOST disturbed, after looking at those images and quotes from old papers/books/articles about them, what Coon was NOT talking about. But Coon certainly stepped on some toes with his book even if he is all wet about his theories of origins.

 

[Meager1]

I`m just speculating here because I had the thought, what about Antarctica, the South Pole?
With lower sea levels it would appear that it would have been no problem to get to any other continent
from there. And if there was a race of giants living there, maybe gravity was different at the pole.
And maybe, if some of them were forced onto other continents over time a different gravity might have
made them smaller, more like the North America giants.
They probably would not have interbreed with early humans, they might have just been teachers or maybe were working on some early hominid breeding program themselves.
Google earth usually puts a patch over what they don`t want us to see but they missed one in Antarctica
this is a huge block building, just above the slanted X in the picture.
And if there were stone block buildings there, then there was a population at one time.
I hope the Google image comes through. Anyway, as I said it`s just speculation.

https://earth.app.goo.gl/or3ow