The Truth About The 'Hobbits'
By Lloyd Pye
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



This Site Served by TheHostPros