posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 02:06 AM
So first we applu Occam's razor.
Which is easier to believe? That ancient humans came to Australia many tens of thousands of years ago, leaving behind a fair share of datable remains
and artifacts to confirm their antiquity...
It's all a fake. The aborigines and the "liberal academia" are in a grand conspiracy together to fake vast amounts of evidence for the nefarious,
evil, and completely moustache-twiddling reason of asserting the Aborigines might have ownership rights, because they want to keep white Australians
The worst part is that Liddell does start with a factual scientific base. The Australian aborigines are closely related to papuans, as well as
the Negritos of the Phillipines, and the other negritos of the Andaman islands. This is because these people are direct descendants of the first wave
of human migration. There have also been multiple migrations - with the most recent being roughly 6,000 years ago (they brought the Dingo, and that's
how we can tell)
However these latter colonists came from Papua, just as the previous immigrants did. The papuans and the Aborigines are essentially the same people -
when humans arrived on the continent, it was connected. New Guinea, Australia, and tasmania were a single continent named Sahul. Humans migrated
through papua, into Australia, and into Tasmania. The Ice Age ended, the Straits flooded, and the three regions were separated.
Papua got several waves of newcomers from Indonesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia. Australia got immigration from Papua, and had some contact with Asia.
Tasmania remained completely isolated, and when "discovered", Tasmanians were hte most technologically primitive people on the planet - they were
stuck in the paleolithic, because they had no contact with anyone outside their island for at least forty thousand years.