tc:This is one of 92 specimens the Gilroy's now have discovered.


The proto-Homo erectus skull

On 6th January 2005 Rex Gilroy unearthed this deteriorated fossil skull [now mineralised ironstone] from base Pleistocene deposits on Narrow Neck Plateau, Katoomba, New South Wales dating back 2 million years.

The skull’s distinctive, though badly worn sagittal crest, distinguishes it from all other Homo erectus skulls so far discovered in Australia by the Gilroys.

The braincase typical of Homo erectus skulls, was partly crushed flattish from the rear due to sediments not having sufficiently filled it to provide distortion resistance in the early stages of preservation.

Photo copyright © Rex Gilroy 2007.

http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/skull-p...mo-erectus.html

Time has not been too kind to them.

Which is why they are so important. This particular skull represents the oldest ever found in Australia..Rex believes this might be the grand daddy of the Yowie.

Interesting.
Are the YOWIE of great height, like SASQUATCH?

Hi

Well..that depends on what era your talking about??

If you mean the 20th century till today-they could be from pgymy sized to average heights (5-7 feet) to larger forms of the same average height beings.

Now if your talking about Aboriginal legends then there is no height...They have legends stating-and with cave art ,showing beings that when they walked entire forests shook.

Some of the fossil footprints (not recognised by science though) show heights they defy logic..

These are a few of the web sites I maintain for Australian researcher Rex Gilroy.

one of the first sites I did for rex
http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/yowiesmain.html
and
http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/yowie_plaster_casts.html
I am updating the above plaster pages in the next few weeks on another site


www.theaustralianyowieresearchcenter.com/ very old site I need to update.

The updated site I am working on
http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/

with a link to
http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/austral...h_mainpage.html
Which has two links-one to the book excerpts from the latest book-I will be adding 18 chapters with one page from each chapter tomorow
http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/yowie-r.../yowiebook.html

Yowie articles I am working on-50 years of research
http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/rex-hea...e-articles.html

http://www.theaustralianyowieresearchcente...m/contents.html

In 2004 over a period of two weeks I recorded the lifestime work of Rex Gilroy-An Australian researcher who has spent 50 years researching the Yowie and all manner of other cryptis and hominology.

Ths video is 6 meg, so be patient if you dont have a high speed connection. The video goes fro 2 minutes as is part of a series I am about to upload..This video was more of a test, its spliced together..

Rex talks about the yowie and Rex beast a giant he discovered...

http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/rex-yowie-origins.html

Any stone will do. This looks like a regular stone to me. they are so full of it. they call themselves authorities, and then sell the idea to us and they think we are so naive, we are going to believe anything.. yea yea...

What are you talking about?? That it resembles a stone? If you do, of course it does its mineralised, almost an endocast but no quite..

Do you think African skulls are skull and bone when found? Of course not they are almsot mineralised and they painstakingly spend years taking the rock/debris off so it resembles a skull. So again what is your point again??Who is so full of it again>???Its a 2 dimensional image, how can you conclude its just a stone by that??

I will post two images of so called stones and you see if you can spot the real skull okay. One will be a well known skull the other a not.., both resemble rocks but one has protruding eye sockets, but can you tell your stones from a mineralised; or even an edocast of a skull..Unless you have training I don't think you would.

University anthropologists at ANU (Australian National University) dont think that these are stones either...I was standing there they asked Rex to allow them to borrow them for a few weeks, but that they would have destroy parts of them for dating..

Might not hurt if you check your facts before making a silly post like this, if you think it is just a stone, show us why, point to some evidence, and we will debate it. Until then try to keep the criticism constructive if you can. Post like that just annoy and detract from the thread.
Cheers

PS// If you want to understand the process, google this: fossil mineralized ironstone
Should give you plenty to read, all the best

tc....when is a paleontolgist going to work on preparing your speciman......otherwise it just looks like a natual rock to me

Good Question. But as you obviously don't know about Australian laws I will enlighten you.

First: The Australian Aborigines have rights to everything-And I mean Everything. Scientist cannot even touch a skeleton they find until they have informed and asked permissdion from the local elder(s).

If then the elder decides that they want the remains re-buried, then they are drawn and measured-but not touched and then re-buried. If the elder wants them protected they will be taken to ANU (where al skeletal remains are now taken) and buried in their immense repositories, of which I was fortunate to be able to go on and photographs collections returned.

What this means is that, there are no-ways of comparison with other remains-such as those Rex and Heather have discovered over 50 years..

Secondly: If these pre-date the aborigines and the Aborigines have all rights

Did that answer your Question?

In fact we have an election TOMORROw here and if they are re-elected the Liberals will have a referendum and if it goes as planned and the Aborigines are embedded in our constitution as the FIRST & ONLY inhabitants and no-one before then no-one will ever be able to write about any discoveries of them in the first place. As to do so will be racial discrimination...This is FACT..

This is how discoveries of this kind happen..You have field workers-say in Africa they scoure known areas, and they look for rocks not bones (although they do find just bone), they are long mineralised, but they know what they should be looking for.

Rex also knows what he is looking for and here in Australia remains are so worn and weathered that in 50,000-300,000 and beyond most remains are either endocasts or mineralised.

Its just how remains are found as stone and then the process of taking each individula pebble, and stone which can take years, until it starts to resemble the skuls or the fragments we are shown on tc or on docos.

As I said above I can post images showing famous African skulls completely mineralised but after painstaking work-1-3 years every single day then they show the finished skull to the world.

But when it is discovered you would not see the difference between a rock anbd what it resembles-a skull or a fragment of a skull or skeletal remains..As you and the other posted state they are just rocks, that shows you do not know what and where and how they are found and how they look, when they are found.

If you see a skeleton then its not very old.in the scheme of things.most Skeletons that resemble skeletons are not the ages I am talking about we are talking pre-aboriginal and at the latest count they are at least 65,000B.P on this continent. We are talking from 2-3 million years ago down to 150,000-300,000 yras B.P (Before Present)...

yes they are rocks, but they were something else before they were mineralised...

Rex has offered any scientist anytime to come and see his evidence, they won't as they are pre-aboriginal and thats the end of that..Even after an article in the Melbourne AGE back in 1999 stated that "No scientist will even look at the evidence Rex has"..

While you might believe they are nothingit stems back over 30 years ago when a DR Ritchie of the Australian Museum started articles debunking Rex's yowie work, his contact to Australia by Chinese and others and on and on and on.

This Dr Ritchie; after Rex did an article in the Bega times earlier this year on a discovery near an ancient went on ABC radio for a 35 minute rant and rave why the skull could not be!!! A -6 million yr old Volcanic site was where the skul was discovered and he stated: that the skulll could not be that old if it wasd even a skull as the land of Australia has changed so much in this time.

By the way this Dr Ritchie who always liked to write against Rex-on behalf of the Australian skeptic society-of which Dr Ritchie was a head member is an expert on fossil fish not hoiminids etc..

You can think its a rock and you can agree with what certain people say against Rex's work but as I said ask any Australia what they believe the Australian Aboriginal land claims entail etc...and really mean to the discoveries of Rex..

But your correct they are rocks...

TC...yes that answers my question....its in the hands of politicitons so it maybe years....:headscrat

and I really have nothing against you or Rex.....I am just saying that the fossil in that pic needs to be prepared before it can be identified....as with any other fossils.

Hi I know you were only asking...We are going to take better shots from all angles...a small bone found in Kenya a few years back was found in a repository in an African lab, it was thought it was only a small pebble-it was a molar!!!

When a specimen is shown to the world its not the original find, it has painstakingly had all the rocks and dust etc.. removed...it can take from 1-5 years before you see the pristine specimen such as; that Tau child or any other find...Buried under sediment and then re-surfaced then another flood etc...takes its toll, but if these Australian specimens ever are seen by Scientists and we did take photos down to ANU (Australian National University) and they were impressed enough to ask could they borrow three of them.

It would over-ride the Aboriginal/Koori claims to Australia and the first Australians. simple as that...If these discoveries were found anywhere but Australia they would be recognised but because tis Australia; an no pre aboriginal/Koori race no skulls to even find then??

Therefore on that assumption why look at these Skulls and giant molar and teeth in an ironstone mummified head, if they are appear older than 65,000 years which as anyone will tel you ironstone takes much longer than that to form and then theres the mineralisation and many other factors that make these discoveries older than out of Africa, for modern humans that is..Can you see what I mean now, how can you have skulls pre-dating Aborigines/Kooris and also pre-dating modern humans out of Africa!!!