A recent TV programme would have Homo Erectus crossing the treacherous Torres Straits by raft 800,000 years ago, who then dwarfed into 'hobbits' on the Indonesian island of Flores. But a more logical alternative is that a temporary landbridge was formed by the rising of the seabed created by the pull on the Earth's inner core by a giant comet near-miss around 40,000 years ago. This is evidenced by the Siberian carbon-dated mammoths found frozen in standing positions within the permafrost, with undigested buttercups and grasses in their stomachs.

Captain Kremmen, I'm back to my usual form.

Yeah, you sure are! Yuuck!!!

? Homo erectus in near australia?

The thread does presuppose that people have a wide range of scientific interest.

Correct. "Scientific interest" - but NOT silly speculation with absolutely no basis. BIG difference, Bub!

The University of Wollongong would disagree. Just because they're Australian doesn't mean they can't do good science.

Land raises and lowers without any help from comets (which have very little gravitational pull). Ice Ages happen (the last ended 10,000 years ago), and it is now believed they can happen in maybe just years, certainly in decades. 1816 was known as the year without a summer when there was snow in New York in July and crops failed worldwide.

Homo Erectus? Isn't that Reiku's nickname? j/k

How can a comet cause enough gravitational pull on the earth to affect the seafloor?

I have a theory, you live in the UK. Am i wrong? I have good reason to think this.

I am a punching bag so i am

I don't know the odds to totality, but i am very sure the homo erectus would have been bisexual.

First of all Homo Flores may not be a species at all, just some deformed homo sapiens.

The latest programme disproved this speculation by analysis of the shape of the brain cavity, if I remember correctly.

My theory would also explain the peopling of Australia around 40,000 BP. I'm also sticking my neck out to speculate that the American continent was also populated by early man via a trans-pacific landbridge around this time. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence if you look for it.

It's just a likely explanation as a boat-building homo erectus, which doesn't fit any preconceived knowledge of early man's evolving technical comprehension.

It's a new core-centered theory of gravity.

True, but its still debated.

The problem here is that homo erectus making drift wood rafts passes occum's razor far better than a giant comet pulling on the earth, I don't even think your idea is physically possible.

I hope it's not my bad teeth and cheap shoes.


My idea is conditional on the LHC experiment not finding the Higgs particle, suggesting that the standard model of gravity is fundamentally wrong.

Well it would have to find relativity wrong to. revolution in particle physic does not mean theories on gravity will be affected as much as to allow a comet to do what your saying it would do.

How would you explain the discovery of frozen mammoths found in standing positions within the Siberian permafrost then? Not only that, but they had undigested buttercups and grasses in their stomachs. Professor Hapgood has a wonderfully scientific detailed analysis in his book 'The Path Of The Pole'. Why is this such a taboo subject in modern times?

Here a scenario: a mammoth is eating frozen grasses from a patch of ground it has cleared the snow from, the mammoth has a heart attack form old age or what ever, falls over died, the snow covers it and never thaws because its happens to be the start of a new ice age, over time the chunk of ice the mammoth is in buckles and turns upright from glacier movement, it is eventual unearth thousands of years later and some moron interprets it must mean the mammoth was flash frozen by means so impossible that we could not even do it if we dump 10 tons of liquid nitrogen on a elephant, because of the limits of heat transfer it would be impossible to freeze an animal that size, that fast as to capture them mid-stand!

You're on a loser with that argument. How would a frozen tundra support a population of mammoths? They have to eat more than a elephant at least. Also the onset of decay would take hold in your scenario, whereas the mammoths are found in near perfect condition, the meat being good enough to eat.

Yeah that explains how mammoths are found in glaciers to begin with, or why they are covered in fur. By your argument moose and elk shouldn't live where they do either.