What are these books you read, and documentaries you watched that showed Australia in a different position?
The books were primarily about human evolution. I don't remember the specific titles. I was studying this topic like 10 years ago. But I specifically remember the most fascinating part of those books being contemplating how ancient man crossed thousands of miles of open ocean to reach Australia 40-60,000 years ago.
I do, however, remember watching this EXACT documentary.
Its weird watching it again as the maps in this documentary have also changed like every other map in the world. However, alot of the content I remember has stayed the same. Which leads to some bizzare inconsistencies regarding the content of what she is saying in the video with this new world map that has Australia within swimming distance of Papau New Guinea.
For example, check out the 1:20 mark. The host Dr. Alice Roberts says "How did humans make the long and dangerous journey to Australia?"
At the 2:00 mark she says: "No one knows how humans reached Australia."
At the 7:18 mark she says: "So is this (20,000 years ago) when people first reached Australia? Long after we colonized Europe and Asia? It would certainly make sense
given how far away Australia is."
At the 10:10 mark she says: "These are the most ancient human remains that have ever been found in Australia. And they are incredibly old. The most conservative estimates put them at 40,000 years old, and some people say they might be up to 60,000 years old. Now, that's quite extraordinary, because it would mean
modern humans were in Australia before they reached Europe.
Which seems highly unlikely. Not only is Australia so much further from Africa than Europe is,
there's an ocean to cross. So unlikely does the journey seem that some scientists have poured doubt on it. Instead they suggest that Australians somehow evolved locally.
At the 37:20 mark she says: "But to reach Australia those early pioneers would have had to face the greatest challenge of all, one that was there even 60,000 years ago. The deep seas around Australia."
At the 39:03 mark she says: "
We are going to attempt to cross a stretch of open sea to the next island. It's nothing like the distance to Australia, but an excellent test of the principle."
At the 47:55 mark she says: "At about 65,000 years ago, the sea level drops about 100 meters (or 328 feet) below its present-day levels. And the
distance between Timor and the northern coast of Australia is reduced to 153 kilometers (or 95 miles).
Now for the skeptics I ask, how do any of these statements make any sense if the distance ancient humans had to travel to get to Australia is around 95 miles? For goodness sakes, the english channel is 22.5 miles and every year people SWIM across it. I don't know what the record for swimming in open ocean is but I wouldn't be surprised if its close to the 95 miles that separated Australia from Indonesia 65,000 years ago?
Look closely at the computer simulation around the 47:55 mark. The simulation is about how Southeast Asia looked 65,000 years ago when sea levels were lower and ancient humans allegedly made the journey to Australia. Look at the map. At that time, in this reality, Papua New Guinea and Australia were one landmass. So I ask, why is the question of how humans got to Australia so much of a mystery but not the question of how humans got to Papua New Guinea? I mean the issue of the origin of humans in Papua New Guinea should be as much a mystery per this documentary as the origin of humans in Australia given the fact in this reality the two land masses were joined 65,000 years ago. But yet it's only the Australian Aborigines that scientists theorized weren't even humans but another species that evolved independently from us in ancient times. Why would this be a theory only with regard to Australian Aborigines? I mean wouldn't the same be true for the people of Papua New Guinea since acccording to this reality the two land masses were connected 65,000 years ago? Its weird how the origin of the Australian Aborigines is such a mystery but there seems to be no mystery as to the origin of humans in Papau New Guinea? Which according to this reality was connected to Australia 65,000 years ago.
Just think about this, if in this reality Australia is no further from Indonesia than Indonesia is from Papua New Guinea and the other islands of Southeast Asia then why would how humans got to Australia be such a mystery? Wouldn't how humans got to those other islands also be as much of a mystery? Why would many of these scientists theorize that Australians were not humans like the rest of us and instead evolved independently if the distance from Indonesia to Australia is no different than the distance from Indonesia to Papua New Guinea? Wouldn't the people of Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, etc. be also considered another species of human?
None of this shyt makes any sense if Australia is located where this present reality says it is. The statements from this documentary that I have isolated only makes sense if Australia is how those of us affected by the Mandela Effect remember it. That it was located thousands of miles south of Papua New Guinea. That it was surrounded by thousands of miles of open ocean. That it was this secluded landmass isolated from the rest of the world. That is the only way these statements would make sense.
I specifically have memories of looking at a globe and being in awe that humans could have traversed such huge distances in ancient times. Looking at today's map it would no more remarkable than me wondering how humans got to Papua New Guinea.
And for the record I never once heard of a mystery concerning how humans got to Papua New Guinea. And I don't ever remember looking at a map and thinking damn how did humans to Papua New Guinea? I do remember thinking that about Australia.
