Hi Bruce. Thanks for a very interesting interview and hypothesis. I had to listen 3 times because (I'm slow) you are proposing a huge turnaround, not just the reversal of human origins, but also requires a completely new concept of proof. Thanks also Alex, you were great too!
These are some reasons why I support the Out of Australia proposition and that the Aboriginals are indeed the first modern humans, based on my own observations whilst living in Australia over 5 years.
The Aboriginal People of Australia, I think rightly called the Originals, look like their land. It takes a long time in a place to physically manifest 'belonging' to and being derived from it, in a way we transient 'bitzer' Europeans can barely imagine, let alone compare with, in our few thousand years. Aboriginals look 'elderly', their limbs are slim and their movements and personality are peaceful and relaxed, as compared to Polynesians who look 'young', like wearing flowers and laugh like children. It is also significant that the generation that holds most influence and esteem indicates the comparable human 'age' of a culture, for e.g. in white western society, it is the 'middle-aged' group who hold sway, they have the most money and golf is rated highly, while the very old are treated with indifference and little respect, so the white culture is middle-aged. By contrast in Aboriginal society the Elders are influential and held in high regard, which says to me that their knowledge is valued, and that they are a very old race. Imaging now putting a 55+ yr old and an 80+ yr old in a room together, they are unlikely to have very much in common; sadly such is the case between the invading white race and the original inhabitants. But I digress..
As the father and son Strong authors say, the verbal handing down of history is far more accurate than a written one, which can be distorted by time, loss of language and opinion, yet still be held up as 'true'. In Aboriginal lore for e.g. there is a conical hill in north Queensland created by a volcanic eruption that happened 10,000 years ago and is described in story form as a local legend as if it happened yesterday. Their concept of time brings the past into the present in this way; I doubt if we could rustle up a story that described an event from so long ago.
Likewise Bruce, we will need to change our perception of how information is exchanged to understand that there are other possible ways of communicating knowledge, such as by 'reading' a stone. The Aboriginals have telepathy, as shown in the story 'follow the Rabbit Proof Fence' about 3 aboriginal girls who made it home across 2,400km/1,500miles of desert (more than once) and their family came to meet them, without the assistance of phones, letter or telegraph. If information can be held in a stone, as modern culture 'holds' information in silicon chips(?) then we have to accept that there are ways of receiving it, unknown and unconventional to us. This way of knowing may once have been inherent in the wisdom of our own decimated pre-christian culture, and opening to accept this is part of the formula.
For me, the Originals of Australia are truly tellurian, and we are not.
One question: Why do you disagree with Sitchin's theory of ET genetic intervention? It sounds similar to yours, but placed at the later date of 400,000 years