The Human History Mistake

Overview

Our ancestors didn't live in trees, and apes never turned into humans. In The Human History Mistake, German bestselling author Hans-Joachim Zillmer has compiled factual material and empirical facts from all over the world proving that Charles Darwin's evolution theory is a myth.


For more than thirty years, Zillmer has concentrated on investigating contentious findings and inconsistencies in the images of the world, recording numerous sensational discoveries and showing that ...

See more details below
Paperback
$19.75
BN.com price
(Save 9%)$21.90 List Price
Other sellers (Paperback)
  • All (5) from $13.53   
  • New (4) from $13.53   
  • Used (1) from $19.74   
Sending request ...

Overview

Our ancestors didn't live in trees, and apes never turned into humans. In The Human History Mistake, German bestselling author Hans-Joachim Zillmer has compiled factual material and empirical facts from all over the world proving that Charles Darwin's evolution theory is a myth.


For more than thirty years, Zillmer has concentrated on investigating contentious findings and inconsistencies in the images of the world, recording numerous sensational discoveries and showing that documenting the anthropogenesis must be changed. In The Human History Mistake, Zillmer points to numerous finds from the Stone Age that are far younger than previously thought. The skulls of Neanderthal man and of people from the Paleolithic age must be made "younger" by as much as 27,000 years to the age of a few thousand or even hundreds of years.


This science book rejects the ideas of macroevolution, but instead demonstrates that microevolution plays a much larger role in the creation of new species. Accompanied by sixty-nine photos and forty-nine illustrations, The Human History Mistake shows that the history of mankind must be rewritten.

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781426923524
  • Publisher: Trafford Publishing
  • Publication date: 1/21/2010
  • Pages: 252
  • Product dimensions: 0.53 (w) x 9.25 (h) x 7.50 (d)

Read an Excerpt

The Human History Mistake

The Neanderthals and other inventions of the Evolution and Earth Sciences
By Hans-Joachim Zillmer

Trafford Publishing

Copyright © 2009 Hans-Joachim Zillmer
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-4269-2352-4


Chapter One

The Fountain of Youth

"Some aspects of experimental earth and human history writing ... arouse particular public interest. Once could cite them as prime examples of Ziher's fountain of youth for earth and the life upon it. Referring to the presumed co-existence of dinosaur and Man, Zillmer significantly shortens the time horizon for the evolution of life in certain of its forms: wrote Prof.: Dr. Baxon Brock (200 1, p. 16). This co-existence, which contradicts evolution theory, is supported form evidence: The dinosaur expert, Paul C. Sereno recently found the fossilised bones of dinosaurs, aquatic dinosaurs and enormous primeval crocodiles in the same surface layer of the Sahara, together with a fossilised cow skull and fossilised human bones. The age which is said to separate dinosaurs from Man - the Tertiary - is a phantom age.

Clairvoyants in Arizona

During research in the U.S. state of Arizona, my attention was drawn to an unusual find reported in the "Arizona Daily Star" newspaper on 23 December 1925. In my book, Kolumbus kam als Letzter (The Columbus-Mistake), I published drawings of three artefacts from this collection (Zillmer, 2004, Photo 70). At that time, I was unable to get photographs.

The Silverbell Artefacts, named after the find site at Silver Bell Road, near Tucson, Arizona, are made of lead. These mysterious artefacts - which were found during several excavations since the original discovery in 1924 - were exhibited and described by the University of Arizona in Tucson in 1925.

Did the Silverbell Artefacts, which are made of lead and carry Latin and Hebrew inscriptions, come originally from Europe? All of the significant cultures of the Mediterranean region and India were working up lead long ago. In ancient Italy, lead was used in grand style for the construction of water pipes, drinking vessels and plates. "The oldest inscribed Iberian memorials are lead plates" (Haarmann, 1998, p. 420), and a lead plate with an inscription praising the deeds of the dead man, were found in a Viking grave. Other excavations unearthed medieval amulets made of wood and lead, with Latin letters and runes (Düwel, 2001, pp. 227-302).

An analysis of the Silverbell Artefacts lead, undertaken in Tucson on 24 August 1924, showed a lead content of 96.8% with small quantities of gold, silver, copper and zinc. It was established that the original molten lead was smelted from ore which is found in the southwest of USA. It therefore appears that the artefacts were produced locally and not imported from across the Atlantic.

The find comprises over thirty artefacts: swords and religious crosses made of lead, some of which carry drawings and inscriptions. In connection with our present theme, a long-necked sauropod (dinosaur) depicted on a sword, plays an interesting role. A report which appeared in the New York Times on 23 December 1925 put the finds in the spotlight of American public attention and sparked a controversy amongst the experts. Dean Byron Cummings, the leading archaeologist at the University of Arizona was one of several experts who vouched for the authenticity of the finds.

But their whereabouts were unknown. It appeared that they were no longer at the University. Finally, a tip was received that they might be at the Museum of the Arizona Historical Society in Tucson, but an initial phone call there brought no results.

During my later visit to the Museum, I was told that the artefacts were stored in the cellar of the Museum and viewing was out of the question. When I mentioned that I had come especially all the way from Germany just to see these finds, my luck changed. An old woman led my wife and me into the underground passageways.

There it stood before us: a wooden chest. A mysterious feeling came over us like a mystery as I opened the chest. The Silverbell Artefacts, over 30 in number and allegedly from the year 800, were neatly laid in specially cut wooden frames, contained in several removable wooden drawers. I was allowed to photograph more than half of the finds (see photos 1 and 2). I was not allowed to see the remaining drawers because I hadn't applied in advance to the Museum management for an appointment.

I hoped to find out more about the circumstances of the find at the museum library. In a bag, I did indeed find original photos from the excavations, which took place over five years up to 1928. I was able to obtain detailed excavation reports, excavation sketches, further photos and a description of the artefacts found from the unpublished report of Thomas W. Bent (1964) who was involved in the excavations.

One find in particular fascinated me: a dinosaur is depicted on one of the lead swords in a sensational way. If the artefacts are fake, the forgers must have been a bit stupid, because dinosaurs were reconstructed for the first time in the mid 19th Century. If older depictions show these primeval creatures, humans must at some time have seen living dinosaurs, or they had even older pictures of them - which cannot however exist, if our world view is correct. The depiction of a dinosaur on an artefact dating back to 800 A.D. reveals that the find is probably a forgery. Or is it?

If one observes the drawing on the sword, which might represent an Apatosaurus or Diplodocus who roamed formerly in the southwest of northern America, one is struck by the posture of a four-footed sauropod. In my German book Dinosaurier Handbuch ("Dinosaur's Compendium") which appeared in 2002, I took a controversial stand on the posture of this primeval creature, based on latest research findings. These indicate that contrary to previous opinion, sauropods held their heads horizontally and could only lift them a little, as the neck vertebrae would otherwise have wedged together (Zillmer, 2002, p. 89ff.). The tail too, as an extension of the spine, was held horizontally, either balanced in the air or used for swimming, since only a handful tail drags marks were found amongst the innumerable fossilised footprints.

Accordingly, up to a few years ago, every scientific work and every museum showed dinosaurs with their tails dragging behind them and their heads held high, often in kangaroo pose. Skeletons in this posture are currently being reconstructed in museums all around the world, wherever funds are available. If the Silverbell Artefacts dug up in 1924 are faked, the mere depiction of a dinosaur would be an inexcusable error, because before 1800 there had been no dinosaur reconstructions and, secondly, if an artist had created the artefacts shortly before their official discovery at the beginning of the 1920s, he would have depicted the dinosaur in the posture generally held to be correct and postulated in scientific works from this time: with upright neck and dragging tail. If the artefacts are forgeries, then the original artist was a clairvoyant because he gave a correct anatomical portrayal of the sauropod, such as only started to become accepted 70 years later. Or are the artefacts genuine after all? Did people over 1,200 years ago know what dinosaurs looked like? Were there even some still alive at the time?

Do the circumstances of the finds confirm their authenticity? The excavation photos show that the controversial artefacts were firmly embedded in a cement-like layer, know by geologists as "caliche". This geological layer made of calcium carbonate is present in large areas of the south-western USA, for11ing a kind of natural cement layer, which is is known as "desert cement". Stephen Williams, Professor for American Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University says in his book Fantastic Archaeology that the Silverbell Artefacts are fake but wonders at the same time how the alleged forgers could have embedded these artefacts so firmly in the caliche layer that the "impression" of an untouched find site could be created, given that the excavations were carried out officially by archaeologists from the University of Arizona (Williams, 2001, p. 242).

It was established that these special caliche formations stretch over wide areas along the Tucson Mountains and thus do not represent any "selective" occurrence, possibly artificially created with artefacts embedded at the same time (Bent, 1964, p. 321). Dean G.M. Butler of the College Mines and Engineering at the University of Arizona also confirms that the caliche apparently hardens quite slowly and that "there is no chance that the artefacts could have been embedded into this formation after the arrival of the Americans to this area" (Bent, 1964, p. 323, cf. p. 177).

Although I am of a different opinion with regard to the hardening time, because calcium carbonate hardens relatively fast, the firm embedding of the Silverbell Artefacts in the caliche formation represents a proof of their authenticity. On the other hand, if the age of the caliche formations is relatively young in geological terms, at most 1,200 years old, the desert surface above it would be even younger. Did the desert form so recently there? Are the geological layers far younger than stated by the geologists? Is geological evidence of allegedly long periods of time simply a misinterpretation? Are the propagated long periods of earth's history a fiction? Were geological structures which were supposedly created grain by grain, actually formed within a very short space of time by catastrophic events? Tsunamis, for example, change a landscape completely and create new geological layers within hours, whereby "normal" slow processes (such as sedimentation or erosion) would require millennia or even longer. Let us look at the supposed evidence that the earth's crust is very old, and then ask ourselves the question whether time-telescoping events might not serve to drastically reduce long geological periods. Because of science's obstinate linking of geological and biological (evolutionary) time ladders, the disseminated version of creepingly slow evolution is revealed as a fairytale, because analogous to the time-telescoping geological events, some sort of ape-ancestor must, so-to-speak, have mutated suddenly (as in time-telescoping) into modern Man.

The Phantom Tertiary

One argument that experts raise with regard to the rejuvenation of the earth's crust is the formation of huge fossil reefs. Were these geological formations really accrued by slow biological growth or was it a fast inorganic formation? The expert Julius Spriestersbach is of a different opinion with regard to the limestone (calcium carbonate) line of hills of the Rhenish Slate Mountains, hundreds of metres high and many kilometres in length, which the literature defines as fossil reefs: Spriestersbach says that in these unweathered "reef" limestone, "the joints between the layers look as if they were cut with a knife and the layer surfaces appear to have been smooth planed. This appearance runs counter to the theory of the natural growth of old reef formation" (Spriestersbach, 1942, p. 83). The only reef formation in the Rhenish Slate Mountains which Spriestersbach accept as a real coral reef lay at the end of the valley Aggertal Dam near Bredenbruch under water and for a long time could not be examined. Not until after the water was drained a 1985 examination shows that the supposed coral reef has no grown together colonies, but forcefully pressed successive layers" (Dr. Joachim Scheven in "Leben 4", 1992). Conclusion: there is no organic grown coral reef in the Rhenish Slate Mountains.

Similarly occurring Palaeozoic formations in central Sweden, England or the Alps are official interpreted as in situ grown (autochthonic) - a misinterpretation. It is said that the formation of those rifting requires millions of years to grow. But in these and other cases, we are talking about inorganically formed fibrous calcite (Stromatactis) which superficially look like a biologically (organically) grown reef structure, because the calcite layers penetrate the stone and are cross-linked in the cleavage fracture. In contrast to the organic coral reefs and bedded corral formation (Stromatoporoidea), the development of inorganic limestone (calcium carbonate) reef formations of these alleged coral reefs is very fast, as the water in the hollow parts of the stone can only be enclosed under catastrophic conditions (ibid. 1992). Conclusion: these ancient, supposedly autochthonous reefs were formed inorganically under catastrophic conditions by large masses of water. On the other hand, 400 million year old limestone from the dawn of the earth (Silurian and Devonian) does surely contain genuine corals, but these most certainly did not grow autochthonically. They are the more recent deposits of fossil stone from a "Deluge" which, naturally, contained pre-flood marine creatures.

One further argument in favour of an old earth crust: The partially still-extant reefs from the Tertiary supposedly indicate great age. During my visit to the Great Barrier Reef on Australia's east coast, I discovered that the age of this coral reef has been dated at 20 million years. "Impossible" in my view because the younger Tertiary was supposedly characterised by a climate which became increasingly cold; but warm water corals need a high average temperature of 20?C - a contradiction of the theory. To the astonishment of the experts, my opinion was essentially confirmed in 2001, when new analyses showed that the Great Barrier Reef is a youthful 600,000 years old - 33 times younger than was originally supposed (Geology, Vol. 29, No. 6, June 2001, pp. 483-486). However, the newly determined age of the reef, there were propagated the "Great Ice Age": It was even colder than it had been 20 million years before - too cold to grow as the coral.

Let's reduce the age of the reef still further and suppose that the corals grew in only a few thousand years before the Deluge, when the earth's axis was straight (perpendicular to the ecliptic) and that a global greenhouse climate existed from the North to the South Pole (discussed in detail in my book Darwin's Mistake) - in other words under climatic conditions as have been recently acknowledged to have existed for a period of time including the Cretaceous period (time of roaming dinosaurs) until to the middle of the Tertiary, 30 million years ago. But more about this later on.

Mountains too are becoming younger. Mica grains from the Pakistani Himalayan foreland have been dated to 40-36 million years (Nature, 8 Mar 2001, Vol. 410, pp. 194-197). The previous view was that the Himalayas folded 20 million years ago. In other words, the age is cut by one third.

For some time, new scientific examinations repeatedly indicate time reductions in the Tertiary (65 to 1.7 million years). In keeping with the arguments made in Mistake Earth Science (Zillmer, 2001), the Tertiary which followed the era of the dinosaurs should be reduced almost to "zero time" like a contracting rubber band. The effect which time-telescopes this Age (the Tertiary) is based on the apocalyptic scenario (Deluge), officially defined as the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (K-T boundary) at that point in time when the dinosaurs became extinct, 65 million years ago.

Major natural catastrophes always cause a leap in time (i.e. a time impact) for the areas affected, because cataclysmic events occur at a rapid time rate, effectively causing a speeding-up of the same geological sedimentation process occurring very slowly over a long period of time. If one fails to take this time impact into account, the natural catastrophe is a short-term representative for otherwise seemingly endless geological periods of time, which in turn have to serve as the basis for geological and biological developments, because evolution needs lots of time.

But there are thick stone layers which supposedly formed during the Tertiary. The layer arrangement (stratigraphy) for the Tertiary and succeeding Quaternary after the time when the dinosaurs became extinct (K-T boundary) is characterised correctly by the Professor of Geology, Kenneth J. Hsü: "Nowhere on earth could we find a continuous vertical sequence from today back to the age of the dinosaurs" (Hsü, 1990, p. 80). One must hereby bear in mind that the biggest sediment quantities of all time were formed during the Tertiary (after Holt, 1966).

The forerunner of modern geologists, Charles Lyell (1833, p. 15) already recognised that: The Tertiary formations were also found to consist very generally of detached and isolated masses, surrounded on all sides by primary and secondary (basement) rocks. Against these surrounding formations, the Tertiary formations place themselves as smaller or larger lakes and bays over the bearing them basement rocks. They are, like these waters, often very deeply, if at the same time "too limited in extent".

(Continues...)



Excerpted from The Human History Mistake by Hans-Joachim Zillmer Copyright © 2009 by Hans-Joachim Zillmer. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Contents

Prologue....................7
1 The Fountain of Youth....................9
Clairvoyants in Arizona....................9
The Tertiary Phantom Age....................12
Tilt of the Earth's Axis....................19
Superfloods....................21
Spillway Grand Canyon....................29
Fresh Traces....................35
Since Time Immemorial....................37
Ice Age as Time Impact....................39
2 A Jumble of Bones....................45
Trees, Apes and Horninids....................45
Lucy, the Ape....................46
Flexible Anatomy....................47
The Missed Rendezvous....................49
Fictional Family Trees....................51
The Relegation of Links....................56
Homo-Species....................58
Human Co-Existence....................60
The Upright Mountain Ape....................63
Aquatic Apes....................64
Dramatic Changes....................66
Modern Primeval Feet....................70
Rare Bones....................73
3 Dating and Arbitrariness....................78
Hot Spot Volcanism....................78
Young East African Rift Valley....................79
Incalculable Lava....................82
Completely Wrong Measurements....................85
Too Few Noble Gases....................87
4 Pack of Lies: Descent of Man....................90
Knowledge Filters....................90
Scientific Manipulation....................91
Not Allowed....................94
Man Before The Dinosaurs....................97
Footprints Which Are Too Old....................99
Tertiary Man....................103
A Change of Opinion....................108
Ploughed Up....................110
Anomalously Old Tools....................116
An Ancient Hut....................121
5 The Neanderthal Falsity....................122
The Evolution of the Neanderthals....................122
Species or Sub-Species?....................125
Did They Just Disappear?....................126
They're Still Alive....................129
Old Becomes Young....................131
Crime Scene: Frankfurt University....................134
Cut Sharply....................138
Nomadc Carnivores....................142
Changes in Habitat....................155
Neanderthals in America....................169
A Lame Example....................170
Primeval Family 5,000 Years Ago....................174
6 Falsified Proof of Evolution....................176
How a Pig's Tooth Became a Human....................176
Gone With the Wind....................177
The Java Ape....................179
One Jaw, Countless Generations....................180
The Long-Term Deception....................181
Haeckel Already "Protsched"....................182
Present-Day Falsifications....................184
Selection and Mutation....................185
Natural Selection....................190
Fossils Versus Evolution....................191
Ideology, Racism and Terrorism....................193
Epilogue....................199
Bibliography....................202
Index....................211
Photos....................215
Advise: Mistake Earth Science....................247
Advise: The Columbus-Mistake....................248
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)