Which is why ignorant amateurs shouldn't speculate on things they know nothing about. Because more often than not, they're talking bollocks.
Look, I'm not in the industry of questioning consensus just for the sake of questioning consensus. But that crest on the paranthropine skulls has been staring me in face for a good long while. Homo sapiens and its closest relatives don't have a feature similar to that, but gorillas do. On top of it, paranthropines are larger than any other hominoid fossil group, while gorillas are the largest extant hominoid. The above naledi graphics then adds further troubling questions about the entire status of the hominin fossil archive. On top of it, the fossil hunters never present paninin and gorillinin species, which is mathematically odd to say the least and aught to set off some alarm bells. If hominins, paninins and gorillinins died on the same continent on similar acidic soils across hectomillenia, some paninins and gorillinins aught to have been found as well by now. If not only to confirm that they are indeed hominins, the fossil archive of in particular the pliocene African hominoids should in my opinion be completely reevaluated. Perhaps then we can look closer at the mystery as to why hominins, our lineage, are so massively over represented in the archive, if indeed we are.
That's all I'm saying. I'd love to be set straight on this, I don't want paleoanthropologists to have conducted bad science for decades, if that's somehow the case. If they have, nobody would be at fault for bringing it up, however inconvenient. Unfortunately human psychology will always confuse the scientific process, what ever people's intentions.
I'm just the horse fly here. It's not enough to keep telling me, "Don't speak up in proper company, peasant!" What the hell can I do with that? Is this a site for scientific debate or not? Tell me where it's wrong, I'll happily drop it.