The bones you were trying to pass off as the ancestors of homo sapiens were indeed the re-dated, re-classified remains of some Java fossils. Given the lack of scientific professionalisms in the articles you post the actual name of the re-classied specimen was never given in the article. To call me a lier for calling an un-named specimen of a man from Java 'Java Man' is really looking for excuses to insult someone - and I will be expecting an apology.
However, if you wish me to prove the above, I will gladly do so. I kept the article for laughs and can easily repost it if you like.
There's a thread based on the article, not linked, but it's full of sob-stories about freepers who lost their dogs, and they ignore the evolution angle.
Yeah? So? They were never claimed to be Java Man, they were claimed to be Homo Erectus. If I found the remains of Homo Erectus in Paris, the result would not be "Paris Man." Once more, your inability to process even basic concepts when dealing with this theory do not speak well of your understanding of it.