Your lie has nothing to do with the Piltdown Man Hoax which everyone knows is a hoax. It has rather to do with the purposeful intent to deceive by grouping all hominid fossils under the rubric of a hoax. In that sense you are indeed a liar. I would be happy to withdraw my accusation but I am afraid that the alternative explanation for your post would be even more unflattering.
You might prove your innocence by admitting to being either extraordinarily stupid or horribly misinformed or some less remarkable combination of the two. That would satisfy me and I would then be happy to apologize for wrongly accusing you of dishonesty.
It has been shown that the vast majority (and I would say all of them) of fossils pointed to by scientists to be proof, have in fact, been debunked and retracted, and like Piltdown, yet still appear in textbooks and museums without any kinds of retractions and are still passed off as scientific proof.
What is clear is that no major human fossil discovery has ever been free of controversy and scientists who don't agree with the conclusions made by the discoverer. Interpretation and postulation don't seem to bring sicentists to the same conclusion, looking at the same evidence. Rather, it's what they believe about the fossil that shapes their opinion as to what it is and what its significance is. That's not objective science, but subjective interpretation.
Carl Sagan said it best, when adressing an annual American Association for the Advancement of Science conference, when he described how science works: "The most fundamental axioms and conclusions may be challenged and the prevailing hypothesis must survive confrontation with observation. Appeals to authority are impermissable, and experiments must be reproducible." Show me how evolution theory fits Carl's views of how science works - his views are the same as the ones I was taught in both high school and college science courses. It's not observable, it's not reproducible. Micro-evolution (variations within a species) is not sufficient to prove one species emerges from another. In the lab, scientists have tried for decades to introduce mutations into species to bring about evolutionary leaps, and in all cases, the mutated offspring are not better off than the previous generation. Mutations do not create new information, they alter existing information - that's why mutation is not able to create new species - it just shuffles what already exists.
The way you childishly name call others who don't hold your world view, or that you perceive to be less intelligent than you, indicates to me you really don't want to educate but rather silence anyone who doesn't think like you do.