while my article is on no way based on the existence of the Australian hieroglyphs, your claim of them being fake and that the hoaxer was caught, seems in line with everything you say, not based on real research or even interest, just a quick scan of some website and you made your mind up. The debate on the Australian hieroglyphs is still undecided with no clear answers to the many question that come up if it was a hoax.
You don't read, you don't check, you just rant. Mostly nonsense.
That which you've compiled so far however is questionable. By your own admission, you went looking for possibly ancient anomalies in the first place, and of course you found one. All your subsequent "research" appears to consist entirely of looking for correlations that reinforce the original idea, which again unsurprisingly you've found in spades. Correlation however does not equal interrelation,
besides which, small scale correlations tend to disappear when you add more data points from other variables, which so far you have failed to do. You've only shown the positive correlations and none of the negative. But that wouldn't help you're theory now, would it?