The article in the first link was written in 1975. So a 1974 study would have been recent. I posted that because of the information about the evidence for modern humans and Homo Erector being found below Austrolopithecus. Because that establishes that Austrolopithecus could not have been a human ancestor. Which even Leakey began to conclude.
Fine. So you're saying you have absolutely nothing in the way of a supporting argument constructed in the intervening 30 years?