Rocks with faces

[PointBlank]

Seems my posts are being rejected, despite being informative, educational and on a popular topic. Perhaps its the subject? portable rock art? although my actual subject is eoliths, and how they look exactly like stone tools, and that this forum is the biggest SEO honey pot Advertisement for portable rock art? thousands of links from your ex-member Charlie Hatchett now link to the notorious rock art museum via a redirect.

[Minimalist]

Not rejected - merely awaiting approval and since I am the only one moderating the board that does take some time. I also have to consign the night's gaggle of spammers to oblivion.

You did have one duplicate post that was deleted.

I would like to see a peer-reviewed paper which supports those dates. If you have a link to one, please post it.

[PointBlank]

Apologies for my impatience. The paper is an old one its on the link. But I think geology might be a farce anyway?https://eoliths.blogspot.com

But I have recovered one or two 'unquestionably modified' stones from gravel deposits, if the geology dates given for these beds is true then they are in the millions of years old, although the finds ace completely out of archaeological context, water warn, presumably eroded out of even older soil deposits to end up in the gravel beds.

Seems like rock art museum brought the preclovis website from Charlie Hatchett

[PointBlank]

'Unquestionably modified' Mathematical alignment/size/placement/symetry of the chips points to design rather than random chance creation of a face likeness. The probability of this happening by chance is most likely close to impossible, the surface of the stone also has an even patina, suggesting proximal chronology of the events that made the chips.

Screenshot_20220109-161743.jpg (167.91 KiB) Viewed 5812 times

[Minimalist]

Well, the concept of pareidolia is well established so I am leery of anything which superficially seems to be "art."

After all, that was the whole point behind this take off on the "Bowling Green Massacre."




Oddly, I visited Charlie in Texas a number of years ago. As I recall he had a rule that before he would consider a stone to be a shaped tool he needed to count six flakes taken off of it.

One incident was that a package arrived from another board member with some items from a site in California while I was there and both of us had a devil of a time getting one to feel like a workable tool. It simply did not fit the hand in such a way that the working edge was in proper position. After Charlie put it down I happened to pick it up with my LEFT hand and voila. Everything fell into place.

So perhaps they had southpaws even then?

[PointBlank]

The bowling ball is manufactured, but yes things that are random can produce face recognition, its just I don't think it can be used to prove a point, clouds are better as there are many, and no hand (unless the hand of God) has shaped them.

Like I said mathematics and probability are powerful in proving design over chaos.

Just like we have topologies in tools (types of arrow, handaxes, burins, blades, scrapers), I have produced a topology chart for common figures found in genuine prehistoric figure stones. Armed with this knowledge anyone can search for my figures in professionally accepted stone tools and stone tool assemblages. And guess what? my figures can be found! Repeatedly! But things that could not possibly be there, like simple images of say cars and motorbikes can not be.(not that I've seen so far).

This flint tool looks very much like a hand gripping something, even the colour is flesh-like. On its own, perhaps it could be considered pareidolia? (like the ball) even though we know its been worked by humans. But what if I had more stone tools and worked objects that showed hands, and they also showed other figures on my chart? but not a topology of VB beetles, or any roughly vehicle looking images?

[circumspice]

In answer to your "what if" question, I say that you see what you want or expect to see. I have ZERO expectations & I saw nothing. I zoomed close, I turned the images 90 degrees & 180 degrees, I squinted, I crossed my eyes, I held my mouth in just the right way... And I saw NOTHING. The emperor is wearing no clothes. You can always claim that I am not worthy to see the splendor of the emperor's new clothes... And I can claim that you have a raging case of pareidolia. You are not the first nut case to claim to see images in rocks of great age & you won't be the last. Check out some of the older threads. We had a couple of guys who littered this forum with hundreds of images of plain vanilla rocks (geofacts), who made claims that even included homo erectus colonizing the Americas, leaving artifacts that only an elite few were discerning enough to recognise. Take your pics & your claims to one of the fringe websites. They'll welcome you with open arms & kudos for your cleverness. You won't get the desired affirmation & recognition of your wild claims here. SHOO!!! MOVE ALONG NOW.

[circumspice]

Why do the nut cases always say: "What if?, "Could it be?" and "Revealed!"???

The hair guy on Ancient Aliens is always asking those questions...

[PointBlank]

You are being aggressive, rude, insulting, why? because you cannot see something? or is there more to it than that? Prehistoric people definitely carved stones, does it insult you that people can and do find such items? and you cannot? why not look in flint tools for figuration? if its anywhere in the Palaeolithic, that's where its likely to be found. Lots of people can see the hand shape in that stone tool!

How many fingers am I holding up?

[PointBlank]

I think you should check Charlie Hatchets signature link? This site is giving massive Kudos to stones that have a lot lot less authenticity than the Palaeo tool I posted, 1000's of links from this forum go to promoting such rocks.

[Minimalist]

I have the most trouble with the dating. You start going back 2 million years and we're back to Australopithecus times. But I am open to a discussion on the dating techniques. I think Sam Van Landingham made a solid case for diatom sequencing at Valsequillo..... which drives the Clovis-Firster crowd batshit crazy.

[PointBlank]

That's fine, lots of people have problems with dating. the whole YE crowd for one. Also I would be wary of this whole 'Australopithecus times' idea, just because they were about then it certainly does not mean more advanced humans were not, after all as we all know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But yes, I have not professionally dated a gravel pit, It needs to be done, but ive done worse Ive pulled figure stones from chalk cliffs that look perfectly stratified/un-messed with (66MYA)

I'm totally with you on Valsequillo: A little quote I just grabbed from somewhere.
These were primary archaeological features, not redeposited. The evidence is overwhelming. And the sandy silts are very hard, indurated. Clovis Firsters demanded perfection for sites involving preClovis claims. Calico’s alluvial chaos easily failed that test. But Valsequillo was different, as the photos show. The Valsequillo sites were as “perfect” a context as one could rationally hope for.

One of the original archaeologists at the site, not gonna name drop, did pick up on some of my work, and kindly worked with me to edit out my awful grammer and spelling for publication in a well known Archaeological magazine. So yes other people do see merit/validity in my research.

[circumspice]

He's possibly one of springhead's followers. His claims are almost identical, only he promised that there won't be vehicular images. (I wonder about boats... He made no promise that there won't be boats. Or aircraft.) Will he diffidently introduce homo erectus & dinosaurs like springhead did?

He hints at:

(Claims that are almost identical to springhead's claims)

1. Claims of deep, deep, DEEP antiquity
2. Zero provinance, but ya GOTTA believe because the rocks speak for themselves! (putative artifacts found in gravel deposits, from a MUCH earlier age... or will it be surface finds with no other corroborating materials? It's early yet in the tentitive introduction of his theory. He's proceeding slowly & carefully... However, inquiring minds want to know!)
3. No recognisable diagnostic marks due to 'water wear'
4. References to the Portable Rock Art website

He dismisses geology as a farce... unless it supports his theory maybe?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck & quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.

Or in this case, he's probably one of springhead's followers or maybe even springhead himself.

[circumspice]

And Min... it's not nice to toy with your new playmate. Put that mouse out of his misery.

[Minimalist]

but ive done worse Ive pulled figure st ... th (66MYA)

That, in and of itself, ought to undermine your certainty about how those stones were made. Personally I am not inclined to want to dismiss all of evolutionary history because someone thinks a rock looks like a face. But neither am I inclined to accept the idea that dinosaurs were co-existing with humans before Chicxulub. That's creationist horseshit.