Rocks with faces

[PointBlank]

This item from 'multi-million?' year old gravel deposits has a very good example of a ubiquitous glyph, the elephant front half. I have repeatedly demonstrated and whined on about it since my discovery in 2011. This, along with an ape face and a hand or thumb (framed) in individual rock finds, can help identify genuine figure stones. This example has what I interpret as a duck head profile, and ape like images (yet to be captured on video)

[PointBlank]

I take it from the lack of contention, that generally the find is accepted as a modified stone with intent to create a figurative description, even though modification is very slight/subtle, the elephant is clear and i would guess the tiny chips that make up the eye description sealed it for some of you. People who have experience with this kind of art probably noticed the possibility of a seal pup half description. I don't expect anyone to accept its proposed age, but if the figuration is that of an elephant, it certainly looks more elephant than mammoth, and we accept general theory concerning prehistoric times, and the find as sculpted with a reasonable degree of competence, then the age of this is greater than 100KYO. Yes that is a lot of ifs and buts.

Again with the elephants, this one is from my original find site and assemblage, i also interpret a horse half here grazing in the second picture.


This one, again same site, probable man made substance along the bottom half, I've not yet tested this actual one but others where the substance appears no different. Notice the detail at the trunk tip, two nostrils can be seen.


These next two look to describe the same type of elephant/mammoth both show tiny pecks in some areas, but not others, admittedly the second one is quite weak, but together its easy to see a close figurative match.



I had some FTIR spectroscopy carried out on substances that appear on my finds, if they were just random materials the spectra's would indicate this, although I only tested the black material from 3 of my finds, I believe its pretty clear that this is not a random environmental deposition, and is more indicative of manufactured substance and deliberate deposition, but yes more tests need to be carried out.



And here is a picture showing the patina on some of my tool finds from the site, I did note how the Levellios finds mentioned in a PCN article do not have a patina anyway near as thick as this, and how a thick patina is mentioned as indicative of great antiquity. Yes there is no scale, approximate depths of between 1.5mm and 0.5mm.

[circumspice]

I take it from the lack of contention, that generally the find is accepted as a modified stone with intent to create a figurative description, even though modification is very slight/subtle,

Accepted? Really? That's really a stretch... You believe that you can say that your claims are accepted due to a lack of any dissenting comments?

If you asked a woman to marry you, would you believe that she accepted your proposal if she said nothing?

[PointBlank]

I take it from the lack of contention, that generally the find is accepted as a modified stone with intent to create a figurative description, even though modification is very slight/subtle,

Accepted? Really? That's really a stretch... You believe that you can say that your claims are accepted due to a lack of any dissenting comments?

If you asked a woman to marry you, would you believe that she accepted your proposal if she said nothing?

It speaks for its self, the lovely curve over the eye dot, a really nice elephant impression, clean features, not random images born of a chaotic mess. The fact it exactly fits with what i describe can be found, a topology, exactly like saying tear drop shaped handaxes can be found, and then someone finding them.

Circ, learn to use your eyes differently, spend some time in your yard, look for stones which have a history, knarly, chips all over the show, even patina, signs of iron/ochre deposition. Look at them, look for ape faces, thumb and hand shapes, and half's of elephants, check that these are framed in the materials, and chips make up defining features Then look again, for tin openers, cars motorbikes, air planes. You can do this, your eyes will then be opened.

[circumspice]

Your mental illness speaks for itself. Loudly, at great volume.

Like some others, you have come here demanding or begging for validation. You're so desperate for validation that you're willing to believe that silence equals confirmation.

You can easily get that validation from the fringe websites. However, you don't want their validation because they aren't credible to an educated general public. You want validation from an accepted, mainstream source or authority. You crave the appearance of credibility, something that you lack.

For the most part, this forum & its Latest News website is meant to provide info on the latest news in archaeology & to some extent, anthropology. Michelle started this forum so that people could discuss interesting discoveries & developments in these fields. For unknown reasons, some mentally ill people equate posting their unsupported, wild theories in this forum as a validation of sorts. They couldn't be more wrong in their assumption. (Yes, we're laughing at your crazy ass)


as·sump·tion
/əˈsəm(p)SH(ə)n/
noun

a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
"they made certain assumptions about the market"
synonyms: supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, notion, impression, fancy, guesswork, guessing, reckoning, guesstimate

[PointBlank]

I feel sorry for you circ, I've read that trolls have such little self worth, and your lack of achievement makes you envious. I also pity your lack of comprehension and understanding of my research, Its quite simple, let me put it in a way you maybe able to digest.

This is a picture of a rock, it has a face on it, it looks very old. Its very unlikely to be made by chance because of something called maths, (that's about numbers). If you look carefully you can see that some kind of black substance (pigment) has been used to enhance the eye features.



I already have validation from people all over the world, because they find what I describe, specifically modified rocks with multiple images i describe on my chart. Also I was asked to write an article for a popular archaeological publication, and more recently someone asked me to play a part in there latest book. I also get some kind of validation from recent archaeological studies, like the 150kbp worked shells from morocco. There is also the fairly recent exhibit in Dallas https://www.nashersculpturecenter.org/a ... gure-stone Some of these are described as multimillions of years in age.

Min, you want information on dating, a peer reviewed paper, I only have general dating from Geology theory of certain strata, and dating from interpretive comparisons to the fossil record. Currently that's the best I can do, Geologists say these layers are X years old, and palaeontologists say these creature were not about for X millions of years.

[circumspice]

I'm still laughing at your crazy ass Bret.

[Minimalist]

Geologists say these layers are X years old, and palaeontologists say these creature were not about for X millions of years.

And they could both be right. Which brings us right back to just you claiming to see things in rocks which are certainly not apparent to me.

Do you see the problem?

[circumspice]

Um Min... of course he sees the problem... Brett 'sees ALL'.

[circumspice]

Yo Brett! What the hell is an avocational archaeologist? Someone with zero real credentials & zero professional training? Inquiring minds want to know.

Are you an armchair expert? Someone who trained himself because no-one can possibly know as much as you know???

It seems that you've set yourself up to look like an 'expert'. tsk-tsk...

[PointBlank]

Avocational archaeologists are people with a passion for the past as experienced through archaeology but have not chosen to follow a professional career in the subject. They are volunteers in their archaeology. Moreover, they are not content to watch archaeology from the sidelines. They are not mere spectators.

I don't understand why people think its my problem when they cannot see something, the problem is clearly with them
To explain why this is the case here is a magic eye picture that clearly shows a penguin, if you are able to use your mind in the correct way.

[circumspice]

Besides 'clearly' seeing images that others don't see, I bet that you clearly hear voices that others don't hear. Do your voices whisper cosmic secrets to you?

[PointBlank]

I wrote: 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).

Circ, since I started this thread I've had insult after insult from you, and you have repeatedly made completely baseless claims. So why don't you use scientific method to attempt to disprove my original premise above? Instead of spouting complete BS, insults, jibes, baseless claims, which you don't even evidence. Simply you could find some stones that look like a few different cars, or halves of cars.

Modern humans are the only species that can produce figurative art today, and perhaps we are the only ones who can see and understand it? Nobody is claiming Australopithecus created any art (afaik), and you claim to be unable to see the figures. So with that in mind I wonder if you could be a throwback to ancient times?, rather than say just being as thick as a sack of turds. So I suggest we do a little experiment of our own, we have an IQ test, just you and me, I'm sure we could find a website that will have an online results page that we can post a link to here.

[circumspice]

Circ, since I started this thread I've had insult after insult from you, and you have repeatedly made completely baseless claims. So why don't you use scientific method to attempt to disprove my original premise above?

Brett, Brett, Brett... The onus is upon you to prove your wild unsubstantiated claims. That's how scientific method works. Anyone can claim anything at anytime. So... You must state your premise, then you must prove it by submitting your evidence to accepted experts in that field. This process is called peer review. BTW, evidence is NOT hundreds of crappy photos & videos of ordinary geofacts. Peer review is NOT posting hundreds of crappy photos & videos of ordinary geofacts on fringe websites & your own crappy, cobbled together fringe website...

You can't make nonsensical claims then demand that the audience must disprove said claims. You're totally unfamiliar with how the process works. Yet another sign that you are an uneducated wannabe. Your spelling & grammar are execrable, on par with high school dropout status. And... you want to be taken seriously? Really? I'm still laughing at your crazy ass.

[PointBlank]

But I've evidenced my premise, I have much more, you dismiss it with out disproving my evidence or my claims, you simply don't accept the simplest of facts. You claim you cannot see things, that people from all over the world can see. I am trying to get to the bottom of this, you dont want an IQ test because you know it will embarrass you to lose against someone you repeatedly claim is insane. I know? is your cousins dads, sister, your second cousins great aunt? that may explain it?