I have been an avocational archaeologist for nearly three years. This was not by choice as a hobby nor was it of any great interest to me before my curiosity was peaked by an accidental discovery. I do not hunt treasure nor personal glory. What I am concerned with is the public well of knowledge which is humanities. Yes, I'm one of those guys who's IQ is in the 1 or 2 percentile ranges. This does not mean that I am more intelligent than any other which is a common misconception. What it means is that my level of curiosity is heightened. This is not something I would mention out of context but it does apply. Satisfying that sense of curiosity often requires a conceptual understanding of whatever peaks my interest. When the answers I seek come only in the form of "I'm the authority and you're not", they do not satisfy me and I have an extreme distaste for complacency, therefore, this type of answer is simply unacceptable. In my youth, I had a fascination for and interest in archaeology but I didn't pursue it as an academic or career option. My current interest began with what I recognized as stone tools although commonly referred to as eoliths. My recognition of these tools is assisted by an extensive outdoorsman and survivalist skillset. My first recognition was based on a useable functionality and obvious alterations for its ergonomic application. The tools I was finding came from specific concentrations on and near hillsides overlooking the Smoky Hill River and or it's tributaries. Further exploration of the surrounding areas produced little if any of similar stone types for miles. I sent pictures along with a report of what I was finding to a local archaeologist as well as the state historical society in hopes they might make use of these sites for field education. They rejected the idea that these were tool based solely on the fact that they lacked conchoidal fracture and things like overlapping percussion flake scars were attributed to natural occurrences. I did a little research on archaeologists and found one who I believed had more experience with these older tools. I sent him the same pics and he confirmed that some were likely flakes (flake tools). Not much is known about these tools typically only collected amongst other artifacts and because of lithic sources. The best explanations being that some were likely used in the processing of game. I began my own investigation and research including the use of lithic reproductions for experimental testing. It took more than a year and a half of daily hands-on assessment of hundreds of samples to piece it together but in the end, it all makes perfect sense to my knowledge of wilderness living and survival.
In the beginning, I had noticed a couple of facial likenesses on some of these tools but I didn't pay too much attention to these as I wanted to be taken seriously. Since then I have questioned what if anything, that had to do with being taken seriously. I have asked several people who all agree with the facial imagery and the stigma attached yet no one could truly explain why. Anyone?
After about a year and a half of being surrounded by rocks, I began noticing shadowy faces appearing on some of these rocks be they on a table across the room or in a box or bucket near my feet. What I found was that it was related to evenings and the fall sunlight filtering through at low angles. This insight has led to a revelation for me. Although I have found countless others involve in the same pursuit, none had touched on this concept of shading. As things progressed, once again, it all becomes too clear. If you consider the way our vision works, it is basically the light reflected off of a given surface or surfaces that we see. That being said, how then are we able to perceive contour and relief especially on monochromatic surfaces? It is simply shading, which of course is dependent on the angle of light. The light must be at the correct angle to cast shadows upon shallow features or we would not be able to detect them. What I was first finding included a lot of simple embellishment added to enhance facial likeness to either natural features or non-intentional features created in the lithic process. Upon further inspection and direction from others whom I have networked with on both sides of the globe, I have found that there is much more to this than embellishment, and I also believe there is more to it than just artistic expression in many cases.
First, consider what capabilities these ancient people had as far as marking stone. Being that much of the stone used was very hard such as quartzites, silicified sandstones and the like it would have taken even harder stone such as semiprecious stone of gem type hardness just to produce shallow etching or lines. This is exactly what they did. We must factor in thousands of years of patination and erosion to understand what we find now. When presented with this type of evidence, it has been my experience that every archaeologist/psychologist will express the term "pareidolia", which began as a term indicating a psychological disorder. Currently, they are saying that it is much more common than originally thought and quite possibly perfectly normal. Maybe it's because if you omit the word phenomenon from its definition it reads like a definition of imagination. Archaeologists have a predisposition for evidence which is stone with faces on its surface. It begins as a traditional part of the curriculum and is perpetuated by ridicule among colleagues and there is not a single one of them who has the capacity for scientific objectivity when it comes to this subject or evidence. This is what is known as confirmation bias, a term created by physicists for an actual scientific condition. Most know this as paradigm paralysis which is just what it implies. Of course with archaeology, this is not the only indicator of the condition. Consider other oppositions to a paradigm shift. The same as the assessment I first received regarding the stone tools, it is mostly based on nothing more than mere speculation. In the case of 2001 Alberta, the skeptics (defense of current paradigm) argument was that a turbulent water delivery system may have been responsible. Total unscientific babble with no merit but none the less successful. If the evidence was similar to the stone tools I have studied, it would have been impossible for a turbulent water delivery system or likely any other natural force to be blamed. First of all is percussion flake scars. In order to produce this, it requires a velocity of the strike. Velocity cannot be achieved in water. Go ahead, throw a load of rocks in your washing machine and see how many percussion flake scars are produced. The natural occurrence theory is a farce and always has been. The reason it was first used was that of someone's ego which was unable to simply say we don't know yet or it is not fully understood at this point and therein lies the issue with archaeology. This became a common complacent practice in the sciences infancy and has prevented otherwise productive scientists from achieving real results. Here in North America, one may wonder about the likes of Ales Hrdlicka, as he was one of the pioneers of the science here. Being at the top of the academic hierarchy it is hard to say what he may have introduced to the curriculum. Often we talk about the way he would destroy the careers of other archaeologists but the reality of the bigger picture is that he was throwing all of humanity under the bus to protect his own ego.
Archaeologists will defend the current paradigm seemingly to the death. Commitment to theory is one thing but when theory becomes so deeply intertwined with one's own belief system serves only as a hindrance. Opposition to paradigm shift at this point is ridiculous as I see it. What is the paradigm they are defending anyway? What is left of the dead end theories that have been pursued for more than a century? Haven't the last couple of decades significantly chipped away the basic foundations enough? We searched for the origins of Clovis technology for nearly a century eliminating every possible avenue one by one and why? What evidence supported this search? Archaeology is the one science which looks down upon any scientists exploring the possibilities which are not mainstream and labeled as being rouge when the fact is that this is a must for any theoretical science in order that it remains viable. The paradigm shift that they seemingly fight tooth and nail to prevent is happening right under their feet, not because of rouge scientists but because there is nowhere else to go. The dead horse has been beaten into dust. Why must we continue to try to prove that those theorists of the past were right when it's quite obvious they were mistaken?
Watch when the evidence from San Diego is finally presented to see what speculative skepticism is applied there. What no one seems to be considering is the true significance about that long-awaited figure purportedly 130,000 years BP. It's not so much that man has been here that long or longer, but it can be used as a known starting point for the lithics industry. It doesn't really matter what estimates you use as far as population average or stone tool production per person per anum at this point. When you add the 130,000 to the equation the numbers are beyond astronomical. One may begin to wonder at that point why the archaeological record is so seemingly non-existent in comparison. Welcome to my world. I have no doubts regarding 130,000 BP or even earlier. I have been privy to some extraordinary realities for some time now and it's been right under our noses all along. That, of course, is what happens when human arrogance chooses to explain away what is not understood rather than allowing it to come to light in time or giving others a shot at it. Like I said, it was a particular skill set which allowed me to not only recognize the tools but also to relate to an ancient way of life which most Ivy league types (no offense) could not.
As far as what I'm working on currently, it will come to light in due time whether or not archaeology finds the scientific objectivity required or not. Everyone who has participated in a hands-on presentation of the evidence thus far is thoroughly convinced of the truth regarding "faces on stone". Two-dimensional imagery such as photos and video simply cannot relay what only the retinas can and I have proven this for myself and others. Never the less I continue to produce both in an effort to promote as much awareness as these insufficient methods may garner. Despite archaeologists claims of prior investigations, there have been none. The stigma associated has been a part of archaeology from the beginning and I know that none have ever held enough of it in their hands to understand. They simply will not do it as it is the single most emphasized example of unacceptable avenues to investigate. Ironically enough it is also the single most revealing window into our distant past which exists. I know of no other discipline which comes with a Ph.D. degree that provides expertise in other disciplines such as archaeology. The Archaeological Ph.D. seems to also cover Psychology and Art as well, as all who possess this degree do not hesitate to exercise their expertise in these areas on a daily basis when it comes to their assessments of this specific type of evidence. It could be a while before the San Diego evidence is verified, ultimately supporting my work, but it will. At that point, archaeologists can weigh the science behind their errant predispositions and figure out that it was not science that failed them at all, in fact, it was the exact opposite.
Anyone in the central Kansas area or with plans to be who would be interested in a hands-on presentation of the overwhelming evidence may PM me and I would be happy to arrange something. You may find the experience similar to Nemo's choice of pills in the movie The Matrix as there's no returning to a false reality. LOL
In the beginning, I had noticed a couple of facial likenesses on some of these tools but I didn't pay too much attention to these as I wanted to be taken seriously. Since then I have questioned what if anything, that had to do with being taken seriously. I have asked several people who all agree with the facial imagery and the stigma attached yet no one could truly explain why. Anyone?
After about a year and a half of being surrounded by rocks, I began noticing shadowy faces appearing on some of these rocks be they on a table across the room or in a box or bucket near my feet. What I found was that it was related to evenings and the fall sunlight filtering through at low angles. This insight has led to a revelation for me. Although I have found countless others involve in the same pursuit, none had touched on this concept of shading. As things progressed, once again, it all becomes too clear. If you consider the way our vision works, it is basically the light reflected off of a given surface or surfaces that we see. That being said, how then are we able to perceive contour and relief especially on monochromatic surfaces? It is simply shading, which of course is dependent on the angle of light. The light must be at the correct angle to cast shadows upon shallow features or we would not be able to detect them. What I was first finding included a lot of simple embellishment added to enhance facial likeness to either natural features or non-intentional features created in the lithic process. Upon further inspection and direction from others whom I have networked with on both sides of the globe, I have found that there is much more to this than embellishment, and I also believe there is more to it than just artistic expression in many cases.
First, consider what capabilities these ancient people had as far as marking stone. Being that much of the stone used was very hard such as quartzites, silicified sandstones and the like it would have taken even harder stone such as semiprecious stone of gem type hardness just to produce shallow etching or lines. This is exactly what they did. We must factor in thousands of years of patination and erosion to understand what we find now. When presented with this type of evidence, it has been my experience that every archaeologist/psychologist will express the term "pareidolia", which began as a term indicating a psychological disorder. Currently, they are saying that it is much more common than originally thought and quite possibly perfectly normal. Maybe it's because if you omit the word phenomenon from its definition it reads like a definition of imagination. Archaeologists have a predisposition for evidence which is stone with faces on its surface. It begins as a traditional part of the curriculum and is perpetuated by ridicule among colleagues and there is not a single one of them who has the capacity for scientific objectivity when it comes to this subject or evidence. This is what is known as confirmation bias, a term created by physicists for an actual scientific condition. Most know this as paradigm paralysis which is just what it implies. Of course with archaeology, this is not the only indicator of the condition. Consider other oppositions to a paradigm shift. The same as the assessment I first received regarding the stone tools, it is mostly based on nothing more than mere speculation. In the case of 2001 Alberta, the skeptics (defense of current paradigm) argument was that a turbulent water delivery system may have been responsible. Total unscientific babble with no merit but none the less successful. If the evidence was similar to the stone tools I have studied, it would have been impossible for a turbulent water delivery system or likely any other natural force to be blamed. First of all is percussion flake scars. In order to produce this, it requires a velocity of the strike. Velocity cannot be achieved in water. Go ahead, throw a load of rocks in your washing machine and see how many percussion flake scars are produced. The natural occurrence theory is a farce and always has been. The reason it was first used was that of someone's ego which was unable to simply say we don't know yet or it is not fully understood at this point and therein lies the issue with archaeology. This became a common complacent practice in the sciences infancy and has prevented otherwise productive scientists from achieving real results. Here in North America, one may wonder about the likes of Ales Hrdlicka, as he was one of the pioneers of the science here. Being at the top of the academic hierarchy it is hard to say what he may have introduced to the curriculum. Often we talk about the way he would destroy the careers of other archaeologists but the reality of the bigger picture is that he was throwing all of humanity under the bus to protect his own ego.
Archaeologists will defend the current paradigm seemingly to the death. Commitment to theory is one thing but when theory becomes so deeply intertwined with one's own belief system serves only as a hindrance. Opposition to paradigm shift at this point is ridiculous as I see it. What is the paradigm they are defending anyway? What is left of the dead end theories that have been pursued for more than a century? Haven't the last couple of decades significantly chipped away the basic foundations enough? We searched for the origins of Clovis technology for nearly a century eliminating every possible avenue one by one and why? What evidence supported this search? Archaeology is the one science which looks down upon any scientists exploring the possibilities which are not mainstream and labeled as being rouge when the fact is that this is a must for any theoretical science in order that it remains viable. The paradigm shift that they seemingly fight tooth and nail to prevent is happening right under their feet, not because of rouge scientists but because there is nowhere else to go. The dead horse has been beaten into dust. Why must we continue to try to prove that those theorists of the past were right when it's quite obvious they were mistaken?
Watch when the evidence from San Diego is finally presented to see what speculative skepticism is applied there. What no one seems to be considering is the true significance about that long-awaited figure purportedly 130,000 years BP. It's not so much that man has been here that long or longer, but it can be used as a known starting point for the lithics industry. It doesn't really matter what estimates you use as far as population average or stone tool production per person per anum at this point. When you add the 130,000 to the equation the numbers are beyond astronomical. One may begin to wonder at that point why the archaeological record is so seemingly non-existent in comparison. Welcome to my world. I have no doubts regarding 130,000 BP or even earlier. I have been privy to some extraordinary realities for some time now and it's been right under our noses all along. That, of course, is what happens when human arrogance chooses to explain away what is not understood rather than allowing it to come to light in time or giving others a shot at it. Like I said, it was a particular skill set which allowed me to not only recognize the tools but also to relate to an ancient way of life which most Ivy league types (no offense) could not.
As far as what I'm working on currently, it will come to light in due time whether or not archaeology finds the scientific objectivity required or not. Everyone who has participated in a hands-on presentation of the evidence thus far is thoroughly convinced of the truth regarding "faces on stone". Two-dimensional imagery such as photos and video simply cannot relay what only the retinas can and I have proven this for myself and others. Never the less I continue to produce both in an effort to promote as much awareness as these insufficient methods may garner. Despite archaeologists claims of prior investigations, there have been none. The stigma associated has been a part of archaeology from the beginning and I know that none have ever held enough of it in their hands to understand. They simply will not do it as it is the single most emphasized example of unacceptable avenues to investigate. Ironically enough it is also the single most revealing window into our distant past which exists. I know of no other discipline which comes with a Ph.D. degree that provides expertise in other disciplines such as archaeology. The Archaeological Ph.D. seems to also cover Psychology and Art as well, as all who possess this degree do not hesitate to exercise their expertise in these areas on a daily basis when it comes to their assessments of this specific type of evidence. It could be a while before the San Diego evidence is verified, ultimately supporting my work, but it will. At that point, archaeologists can weigh the science behind their errant predispositions and figure out that it was not science that failed them at all, in fact, it was the exact opposite.
Anyone in the central Kansas area or with plans to be who would be interested in a hands-on presentation of the overwhelming evidence may PM me and I would be happy to arrange something. You may find the experience similar to Nemo's choice of pills in the movie The Matrix as there's no returning to a false reality. LOL