Go to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 2: Censoring the world's oldest human language.

“Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.”

- Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859, p. 488

With Darwin’s bold proclamation began what was to essentially become the religion of the modern scientific community and its unwavering acceptance that human intelligence evolves over time. The necessity of finding evidence to fulfill Darwin’s prediction has involved the relentless promotion of “halfway-there links” between ape-like ancestors and modern humans with the most crucial link long assigned to Homo erectus as an "ape-man." Unfortunately, the science community’s faith in applying Darwinism to everything and its increasing intolerance of conflicting ideas have worked together to block from the public any evidence that does not support the ape-man paradigm. Evolution of psychology is the most essential part of this paradigm and the public has a right to know that the paradigm’s veracity has been challenged with easily-grasped geometric evidence.

Fig. 1. Slide #14 (of 112) presented at the XV UISPP Congress in Lisbon, 2006. Artifact 1. The fact that the materials were presented there was denied in a falsified report within one week of the Congress.

CALLOUT QUOTE

“Archaeologists will try every trick in the book to reject your interpretation of the engravings. It is entirely unacceptable to them that they were completely wrong about the cognitive abilities of these people.”

Fig. 2. Conference Slide #4: Artifact 2. Five radial lines referenced to an invisible abstract point.

This series is the story of scientific evidence that challenged and disproved the idea that intelligence evolves and the unethical treatment it received at the hands of science institutions, journals, and competitive researchers. The story begins after I was requested to present the material at the XV UISPP Congress (International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences) in Lisbon, Portugal, 2006.

After five years of fighting censorship from those in power over both the presentation and thesis paper, the thesis version of The Graphics of Bilzingsleben: Sophistication and subtlety in the mind of Homo erectus, was recently “published,” dumped into an obscure miscellanea volume which the reader is encouraged to locate and read.

Fig. 3. Conference Slide #7: Artifact 3. Demonstrating one of many perfect straight edge angles.

In the meantime, accept this abridged visual series based on the original 2006 slides (cropped and converted to b&w) mixed in with the telling of the story about how and why both the presentation and the paper were manipulated in such a way as to obscure that they were ever presented or even written. It is a story involving institutions such as UISPP, IFRAO (International Federation of Rock Art Organizations), EAA (European Association of Archaeologists), New York University, the Journal of Human Evolution, and many professors working behind-the-scenes from the safety of anonymity to block these discoveries from the public.

Readers can assume that the anonymous reviewers who blocked the paper were leaders in the field now known as evolutionary psychology or those adhering to standard-school 

Page 14

Evolutionary psychology stifles the otherwise objective topic of early human cognition by judging submissions according to the field’s ideological premise which is improperly built into its name. In normal sciences, field names are objective so that falsifications of an ideology do not threaten an entire field if they should one day appear.

Fig. 4. Slide #12 (of 112). Proposed 400,000-year old straight edge device. Artifact 2.

Since adherence to the evolutionary template is now required when writing about the intelligence of ancient people, no innovation such as straight edge theory suggesting that there has been no cognitive evolution is accepted. And if one chooses not to follow the template, it makes no difference how rigorous, factual, or scientific the work may be, it will not be published but will immediately be blocked by the peer review system (though informing the reviewers who then may plagiarize) while less rigorous papers—if adhering to the template—breeze through to publication without a hitch. I know these things not only through 15 years’ experience but also directly from such well-known authorities as archaeologist Paul G. Bahn (author, Journey through the Ice Age).

CALLOUT QUOTE

“We live today in perilous times for science. ...If we as scientists want to preserve our freedom...now more than ever we have a responsibility. And that responsibility is to bring our science to the public arena and to speak out as forcefully as we can against even the most cherished beliefs that reflect unsubstantiated myths.”

- Elizabeth Loftus, Skeptical Inquirer 35 (3): 13. AAAS 2011 award recipient

This is obviously not how normal science works but it is how science works when adherence to an ideology overrides quality or discovery. Consumers of science tend to trust that when they are given information from the science community that they are receiving objective information that can help them formulate their own impression of the world based on the latest evidence. They have no expectation that certain evidence is being withheld from them in order to facilitate promotion of an ideology; but such is the case when it comes to questions of human ancestry for the simple reason that science has committed to the evolutionary paradigm whether or not it is supported by the facts.

Fig. 5. Slide #5 (of 112). Doubled lines fan motif referenced to invisible abstract point. Artifact 3.

By such means as this, the strongly-requested paper, The Graphics of Bilzingsleben, presenting empirical geometric evidence that Homo erectus people living in central Germany 400,000 years ago used a straight edge to create the world’s oldest duplicated engravings was immediately censored within one week of its presentation at the XV UISPP Congress in Lisbon, Portugal, 2006 (Pleistocene Palaeoart of the World session) by way of a falsified report detailed below. It subsequently suffered five years of the most disreputable treatment the scientific community could muster involving representatives from the above-mentioned organizations and competitive researchers who incorporated ideas from the programs and papers into their own work without citation while the original work was blocked from publication.

Fig. 6. Slide #2 (of 112). Explicit straightness of line, sharpness and deliberation. Artifact 1.

The recent publication of the evidence in an obscure miscellanea volume is what made me realize that it was time to tell the story in an official context as a statement against unethical behaviors in the science community and its forcing of an ideology on the public while withholding public right to make informed judgments based on hearing all of the evidence. It 

Page 15

“[Scientific misconduct] diminishes the vital trust that scientists have in each other. It undermines public confidence in science.”

- American Physical Society, November 10, 2002

The Graphics of Bilzingsleben presentation was received with nothing but accolades from scientists, linguists, engineers, and art historians immediately after presentation and for several months beyond that. One response from an international authority who will remain anonymous at this point stated succinctly the dilemma faced by the archaeological community due to the evidence presented. It is uncanny the accuracy with which this person described the suppression that was to follow:

Fig. 7. Slide #3 (of 112). The Bilzingsleben engravings are like modern graphics. Artifact 1.

“Archaeologists will try every trick in the book to reject your interpretation of the engravings. It is entirely unacceptable to them that they were completely wrong about the cognitive abilities of these people… you do have science on your side...a proposition that is utterly falsifiable. Everyone can repeat your experiment, and the engravings are fixed in time and space. If your calculations are correct…the archaeologists will be stumped.”

- Renowned international authority, 2007, five months after The Graphics of Bilzingsleben was presented

Unfortunately, within one week of presentation both of my programs were deleted from the record of having even been presented in a report by an associate of the Chair and delegate of the EAA in The European Archaeologist 26, Winter 2006/2007. Citing each of the presenters in sequence, my programs comprising two back-to-back 20-minute presentations in the middle of the session were deleted, including my name, and making it appear as though I was not even present and so placing me in an awkward position with my 11 sponsors. This is unacceptable behavior in science.

Fig. 8. Slide #13 (of 112). Artifact 2 is straight and marked in ratio increments. Artifacts 1 & 2.

Next, after first trying to block publication of my Part 2 program, Phi in the Acheulian, on the grounds that it was “highly problematic,” the Session’s Chair, Robert Bednarik—after referring to Graphics as “absolutely outstanding and stunning”—refused to have anything more to do with it and, in fact, in a cc’d message told many leading scholars that the work had “no scientific merit.” Keep in mind that these were ‘proceedings’ papers promised publication in advance.

Fig. 9. Fig. 2g of The Graphics of Bilzingsleben (BAR International Series 2224) registered © April 2007 but blocked from publication until 2011. Trig-angles study of Artifact 6. I registered the slide programs and Thumbnails Handout in 2006 and the papers in early 2007 being already experienced with misconduct in anthropology including the experience of discovering my work in papers by competitive researchers and reviewers without citation. This is one of several dozen additional slides from 2006 not shown at the Congress.

As a matter of fact, the presentations were ‘requested’ by Bednarik as he was already familiar with the basics of both straight edge theory (Figs. 1-9) and the earliest duplicated motif in a paper called, “Musings on the Palaeolithic fan motif,” written by request made to me for Bednarik’s Festschrift volume, Exploring the mind of ancient man (Chapter 23). More on the UISPP scandal later.

John Feliks is founder of the Pleistocene Coalition and editor-in-chief and layout editor of Pleistocene Coalition News. He has specialized in the study of early human cognition for nearly 20 years. His father, a retired tool and die designer, taught Feliks the basic techniques of drafting at a very early age including straight edge, T-square, triangle and compass, while Feliks’ mother, along with many open-minded friends and teachers, helped inspire a lifelong interest in archaeology and especially anomalies. Together, along with a healthy skepticism of the evolutionary system, these things encouraged recognizing the precision of drafting techniques in ancient artifacts as opposed to only simple scrapes and notches. Feliks is also a composer and taught computer music including MIDI, digital audio editing, and music notation for 11 years in a college music lab.