Continuing from Part 8 which was titled Evidence for a Homo erectus campsite depiction in 3D
Many of the studies made of the 320,000–412,000-year old bone engravings from Bilzingsleben in central Germany which were done for the XV UISPP Congress in Lisbon 2006 had inadvertently developed into poster-sized studies.Fig. 1. Proposed geographic projection of Artifact 6 as layout of the Lower Paleolithic campsite at Bilzingsleben suggested to be a representation of the site created by an extremely-skilled artist who was actually there 350,000-years ago. Note: The isosceles triangle connecting the two tiers (left) is based on suggestion that the original oblique projection in the artifact (right) was done using a technique similar to that known as cabinet-style where the depth measures or increments are depicted at 1/2 ratio to that of the height or width measures. J. Feliks 2006-2012. Not-to-scale persons were inserted to give sense of space. Drawing of the artifact by Robert Bednarik; used w/permission. Circular dwelling in the Key isolated from 1988 archaeological site map by Dietrich and Ursula Mania to show source of measure; used w/permission.
Only shortly before the Congress did the author realize that such studies would not translate well as quickly-projected slides. So, most of the ideas were converted over or broken up into snappier images for the two 56–slide programs, The Graphics of Bilzingsleben, and Phi in the Acheulian.
Unfortunately, as it turns out even now, large and complicated studies don’t reproduce well in something like the PCN newsletter either even though the reader does have the option when viewing on a computer to enlarge them. So, the studies offered here (Figs. 1-3) are enlarged as best they could be to fit into these few pages.
note that explanations, clarifications, disclaimers, etc., of all the
details could go on and on (as with many similar
systematically-produced studies) but when dealing with a community
which is blinkered by Darwinism the author believes that it doesn’t
matter what evidence is presented or how many details are clarified,
adherents to evolutionary thinking including evolution by natural selection and its accompanying evolution of cognition would
rather continue believing in the paradigm than to conceive of the
possibility that a deception so massive could have been held up as
science for 150 years. The main hope here is that the reader—technical
specialist or otherwise—will look past the temptation to seek out
errors of minutiae
cont. on p. 11
“Whatever the explanation for these artifacts their
engravings undoubtedly reflect profound artistic and technical skill.“
|such as a line here
or a point there (which only diverts from seeing the picture) but to
realize that whatever the explanation for these artifacts their
engravings undoubtedly reflect profound artistic and technical skill
which can be studied in this kind of detailed manner because they were
done very carefully to high precision and almost certainly with
recourse to a straight edge.
Once resistance to the use of straight edge by Homo erectus is broken down (and there are many other Paleolithic artifacts besides those from Bilzingsleben suggesting its use), scientists and laypersons alike will be able to realize that the whole idea of Homo erectus people as anything less than our equals needs to be dropped entirely. If we truly wish to understand our ancestors we must give them credit for the many things they accomplished even if it means starting our theorizing about them all over again from scratch. This time in archaeology we will actually look at the evidence objectively rather than approach the evidence with preconceptions of ape-people and trying to find ways to make every piece of evidence fit that preconception. The only alternative—which is what the anthropology community chose to do with this particular evidence—is to block it. By now, everyone should know that behavior like that in science is proof of a weak scientific paradigm.The most important new assumption should be that Homo erectus and Neanderthals were like us in their temperament and creative capacity. Since the science community has been shown repeatedly to block challenging evidence (including much more evidence than just Bilzingsleben such as early sites in the Americas) from the public in order to promote evolution tenets unhindered new evidence that is found might be better off in the hands of mathematicians, mechanical designers and engineers, artists and philosophers. This is because researchers in those professions or avocations are well-trained in objectivity
Fig. 2. Multiview projection of ‘Lower tier’ for the proposed 3D layout interpretation of Bilzingsleben Artifact 6. As noted in Fig. 3, the triangular shape interpreted as resting on the plane of the Lower tier is regarded as a rough symbol meant by the engraver simply to represent the general geographical location of the southernmost dwelling (depicted in the archaeological site map of Mania and Mania 1988, See PCN #19: 11-13). The polygonal shape in the Upper tier is regarded to be a more accurate representation of what the dwellings at Bilzingsleben were actually like. Note: The rear view is simply a horizontal flip of the front view without adjusting any of the projection angles. J. Feliks 2006-2012. Finely-detailed drawing of the artifact’s engravings (ghosted portion) by Robert Bednarik; used w/permission.
cont. on p. 12
|as well as in the seemingly
opposite and generally unrecognized tool in science of artistic
subjectivity. They are less likely to to feel an obligation to think of
our ancestors as ape-people and more likely to go wherever the evidence
or inspiration leads.
Fig. 3. Multiview perspective drawing of Bilzingsleben Artifact 6 ‘Lower tier.” The artifact was discovered in the Paleolithic lake just a few meters north of the 350,000-year old campsite and at the same archeological level. As explained in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben (a requested presentation at the XV UISPP Congress, 2006, deleted from the record in two falsified reports within one week and two months of the Congress), the engravings when interpreted in only two dimensions are loaded with the standard trig angles 30, 45, 60, and 90, perfect parallels, perpendiculars and planes. If one had no idea as to the age of this artifact the objective individual would not be resistant to this interpretation. However, evolutionary indoctrination which occurs with virtually every person going through standard science training today ‘automatically’ removes the normal ability of making objective assessments of Paleolithic artifacts. This is especially true if they were created by Homo erectus because low intelligence for these people is taught as a ‘necessary’ fact of evolutionary theory. The studies offered in this article are only a few of a great many more poster-type studies produced systematically and to the highest rigor possible showing beyond reasonable doubt that Homo erectus people were our equals. J. Feliks 2006-2012. Drawing of the artifact itself, Robert Bednarik; used w/permission.
John Feliks has specialized in the study of early human cognition for nearly twenty years using an approach based on geometry and techniques of drafting. Feliks is not a mathematician; however, he uses the mathematics of ancient artifacts to show that human cognition does not evolve. One aspect of Feliks’ experience that has helped to understand artifacts is a background in music; he is a long-time composer in a Bach-like tradition as well as an acoustic-rock songwriter and taught computer music including MIDI, digital audio editing, and music notation in a college music lab for 11 years.