This is a full-text html version of the following article from Pleistocene Coalition News posted online 8-4-2012:
Feliks, J. 2012. The graphics of Bilzingsleben series: Scientific misconduct over ancient artifact studies and why you should care:
Part 7: Who were the people of Bilzingsleben?
Pleistocene Coalition News 4 (4): 12-14.

Return to The Pleistocene Coalition
Return to
Phi in the Acheulian
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 4: 350,000 years before Bach



By John Feliks

Joe [caller on NPR’s Science Friday, June 13, 2008; 7th grade]:

“I was wondering if you believe that evolution is kind of forced on the children who are in school.”

Kenneth Miller [evolutionary biologist]:

“If you, Joe, are attending a school in which education becomes indoctrination... then you are not being well-educated... the idea of really good education is... to expose them [children] to the best ideas in scientific thinking.”

“Best” ideas? Forcing an ideology on children expecting objective science while blocking conflicting evidence from their perusal is pure indoctrination. Give Joe and other children credit for knowing the difference between being taught geometry (which Miller tried to use as a comparison) and what it’s like to feel pressured into a religious belief system. That’s why Joe called!

Philosophical law: captive audience manipulation of children; violation of rational autonomy


Fig1-fromBilzingsleben-series-prt7-Publisher-file_h700.jpgEven back in 1888, the then-President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), S.P. Langley, compared the science community to “a pack of hounds … where the louder-voiced bring many to follow them, nearly as often in a wrong path as in a right one.” Langley was also insightful enough to note that the “entire” community could be led as one mind into a false idea.

This Part 7 represents Section V of the 5-yr censored
Graphics of Bilzingsleben thesis (XV UISPP Congress, Lisbon, 2006) titled, “Who were the people of Bilzingsleben? What fire use and other traits say about our Lower Paleolithic ancestors.” It is a rigorous challenge to the ‘evolving species’ ideology promoted as fact by mainstream science; and states instead that the presence of shared cultural traits is far more important than either physical appearance or genetics when it comes to linking or distancing human populations. These traits include evidence for completely modern language capability. They 

Fig. 1. The inhabitants of Bilzingsleben were contemporaries of Homo erectus people who lived all over the Lower Paleolithic world. Reassess what you’ve been taught by modern science about all manner of hominid species at various stages of evolution. It is not objective science but a belief system whose acceptance depends entirely upon blocking conflicting evidence. Calico, Hueyatlaco, Suffolk, show that Homo erectus people made it to the Americas and Britain—evidence blocked because it contradicts standard migration theories. The graphics of Bilzingsleben is blocked because it proves that Homo erectus people were our equals intellectually. The reason this figure uses only one image to represent all Homo erectus is to help divert anthropology’s focus away from preoccupation with the physical appearance of ancient people and bring it more appropriately onto their cultural achievements such as migration. The point is that all of these people by whatever local names they may be called (erectus, ergaster, antecessor, heidelbergensis, archaic Homo sapiens, or even Homo sapiens) were equals in their world just as we are in ours. All details and comparisons except Calico, Hueyatlaco, UK, are based on Vlček, E. 1978, A new discovery of Homo erectus in central Europe. JHE 7:239-51; and Vlček, E., D. Mania, and U. Mania 2002, Der fossile mensch von Bilzingsleben. Specifics: Homo erectus at Bilzingsleben c. 400,000 BP comparable to Olduvai Hominid 9 in Tanzania, Africa c. 1.4 million BP. These in turn comparable to Homo erectus at Zhoukoudian, China c. 300,000-800,000 BP as well as Sangiran 17 in Java, Indonesia c. 1.7 million BP. This effectively covers all four corners of the traditional Lower Paleolithic world with suppressed evidence for Homo erectus in the New World as published in various issues of Pleistocene Coalition News included. Zhoukoudian Homo erectus skull reconstruction photograph courtesy of David Brill.

 include similar stone tools, shelters, and the shared technology of fire—Zhoukoudian in China; Olorgesailie and Chesowanja in Africa; Terra Amata in France; Bilzingsleben in Germany; to name only a few; as well as evidence in the Americas and the UK (Fig. 1).

Any experienced adventurer or camper (lighter or matches aside) knows that the evolutionary belief that the ability to create fire is a sign of some ape-man level rather than completely modern intelligence is an absurd notion. It is a by-product of the unwarranted assumption that human intelligence keeps evolving over time. If someone who does not have prior knowledge such as seeing Daryl Hannah’s per- [CONT. ON page 13]
Page 12


Page 13

“If someone who does not have prior knowledge such as seeing Daryl Hannah's performance in Clan of the Cave Bear believes that the creation of fire is anything other than profound they should have themselves dropped into a wilderness and see if they can create fire.”

formance in Clan of the Cave Bear believes that the creation of fire is anything other than profound then they should have themselves dropped into a wilderness and see if they can create fire. I propose that they will not be able to do this even if their life depended on it—and they are modern tn_HerectusPekingWtTE_courtesy-of-David-Brill-06_h400.jpgHomo sapiens—the purported apex of human evolution.

Bone engravings such as those from Bilzingsleben (Figs. 2, 4 & 5), are also known from other Lower and Middltn_Mirror-images_Fig7a_crop-for-pcn13.jpge Paleolithic sites even though leaders in anthropology try to tell you that these are mere butchering marks or crude scratches made by ape-people with intelligence not much higher than chimpanzees (See Part 2, PCN Issue #13, Censoring the oldest human language).

Fig. 2. One of 112 slide reproductions from the censored Graphics of Bilzingsleben presentation and paper of which Dr. Tattersall is aware.
Fig. 3. The inhabitants of Bilzingsleben were similar in appearance to Homo erectus from Zhoukoudian, China, known as “Peking Man.” Peking Man skull reconstruction by Ian Tattersall and Gary Sawyer of the American Museum of Natural History. Photograph courtesy of David Brill, Chief Photographer, National Geographic. This is the image for Slide #48 (of 112) from the Graphics of Bilzingsleben presentation (XV UISPP Conference, September 2006) and Fig. 7.15 of the censored paper relegated to an obscure miscellanea volume by Professor Luiz Oosterbeek, Tomar Polytech, after a five-year censorship which also involved IFRAO, EAA, and the Journal of Human Evolution. As mentioned in other articles, I was prepared for such behaviors having already much similar experience from the evolutionary community. It is why I registered all materials and produced a 6-page Thumbnails Handout. Repeated experience of this kind and joining up with scientists with similar experiences from the same community is what encouraged formation of the Pleistocene Coalition. Because anthropology involves promoting a purported “scientific” explanation of human origins it must be held to the highest standards of accountability. Without such accountability anthropology cannot be trusted as a science.

Unfortunately, racially-biased propaganda whether it is modern or projected onto Paleolithic peoples always starts by finding ways to make the “others” look less human. In evolutionary anthropology this is a necessary prerequisite because if people are accepted as “people” rather than “lesser species leading up to people” then there is no evolution.

Anthropology—which put all of its eggs into the Darwinian basket plus whatever they regard as a “modern synthesis” (which is really nothing at all but a complex analogical and convoluted rhetorical argument attempting to force-combine various fields under one umbrella while concealing more errors than anyone could explain in a lifetime)—accomplishes the needed sub-human aspect by pushing the notion of a Lower Paleolithic world filled with all manner of “hominid species.”

If you buy into this, which you likely do because of peer pressure, it is because you have not looked into the evidence for yourself. And why should you? We tend to trust science when it tells us something. We don’t check every claim in chemistry or astronomy. But remember, evolutionary anthropology is not true science. It is one of the unfortunate perversions of science that ignores every piece of conflicting data presented. It is a religious explanation for mysteries of life that science has not been able to explain. And rather than tell you so plainly, it is willing to sacrifice logic for the sake of promoting a paradigm of origins which any researcher could debunk were they only objective and persistent. The paradigm depends not only upon blocking conflicting evidence but also on the assumption that no one will look into the reasons for this.

Since it is proven that mainstream anthropology blocks conflicting evidence from the public the field can no longer be trusted as an objective authority on who our Paleolithic ancestors were.

Evidence from Calico, Hueyatlaco, Bilzingsleben, is blocked or ignored of necessity. Following is how this recently occurred with Ian Tattersall whom I admire but who, like other evolution devotees, has chosen to sacrifice what he knows to be true for the paradigm.

Brill and Tattersall

The only figure in Section V of The Graphics of Bilzingsleben was the high-quality composite

Page 13


Page 14


"Throughout the period of Homo heidelbergensis's tenure no hominid produced anything, anywhere, that we can be sure was a symbolic object."

-Ian Tattersall (evolutionary anthropologist)

Fig. 4 (above quote) and Fig. 5. Two out of a hundred Bilzingsleben studies reviewed by Tattersall demonstrating that knowledge of Homo erectus (or heidelbergensis) symbolism is ignored by evolutionary anthropologists who do not regard it relevant when making claims about human cognitive evolution.

reconstruction of a Zhoukoudian Homo erectus skull by Ian Tattersall and G.J. Sawyer—American Museum of Natural History—and its hauntingly-beautiful photographic representation by David Brill, Chief Photographer at National Geographic, who kindly granted its use in the thesis (Fig. 3). However, the continuing story touches on how evolutionary commitment can cause authorities such as Tattersall to promote ideology over and despite facts.

When I saw Brill’s photograph in National Geographic, I instantly knew it was the perfect image to collectively represent all Homo erectus people. It was a moving portrayal which I felt honored the humanity of Homo erectus. I admire Brill whom I spoke with at length regarding permission to use the photograph as a centerpiece in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben. He granted it unreservedly including sending me the original jpg even though I explained to him that I would not be using it to support the standard paradigm. Brill’s is an impressive example of objectivity in science. (I also explained that I wished to take certain artistic liberties with the photograph such as ghosting it to create a mood and superimposing text for the projected slide sequence at the Congress. He gave unreserved approval stating confidence in my artistic ability, which I very much appreciated.)

As if by providence, a couple of days prior to my presentation I actually met Tattersall on a solitary road between sessions at the XV UISPP Congress. We had a very pleasant conversation. Apart from his later censorship of Bilzingsleben (expounded below), I see Tattersall as a true scientist because despite the fact that the Graphics of Bilzingsleben Thumbnails Handout I had given him consisted of evidence contrary to his belief in evolution he later introduced me to his colleagues in a positive light as well as explaining to them its Part 2, Phi in the Acheulian.

But Tattersall like most modern scientists while in the process of going for their PhDs endured the academic indoctrination which essentially becomes a dogmatic commitment to evolution (statistical). The belief in Lower Paleolithic peoples as ape-men is so engrained by the time of doctorates that next to no one trained by academia is able to shake it. It’s similar to how soldiers are broken in rigorous training. In fact, the training is so thorough and the punishments for dissent so severe that no matter what level of conflicting empirical evidence is later seen PhDs maintain faith in the ape-man paradigm. This is what happens when an ideology becomes so powerful that even originally objective people are pressured into paying homage to Darwin and cannot dissent due to concerns such as attacks by colleagues, publication blockades, fear of losing tenure. If you think this sounds like good science training, think again.

Occasionally something might happen early on in a career to preserve some objectivity if one is involved in evidence conflicting with the paradigm such as Dr. Virginia Steen-McIntyre knows all too well. She was presented with a dilemma, a choice between sticking with the facts or denying those facts to get a university job. I for one am glad she chose to stick with integrity as a scientist. That is the kind of science that inspired me as a child and still does today.

In his latest book, Masters of the planet: The search for our human origins, 2012, Tattersall (who refers to European erectus as heidelbergensis) states:

“Throughout the period of Homo heidelbergensis’s tenure no hominid produced anything, anywhere, that we can be sure was a symbolic object” (page 142).

“There is certainly nothing in the material record to suggest that the symbolic manipulation of information was in any way a regular part of the cognitive repertoire of Homo heidelbergensis” (page 142).

How do we know that Tattersall may not actually believe what he wrote? In his prior, Becoming human: Evolution and human uniqueness, 1998, he acknowledged Bilzingsleben:

“If burial is not proof of symbolic activity, what else might we look for? … The earliest putative examples of symbolic activity actually predate the Neanderthals. A fragment of bone from Bilzingsleben in Germany bears a curious set of incisions that hardly qualify as art but may have been the deliberate work of a human hand some 350 kyr ago” (page 163).

With Bilzingsleben accepted as the earliest example of symbolic activity why is Tattersall now withholding such important information from the public in a treatise on human origins, and, in fact, trying to make it sound as though the evidence doesn’t even exist?

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.
Page 14

Return to
The Pleistocene Coalition

Recent external mathematics publications:

Feliks, J. 2012. Five constants from an Acheulian compound line. Aplimat - Journal of Applied Mathematics 5 (1): 69-74.

Feliks, J. 2011. The golden flute of Geissenklosterle: Mathematical evidence for a continuity of human intelligence as opposed to evolutionary change through time. Aplimat - Journal of Applied Mathematics 4 (4): 157-62.

Return to 
The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 9: Artifact 6 'Lower tier' in multiview and oblique projections
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 8: Evidence for a Homo erectus campsite depiction in 3D
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 7: Who were the people of Bilzingsleben?
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 6: The Lower Paleolithic origins of advanced mathematics
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 5: Gestalten
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 4: 350,000 years before Bach
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 3: Base grids of a suppressed Homo erectus knowledge system
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 2: Censoring the world's oldest human language
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 1: Proof of straight edge use by Homo erectus

Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben - full-text html with figures

Return to Reviving the Calico of Louis Leakey, part 2
Return to Reviving the Calico of Louis Leakey, part 1
Return to A prehistory of hiking - Neanderthal storytelling
Return to The golden flute of Geissenklosterle
Return to Four arguments for the elimination of television, Jerry Mander
Return to 12 Angry Men, starring Henry Fonda: A superb classic film for teaching critical thinking attitude and skills

Return to Ardi: How to create a science myth
Return to The straight line route: A different perspective on trekking from Central Asia to the U.S. Southwest

Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, Part 1: Basic propaganda techniques in college textbooks
Return to
Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 2: Fictions taught as fact in college textbooks, 1st half
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 3: Fictions taught as fact in college textbooks, 2nd half
Return to
Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 4: Evolutionists are not qualified to assess 'any' evidence
Return to
Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 5: Mandatory U.S.-legislated indoctrination now in place, 1st target, captive-audience children in K-12 science classrooms
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 6: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Brachiopoda
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 7: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Mollusca
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 8: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Porifera and Cnidaria
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 9: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Echinodermata
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 10: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Bryozoa
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 11: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Arthropoda
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 12: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Trace fossils & graptolites [PDF]
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 13: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Plants [PDF]
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 14: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Fishes and invertebrates [PDF]

Pleistocene Coalition News
is produced by the Pleistocene Coalition
bi-monthly since October 2009.

Contact the author of this article: feliks (at)