The graphics of Bilzingsleben: SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OVER ANCIENT ARTIFACT STUDIES AND WHY YOU SHOULD CARE

Citation preview

THE GRAPHICS OF BILZINGSLEBEN SERIES: SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OVER ANCIENT ARTIFACT STUDIES AND WHY YOU SHOULD CARE John Feliks

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.

PART 1: PROOF OF STRAIGHT EDGE USE BY HOMO ERECTUS “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 scientiic community and its unwavering acceptance that human intelligence evolves over time. The necessity of inding evidence to fulill 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 conlicting 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 falsiied 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 scientiic 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 ive years of ighting 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 ield now known as evolutionary psychology or those adhering to standard-school physical anthropology, i.e. those with a strong bias and major stake in whether or not the public should be permitted to see

evidence that readily challenges their paradigm and consensus. Evolutionary psychology stiles the otherwise objective topic of early human cognition by judging submissions according to the ield’s ideological premise which is improperly built into its name. In normal sciences, ield names are objective so that falsiications of an ideology do not threaten an entire ield 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 diference how rigorous, factual, or scientiic 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 wellknown 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 relect 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 falsiied report detailed below. It subsequently sufered ive years of the most disreputable treatment the scientiic 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 oicial 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 is a right worth ighting for. “[Scientiic misconduct] diminishes the vital trust that scientists have in each other. It undermines public conidence 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 falsiiable. Everyone can repeat your experiment, and the engravings are ixed in time and space. If your calculations are correct…the archaeologists will be stumped.” - Renowned international authority, 2007, ive 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 backto-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 irst 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 scientiic 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. Ironically, the second stage of suppression was set into motion by Bednarik’s long-time nemesis and correspondent of mine since 1995, Randall White, Professor of Anthropology at NYU, and the Journal of Human Evolution.

PART 2: CENSORING THE WORLD'S OLDEST HUMAN LANGUAGE “Mania & Mania have published...a series of marked bones from the German Acheulean site of Bilzingsleben, claiming that the markings were purposeful... [I] ind no greater patterning in these marks than on the wooden cutting board in my kitchen.” - Randall White, Anthropology, New York University, 1992: 545

SIDE COLUMN Q: Why is the science community blocking proof of the oldest language? A: Because it challenges evolutionary thinking.

Readers are invited to compare the original authoritative responses to the Bilzingsleben engravings (in the sidebars and text) with the censored geometric studies. By responding to proof of any early language with censorship (as recently occurred) the scientiic community is losing credibility on the topic of human origins.

“Certain bones from

Language is the most unique aspect of what makes us human; and without doubt, it is the greatest diference between human beings and animals. In its most basic form language is a system of organized signs or symbols, audible or visible, such as spoken words or written words which we use to communicate with each other. With this single tool, the possibilities of poetry, art, mathematics, history, music, philosophy, even ideas of space and time open up to anyone who learns to use it. In written or graphic form language is even able to communicate across vast stretches of time as if earlier people were in our very presence.

Bilzingsleben… have scratches in groups of parallel or radial lines. These could be due to butchery, especially as there are clear indications of knawing.” - William Noble & Ian Davidson Psychology and Anthropology, University of New England, 1991: 245-6

Fig. 1. The two motifs of Artifacts 1 & 3 in context with other syntactic variables. The fact that these are ‘duplicated’ motifs was discovered by the author and submitted for publication in 2004, Musings on the Palaeolithic Fan Motif. This is Slide #17 (of 112) presented at the XV UISPP Congress in Lisbon, Portugal, 2006, and Fig.5a of The Graphics of Bilzingsleben. Prior to its 5-year censorship by the science community —while it was circulated in peer review to

researchers worldwide—theorists such as Bednarik, White, Davis, Davidson, Chase, Noble, Dibble, Mithen, claimed the engravings showed no deliberation beyond simple patterning or ‘halfway-there’ mental states comparable to those of apes; phosphene hallucinations were also suggested. However, these two extremely sophisticated and linked motifs featuring precision angles (Figs. 4-6, 9-10) and Cartesian point relationships (Figs. 7-10) would have been recognized as such were it not for evolutionary preconceptions.

Fig. 2. Conference Slide #19: Artifacts 1 & 2, Observation 1: These complex motifs are the same size.

Fig. 3. Conference Slide #18:

Photographs of Artifact 1 side-fan and the fan of Artifact 3.

The origins of language is a problem that has puzzled

philosophers and now scientists for thousands of years because it has no known link to the natural world. Modern-day linguists (those who study language) and scientists who think only in evolutionary terms believe with little reserve that human language evolved gradually out of animal communication systems and that there were necessary stages of language development between ape cries or gestures and modern human words. Although evolutionary linguists seldom even mention who these middle language speakers might have been— writing primarily in abstract terms and without recourse to artifacts—they certainly mean them to be either early Homo sapiens (“less able” ancestors of our own species) or Homo erectus, formerly known as Pithecanthropus or the “ape-man.” However, famed linguist Noam Chomsky who revolutionized linguistics in the 1950s and 60s never believed that human language could have had any halfway-there stage but that it appeared as a fully-developed capacity. Even though evolutionary linguists believe that this is where Chomsky went

“In my opinion, the [Bilzingsleben] marks should not be thought of as anything more than ‘selfsuicient,’ to use a term I once applied to some chimpanzee scribbles.”

wrong, Chomsky’s was, and still is, the most scientiic position as there are no known existing or historical ‘primitive’ languages. They are all complex. Still, most modern linguists have adhered to the

- Whitney Davis Art History, Northwestern University, 1988: 103

“By suggesting that the deliberate marks indicate a faculty of abstract thought, the authors may in fact be trivializing their ind. Its scientiic signiicance is perhaps primarily that it does not indicate, but

evolutionary system ever since the claims made in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, were accepted as axioms. Chomsky himself, inluenced by peer pressure to conform with the template, adopted Eldredge and Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium though anyone familiar with the physical rather than the theoretical evidence from both paleontology (fossils) and palaeolinguistics knows that what this theory really says is that we have no idea how anything including language

evolved. The conditional, “if it evolved at all” is of course, not permitted. foreshadow such a faculty.” - Robert G. Bednarik Editor, RAR, IFRAO, 1988: 99

“There are a few objects that… bear markings that some have considered symbolic in nature, such as marked bone scraps from… Bilzingsleben… However, some of these may indeed have served practical functions such as ‘cutting boards’… Such ‘motifs’ are not repeated often enough to be recognized either as intentional or as a style.” - Philip G. Chase Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 1991: 210.

“Over the course of hundreds of thousands of years there are no two [Acheulean or Mousterian] objects that are alike.” - Randall White Anthropology, New York University, 1992: 546

Fig. 4. Slide #20 (of 112). Observation 2: The motifs share identical outer angles and vertices demonstrated via protractor. Artifacts 1 & 3.

Shooting-in-the-dark approaches to language origins are relied upon because it is believed that language leaves no traces we can study directly. However, this is not true, as demonstrated at the XV UISPP Congress (International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences) in Lisbon in 2006 in a program called The Graphics of Bilzingsleben. In this program by means of easy-to-

understand geometric studies was presented the irst proofs of a Lower Palaeolithic language of Homo erectus 400,000 years old (Figs. 1-10 and others). These studies showed that Homo erectus people were just as intelligent as we are today and that their symbolic and mathematical abilities made them our equals. Fig. 5. Slide #21 (of 112). Observation 3: The motifs share identical ‘inner’ angles and vertices demonstrated via protractor. Artifacts 1 & 3.

The problem this created for the mainstream science community is that it simultaneously showed that there has been no evolution of language ability nor any other human mental ability for at least 400,000 years—a claim which can readily be extended back 1.4 to 2 million years (including evidence such as the incised bones from Kozarnika Cave, Bulgaria; ire use; etc.) or, in fact, to

whatever point in time we assign as the irst appearance of the genus Homo. The prediction is that future evidence will show not Darwin’s gradation of mental abilities but that there has been no change in such abilities and that everything interpreted as change in cognitive ability is actually related to culture. Fig. 6. Slide #22 (of 112). The motifs share many other identical angles. Artifacts 1 & 3. NOTE: There are many more shared angles besides those in Figs. 4-6, the only diference being that they do not share the same vertices within their respective motifs whereas all of these do.

Since the scientiic community is committed to the evolutionary paradigm as an act of faith, any evidence which does not align with this paradigm is seen not in the light of normal scientiic discovery but rather as a threat. This is reason enough for even scholars of once highintegrity to participate in behind-the-scenes blockades of the early language hypothesis from publication. Ignoring evidence like this did not occur with the discovery of cuneiform or translation of hieroglyphs via the Rosetta Stone as neither of those discoveries challenged a religious dogma. However, in the biased modern science community, one must contend with the dogged belief that everything, including language, evolved from lower forms. Ironically, despite many months of behind-the-scenes accolades from those present at the program and others with copies of the Thumbnails handout—including linguists, psychologists, engineers, etc.—The Graphics of Bilzingsleben was immediately censored from the public record not only in the false

report mentioned in Part 1, but in the subsequent follow-up report on the congress by the Session’s Chair in Rock Art Research. In fact, the Chair allotted only one sentence to the entire Pleistocene palaeoart of “There is no the world need to invoke session some ‘faculty sacriicing a for abstract standard thinking,’ like planning ahead, acknowledgment of all presenters, while in its place publishing to account for an unexpectedly high claim about engraved bones from a site these 10km from Bilzingsleben. I have had many similar experiences morphologies.” ever since submitting my work for peer review in anthropology in 1995. - Whitney “If the authors

mean that the mark makers of Bilzingsleben exhibit preferences for orderly pattern... these kinds of preferences are well documented among the great apes.”

Davis Art History, Northwestern University, 1988: 102

Fig. 7. The motifs share horizontal point coordinates. Artifacts 1 & 3. This is Slide #25 of the “original 144-slide series” before reducing to 112 to it the time constraints of the XV UISPP Conference. It is also Fig.6a of the published thesis paper, The Graphics of Bilzingsleben (BAR International Series 2224) registered � April 2007 but censored from publication until 2011! (NOTE: Anticipating problems such as this, I made certain to register the Slide programs & Thumbnails handout in 2006 and the papers in early 2007 being already experienced with extreme misconduct in anthropology including discovering my work or its inluence in papers by competitive researchers as peer reviewers ‘without citation.’) Working in the shared space of mathematics and linguistics the technique used to prove association between the two motifs as well as their obvious ‘pre-planned’ complexity is a double Cartesian grid (optional curvilinear grid). Whether one is thinking in terms of grammar or other organizational systems it ofers a means to test the placement or shared association of any components. Looking beyond this, Figs. 1-2 and 4-10 clearly show complex and

intricate structures within a single ‘radial structure convention.’ Unlike standard writing systems, fugue techniques (as in musical composition) and radial structures can potentially hold a great deal more factual or symbolic information in multi-layered or superimposed form. There is no doubt that what we are dealing with here at Bilzingsleben is not an “ape-man.”

Fig. 8. Conference slide #23. Observation 5: Each motif shares an established plane (ABCD) and one isolated 3D component (EF). Artifacts 1 & 3. These aspects relate to the internal 3D radial system ( Musings on the Palaeolithic fan motif, Graphics, p.72, Phi, p.12). Not expecting a 5year censorship, I assumed the “Larger system” announced in the papers would be published shortly after.

Fig. 9. Conference slide #24. Observation 6: The motifs are mirror images. Artifacts 1 & 3.

Fig. 10. Conference slide #25. Artifacts 1 & 3. If the two original motifs are superimposed, any remaining doubt that each is a sophisticated variation on the same motif is efectively dissolved. Duplicated motifs are the hallmark of language.

The proofs of language in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben were subsequently forced to endure ive years of academic misconduct. This involved agendas not only of known competitive researchers but a censoring peer review board working from the safety of anonymity at the Journal of Human Evolution (recommended by Randall White familiar with the disgraceful

action by UISPP and with editor of JHE in his own department at NYU) doing all in their power to keep the irst proofs of Homo erectus language obscured. By keeping The Graphics of Bilzingsleben from the public, the science community has performed a great disservice. Here is physical evidence that our ancestors were like us rather than ape-like. Suppressing this evidence because it does not agree with the preferred world view is academic misconduct on a very high level. In light of the recent scandal in the Cognitive Evolution Lab at Harvard University (eight counts of misconduct related to evolution of language research) and similar examples brought forward by the Pleistocene Coalition, consumers of science should prepare themselves for the fact that this is only the tip of the iceberg in the evolutionary community. REFERENCES Mania, D. and U. Mania. 1988. Deliberate engravings on bone artifacts of Homo erectus. Rock Art Research 5: 91-107. White, R. 1992. “Beyond art: Toward an understanding of the origins of material representation in Europe.” ARA 21:537-64. Davis, W. 1988. Comment on Mania and Mania 1988. RAR 5: 101-3. Bednarik R. G. 1988. Comment on Mania and Mania 1988. RAR 5: 96–100.. Noble, W., and I. Davidson. 1991. “The evolutionary emergence of modern human behaviour: Language and its archaeology.” Man 26: 223-53. Chase, P. G. 1991. “Symbols and Paleolithic artifacts: Style, standardization, and the imposition of arbitrary form.” JAA 10:193-214. Feliks, J. 1998 [submitted ‘95]. The impact of fossils on the development of visual representation. RAR 15:109-34. - 2006 [submitted ‘04]. Musings on the Palaeolithic fan motif. In P. Chenna-Reddy (ed), Exploring the mind of ancient man. Research India Press. New Delhi. - 2008. Phi in the Acheulian: Lower Palaeolithic intuition and the natural origins of analogy. BAR International Series 1804:11-31. - 2011 [submitted ‘07]. The graphics of Bilzingsleben: Sophistication and subtlety in the mind of Homo erectus. BAR I.S. 2224:71-91.

PART 3: BASE GRIDS OF A SUPPRESSED HOMO ERECTUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM “The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science.” -Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 91

Back to Square One Everyone, including children, knows that critical thinking is the core of science; and in normal sciences such as chemistry, physics, astronomy, critical thinking has never been devalued. However, rest assured that this is not the case in ields which are now committed to a faith-based mythological system. The deeper one goes into modern university training in paleontology, biology, anthropology—believing that one is receiving an objective education—the more completely one’s original critical thinking abilities are wiped clean and replaced with evolutionary ‘template thinking.’ Those paying for such an education expecting to come out with new mental skills should realize that it is extremely diicult to regain original skills once they are lost to programming. In this case, one has become an unknowing adherent to an ideology which will limit ones ability to innovate. It is an ideology now in enough trouble to resort to disreputable actions such as suppression of conlicting data for the sake of self-preservation. As an example of the dilemmas engendered, consider the “evolution of

In Part 2, “Censoring the world’s oldest human language,” I introduced ten proofs (out of hundreds similar) for the earliest motif duplicated on two separate artifacts 400,000 years old. In this part, I ofer a

language” question which has been called the “hardest problem in science.” Asking why language evolution is the hardest problem in science is like asking why 2+2=5 is the hardest problem in mathematics. Since the scientiic answer to a rigged question is not likely to be forthcoming it may be time to start asking diferent questions.

follow-up to Fig. 7 of Part 2 where the caption reads, “The motifs share horizontal point coordinates.” Here, in Figs. 1-4, are some of the visible grid studies so that the statement will seem less cryptic. The discovery and nature of the duplicated motifs is nothing less than hard ‘physical’ evidence of highly-sophisticated language in Homo erectus people. It equates with symbolism, linguistics, mathematics, philosophy, and representation. So, it is not simply my work which is being censored by the science community but the recorded knowledge of an entire culture. When physical evidence is censored from publication in a scientiic context one can rest assured that something other than a quest for truth is behind it and that the discipline of science has been compromised. The real issue is that the results of the geometric studies presented in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben are in complete disagreement with how Homo erectus people are portrayed to the public by the evolutionary community. Simply stated, the evidence threatens only evolution and its advocates—not true science. Unfortunately, the science community has made itself synonymous with evolution—an intellectual blunder. The take of evolutionary experts is that Homo erectus people were transitional ape-men incapable not only of modern language or speech but even of the ability to think as we do. They treat our ancestors in a patronizing manner with a constant focus on racial or physical traits of individuals forgetting that people are what they do, not what they look like. As for their mentality, they discuss them only in terms of survival as if this is as far as our ancestors got on an evolutionary road to becoming us. Nothing could be more misleading to the public’s perception of its heritage. Fig. 1. Cartesian grid studies proving beyond any doubt a conceptual connection between Bilzingsleben Artifacts 1 & 3. These are only two of literally thousands of studies of the engravings by the author beginning with Musings on the Palaeolithic fan motif in 2004 proving modern-level intelligence in early peoples such as Homo erectus; many have been blocked from publication by the evolutionary

community. Top: Shared y-coordinates based on the two motifs’ longest lines—equal in length—set to the same xaxis. The study w/o the double grid can be seen in Fig.7 of Part 2. Bottom: Similar w/radials pivoted to vertical on their center points. Some lines appear closer together because the longest line radials were set at parallel for the reference as opposed to the more symmetrical positioning used in the upper test. Dotted lines are shared measures.

"Let the mind be enlarged... to the grandeur of the mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the mind" - Francis Bacon "Sit down before facts like a child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion." T.H. Huxley In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar." - Richard Feynman "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Arthur C. Clarke's First Law "The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best—and therefore never scrutinize or question." - Stephen Jay Gould "No Pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new heaven to the human spirit" - Helen Keller "To become truly immortal, a work of art must escape all human limits: logic and common sense will only interfere. But once these barriers are broken, it will enter the realms of childhood visions and dreams." - Giorgio de Chirico

Fig. 2. The 400,000-year old radial bone engravings from Bilzingsleben plotted non-arbitrarily on a 4-degree base radial grid. This study proves beyond any mathematical doubt an association between all four motifs of Artifacts 1-3 and a high order of philosophical and system intelligence in Homo erectus people. The most profound observation is that the radial engravings are part of a continuum. Each motif type occupies its own place as though in a speciied range on an invisible radial grid of which the engravers were aware. Engraved sequences within ranges is analogous to how the radio spectrum is divided into frequency bands for diferent broadcasters. Converting the radial motifs into linear sequences, the case is made that compression and expansion in the spacing between engraved lines can be as speciic a conveyor of information as the dots and dashes of Morse Code; without deviation the inner bands exhibit compression while the outer bands beginning at the Phi point exhibit expansion. Additional information resides in the lengths and secondary traits of each line. As hard to believe as this system might seem it has a modern equivalent in the khipus (kē-pūz) or “talking knots” used in the 5000-year old Caral civilization of Peru and later Inca Empire. Khipu is a system consisting of a base cord or rope from which secondary and tertiary cords of diferent lengths and colors are attached and knotted at certain points to encode information using a base 10 system. The Bilzingsleben engraved lines are compared with the khipus cords and even contain tertiary elements such as the double-engraved lines of Artifact 3, the duplicated three-part composite lines of Artifact 2, and at least two “branches”—one is reproduced in the side-fan of Artifact 1 (Fig.1). Each motif locates between zero and ininity and, remarkably, in every case exhibits an obvious ‘respect’ for the origin or vertex at zero—a fact which has many philosophical implications. Whether or not the motifs were engraved by one or many individuals, the implications are profound. If by separate individuals each was obviously aware of the work of others proving communication between individuals by way of graphic symbols. If by only one individual it would relect a long tradition at Bilzingsleben and intelligence in all Homo erectus people worldwide 400,000 years ago.

Bypassing concerns of physical appearance, the censored studies go directly to the actual thoughts of our ancestors. These thoughts are accessible because someone—or several highly-skilled persons—long ago Fig. 3. Mathematical language comes in another form not typically used in archaeology, namely, music theory. In music theory numbers are used but not like in mathematics and letters are used but not like in language. This hybrid quality makes music theory very useful in studying the qualities of artifacts in a more objective way than is possible with conventional methods as it allows a researcher to be less inluenced by mathematical or linguistic preconceptions. It is one of the techniques used throughout The Graphics of Bilzingsleben (BAR I.S. 2224). Top: Color Slide #31 (of 112) or Fig. 8bLeft of the published paper. It is Bilzingsleben Artifact 1 side-fan motif reading the vertical ratios in musical terms. As noted in the paper, the grid lines were slightly ‘tempered’ (as in piano tuning) so as to make the point easier. This example is Verdi’s famous Enigmatic Scale or Scala Enigmatica, C Db E F Gb Ab Bb or the equivalent mathematical ratio 131122. The point is that the Bilzingsleben engravings are measurable sequences with analogues in modern usage. Bottom:

took the time to engrave a few bones with the apparent aid of a straight edge and so made the true mental abilities of their people available for all to see and appreciate. Signiicance: Any line

engraved with the aid of a straight edge is directly symbolic of the straight edge itself being a representation of the edge; and while any duplicated motifs are representations of each other they also refer by duplication to the same external object, namely, the straight edge; these are all the core elements of a knowledge system. The blockade to this knowledge began with competitive researchers at the XV UISPP Congress along with leading evolutionists hiding behind the safety of anonymity at the Journal of Human Evolution under the direction of Dr. Susan Anton

(standard-school physical anthropologist and longtime promoter of the ape-man paradigm) at New York University. These successfully blocked this pivotal evidence from appropriate discourse in the scientiic literature. The level of scandal involved includes holding the paper back for ive years while allowing it to be absorbed and used without citation by competitive researchers. This type of

Slide #32 (of 112) or Fig. 8b-Right of the published paper reading the ratios vertically and horizontally using the ‘chromatic’ scale. BTW, these scales and rhythms are quite playable on any chromatic instrument as are those of Artifact 2 which feature Augmented Scale X and the Indian scale, Raga Takka.

behavior goes against all scientiic ethics. The late Carl Sagan and others have spoken against such behaviors in hundreds of published statemenst on scientiic misconduct. Groups such as Retraction Watch are also forming to begin holding scientiic journals such as Science (and its power structure, the American Association for the Advancement of Science—AAAS), Nature, and many others accountable for breezing through to publication an epidemic of papers with falsiied evidence or plagiarized materials but that abide by political agendas. Withholding new discoveries while preserving agendas is not true science. A whole new world of prehistory is opening up. It is a revolution. Why not join us? If it were me I wouldn’t miss this revolution if my life depended on it. The choice is yours.

Fig. 4. Left: The earliest iconic image framed by a human being (Fig. 2 from The Impact of Fossils on the Development of Visual Representation, 1998)—two geometric studies proving centrality of fossil scallop shell (Spondylus spinosus) in a 250,000-year old Acheulian handaxe from West Tofts, England, and demonstrating geometric and radial foci at invisible abstract points (Top: triangular centroid T; Bottom: geometric center R); Right: Comparing the 4-degree radial ribs and invisible abstract points of the West Tofts fossil with those of 400,000-year old Bilzingsleben Artifacts 1 & 3 (from the base grid of Fig. 2) showing that attention to such details is not without precedence in the Acheulian.

PART 4: 350,000 YEARS BEFORE BACH s hopefully is becoming clear, the evidence ofered in this series is meant to demonstrate that the view of our ancestors as unintelligent ape-people as promoted by the science community is not at all correct. In reality, there is no evidence for a gradual evolution of mental ability but only evidence of a continuing and stable human intelligence.

Fig. 1. A study of the 400,000-year old engraved bone Artifact 1 side-fan motif from Bilzingsleben eliminating the variables of angle and horizontal positioning of the lines and applying the musical technique known as “compound line” (see Fig. 5 for deinition). It was originally presented at the XV UISPP Congress in 2006 in the program Phi in the Acheulian. Photograph by R. Bednarik, cropped with permission. The study is further explored in the recent paper, Five constants from an Acheulian compound line, presented at the Aplimat (Applied Mathematics) 2012 Conference in Bratislava by Professor Mauro Francaviglia (see Fig. 5).

Because there is the physical evidence of complex engravings, it can safely be said that human abilities such as reasoning, philosophizing, or simply being creative have never undergone any evolutionary change. It can probably also be stated with a fair degree of conidence that the same is true for every representative of the animal kingdom. Whatever intelligence level any creature was at when it irst appears in the fossil record is likely to be no diferent today. It may sound humorous, but invertebrate sea creatures such as clams and snails which live in the water today are probably no more intelligent than they were 500 million years ago in the Cambrian seas. The ish that live in the sea today, no more intelligent than Silurian or Devonian ishes were. And in all likelihood your cat or dog friend is no more intelligent than the irst sabertoothed cat or the irst wolf. So why stop there? What proof do we have that the human species is any diferent?

The reason I ask this is because while we have no way to compare the intelligence of ancient animals with modern animals we do have a means to do this with ancient humans and modern humans. That method is by comparing the creative work of ancient people with that of the artists and mathematicians of today. My proposal is that there is no diference and I ofer these ongoing studies, most of which have been censored by the evolutionary community, as testable and transparent proof.

Fig. 2. This music-based study of Artifact 1 shows how the particular compound line (zig zag melody) taken from Fig. 1 has precise analogues in use today. Although there are other possible interpretations, the terms shown here account perfectly for the Indian scale, Raga Bhinna Pancama. It is a challenging scale playable just as shown or set up in “universal scale” degrees as 1 2 4 5 b6 7 which in the Key of C would be played C D F G Ab B. The raga is known for its special quality of containing no major or minor 3rd.

FIGURES 3 & 4

Fig. 3 is a study of Bilzingsleben Artifact 2 applying ratios as used in modern musical scales. The studies are not meant to imply

With more and more such evidence coming to light it is no longer scientiically prudent to teach the apeman scenario as fact. Where does this lead? Since

the science community has committed to the evolutionary paradigm leaving itself no graceful way out it has been forced into the situation of using methods such as censorship to block new evidence from the public rather than facing it and adjusting for what the new evidence indicates. that Homo erectus people necessarily used these ratios ‘musically’ but to demonstrate that the ratios engraved into the Bilzingsleben artifacts have modern analogues and to support the idea forwarded by Dietrich and Ursula Mania in their breakthrough 1988 paper, Deliberate engravings on bone artifacts of Homo erectus, that these ancestors understood rhythm, which I simply put into very speciic terms, Fig. 4. The studies along with many others were presented at the XV UISPP Conference in Lisbon in 2006 to an enthusiastic audience only to be blocked from publication until 2011 not only by the UISPP but by Elsevier’s, Journal of Human Evolution, my last accepted censorship before taking a public stand against faithbased evolutionary science.

Adjusting according to new evidence is how “normal” science works. So, what do you call a science that blocks new evidence and continues to promote an old view despite the evidence? It is something other than science. The science community has decided to respond this way to the evidence from Bilzingsleben and other evidence we ofer in this newsletter so as not to have to address the implications. By responding to empirical evidence in this way and not addressing the challenge in a true scientiic manner the science community has lost credibility. When I started in science as a young boy I just assumed that scientists abided by high standards of truth. As background, I was absorbed early on in paleontology, biology (as a naturalist), and chemistry (even inventing my own plastic tar among other things).

Fig. 3a; Fig. 3b.Two studies of Bilzingsleben Artifact 2 applying standard ratios as used in modern musical scales. In the years that followed—and this is all separate from the arts—I learned psychology, sociology and anthropology, not to mention exploring to one degree or another most other sciences, e.g., physics, optics, astronomy, cosmology, as well as pursuing a knack for geometry, drafting and practical design. Though inspired by many including open-minded teachers, this was

primarily self-disciplined and motivated research so I naturally kept an open mind and have always been open to looking at science in new ways. There is the saying, “Don’t re-invent the wheel,” but actually, that may be one of the best ways to learn.

Fig. 4a; Fig. 4b.Two studies of Bilzingsleben Artifact 2 applying standard ratios as used in modern musical rhythms. After the few examples in Part 3, Base grids of a suppressed Homo erectus knowledge system, in this Part 4, I ofer additional studies based on musical composition techniques to show how they can be applied to uncovering unexpected information locked in ancient engravings. “Fifty” of these and similar studies were blocked from publication for ive years by the XV UISPP International Congress even though I was requested to present

the material being promised publication in advance. The material was all then censored by the Journal of Human Evolution even though submission to that journal was suggested by a longtime anthropology correspondent since the journal was edited by someone in his own department at New York University. This censorship was quite ironic because I actually began correspondence with this professor when he called me on the phone regarding my irst censored paper by Current Anthropology in 1995-97 (two years of anonymous peer review followed by censorship). He was one of the ‘anonymous’ reviewers who was intrigued enough by the ideas in the paper, The impact of fossils on the development of visual representation, that he chose to break the anonymity to hear more about it. His recommendation for publication was vetoed by a team of anonymous reviewers obviously protecting the evolutionary paradigm as the paper suggested high intelligence in early peoples. Leading neurologist Oliver Sacks, in a full-page handwritten letter, referred to the paper as, “absolutely riveting” giving permission to quote the letter. His was one of many others of a very similar nature. So, one must ask, how does work which receives this type of response from leading authorities wind up being censored from the public? After 15 years of such experiences plus discovering a pattern of submitted ideas not only blocked from publication but showing up in the work of competitive researchers, there occurred a loss of trust in scientiic process so I inally hooked up with other researchers with similar experiences and together we formed the Pleistocene Coalition to challenge the mainstream science power structure. n Part 3, I showed how information encoded in ancient artifacts might be decoded in diferent ways (see founding member Jim Harrod’s weblink for other methods of decoding extremely ancient artifacts such as Bilzingsleben). In this Part 4 (Figs. 1-5), I ofer studies that were inspired by the work of Dietrich and Ursula Mania, discoverers of the engraved artifacts of Bilzingsleben, who noted the mathematical ratio in Artifact 2 (Figs. 3-4). Contrary to the standard paradigm used in anthropology, approaching ancient artifacts with the expectation that there may be deeper inherent meanings increases the chance that such meanings, if they exist, can be found. For those who question such an approach, I suggest that it is no less scientiic to presume high intelligence in early peoples than it is to presume low intelligence.

Fig. 5. Another example of how musical techniques can be applied to ancient artifacts, excerpted from the Aplimat 2012 paper, Five constants from an Acheulian compound line . Compound line is a technique characteristic of Johann Sebastian Bach’s music. A common form is when a single melody can be interpreted as two distinct melodies. In the example above, the Artifact 1 sequence from Fig. 1 labeled adebfcg (left) measured by way of ive mathematical constants (numbers which remain the same independent of physical measurement) can be read as two separate lines, abc and defg. These deine two circles (right). As hard to believe as it may seem for something taken from a 400,000-year old artifact, each of the constants in the compound line are represented to equal precision (ive decimals) within the two circles.

The engrained idea that our ancestors were of low intelligence is not based on fact and the sooner we move past this idea the sooner we can move to the next stage of discovery. Presupposition of high intelligence in ancient peoples is a powerful key. It opens up the entire world of the Paleolithic.

THE GRAPHICS OF BILZINGSLEBEN SERIES: SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OVER ANCIENT ARTIFACT STUDIES AND WHY YOU SHOULD CARE

PART 5: GESTALTEN Like in the old days of structuralist psychology, most approaches in science entail an early stage where everything is broken down into bits and pieces and studied to the nth degree through specialization. It is an excellent method for appreciating the profundity of what makes up even the smallest of structures. Unfortunately, this is often where 20th-21st Century science stops dead in its tracks. It adds one observation to another yet by some adopted ‘modern’ mentality (unlike that of science/philosophy greats of the past such as Plato, Bacon,

Descartes, Newton) allows no room for exploration of meaning or even awareness of possible larger structures that extend beyond the sums of parts— like working a jigsaw puzzle with the unreasonable stipulation that one may look only at the pieces and not consider that there might actually be a picture. Fig. 1. Numbering system used for the geometric studies of Bilzingsleben Artifact 2 as seen in Figs. 2-7. The “straight edge studies” presented at the XV UISPP Congress in Lisbon, 2006, were censored by the evolutionary community for ive years. Prior to these studies—which mathematically demonstrated a coherent radial whole or Gestalt—all writers without exception described the piece as a series of “parallel” lines.

In psychology, the idea of looking at the whole picture is known as Gestalt. Similar to Plato’s Theory of Forms or Ideas, Gestalt goes beyond simple or even complex details to focus on the uniied whole. Parts are regarded understandable only in context of the whole. Ever since bedazzlement by Darwin, this perspective has disappeared from the science community. The 400,000-year old mammal-bone engravings from the site of Bilzingsleben in central Germany (Figs. 1-7, on Artifact 2 of six) are best seen as Gestalts. If one looks at them as [continued on page 12]

Fig. 2. Two essentially identical triangles in an asymmetric context demonstrating the Gestalt principle of “closure.” The numbers are simply abstracted from Fig. 1. See Fig. 7 for the complete Gestalt. Closure is where apparently isolated parts are perceived as complete figures often discovering a symmetry where asymmetry is expected. Study of Artifact 2, a 370,000-year old mammal bone engraving from Bilzingsleben, Germany.

Fig. 3. Inverse triangles in Artifact 2 showing a mathematical unity. From The Graphics of Bilzingsleben Part 2, Phi in the Acheulian. Zoom in for details.

Fig. 4. Four circles sharing identical bisector 1X. All such studies presented at the XV UISPP were attempted to be censored on the grounds that they had “no scientiic merit.” Zoom in for details.

individual bits they appear to be meaningless scratches—which is exactly how evolutionary scientists perceive them (see Part 2: Censoring the World’s Oldest Human Language). However, if one looks at the engravings in the context of their whole conigurations something changes; they quickly reveal multidimensional levels of human ingenuity in the highest artistic, mathematical, and philosophical sense.

Fig. 5. Two rotational studies (left rotation; right rotation) of the same central sequence of engraved lines as in Fig. 2a only here interpreted as parallel as opposed to subtly radial. The test was to see how the central engraved lines related to the whole artifact. These particular studies were partly inspired by J.S. Bach’s “mirror fugues,” Contrapunctus 12 & 13, where one fugue is a retrograde inversion of the other—yet both work. Like in Fig. 2a (the 3D vertical z-axis; 2-11 and 3-10 are the x and y axes—not points X and Y which are a diferent study—the three axes meeting at what is essentially the geometric center of the artifact), the Escheresque 3D ambiguity in this test was a natural outcome of exploring geometrically without a goal. Further, if one draws vertical lines between like-numbered points one will discover that the upper points reproduce on the lower plane without any deviation despite an illusion otherwise. Finally, the parallel lines, e.g., 3-8, 9-15, transfer exactly without alteration and show the correlation in thirds between parallels and the enlarged three-part motifs of Level 3. This study demonstrates a unity of form in the whole artifact (as it was preserved) where a multidimensional Gestalt transcends the details.

Contrary to the ape-man image of Homo erectus promoted to the public by the science community while it aggressively blocks conlicting evidence, the people who made the Bilzingsleben engravings were working well beyond the obvious. The works are so creative, subtle, and precise that they undoubtedly represent the apex of a very long and complex tradition. This tradition no doubt had a developmental history spreading over hundreds of years at least. And if we accept Bilzingsleben Homo erectus as people with similar capabilities and temperament as our own rather than as a somehow more intuitive race (though possible) then by comparison with our own mathematical and philosophical histories, this was more likely a history of a thousand years. When Mania and Mania irst published their discoveries from Bilzingsleben in English, they unhesitatingly suggested that the artifacts demonstrated not only abstract thinking in Homo erectus but also a “concept of the world” (Mania, D., and U. Mania. 1988. Deliberate engravings on bone artifacts of Homo erectus. Rock Art Research 5 [2]: 91-107).

Fig. 6. Applying the Gestalt principle of “closure,” invisible triangle ABC was present in the mind of Homo erectus during creation of the radial fan motif of Bilzingsleben Artifact 2. This study (UISPP, 2006, Graphics of Bilzingsleben presentation Slide #40 and published Fig.12c after censorship) revolves around the idea that all human thought is based on associations between abstract points in physical space with the minimum unit forming a triangulation (a two-point line segment is only perceived as a line from a third vantage point) grasped intuitively by means of mental representations at any conceivable level of miniaturization, magniication, or reach (“reach” in the sense that whatever can be conceived of either already exists or will eventually). Triangulations are external or internal such as inverted representation on back of the human eye.

However, skeptics were not budged. For them, evolutionary predispositions are so engrained as to prevent them seeing anything other than crude scratches by ape people barely conscious in the modern sense of the word. There are no attempts to perceive Gestalts because in this community there is simply no place for them. Instead, and unbelievably so, critics actually compare the profound Bilzingsleben engravings to the work of chimpanzees. This is despite the fact that the artifacts are from a context including such markers as: “microlithic” tools; wood, bone and antler tools; huts and campires. Fig. 7. A completed Gestalt interpretation of Artifact 2 as seen partially in Fig. 1 presented as Slide #46 of 112 at the XV UISPP Congress, 2006. Note that angles A, B, and C are all 15�. This study along with 50 similar was censored from publication for ive years by the UISPP (International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences) as well as by Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution—as the team of anonymous reviewers under physical anthropologist and editor Susan Anton, NYU, deemed it of no scientiic value. Of course, their non-scientiic motive is clear to anyone understanding the religious nature of the evolutionary paradigm. This study and all of the other studies presented in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben were not treated by JHE as empirical evidence which must be taken into account while assessing the intelligence of Homo erectus but as a threat to the paradigm. However, I wish to publicly state that I did not submit the studies to JHE to taunt them but because of recommendation by leading anthropologist Randall White, Anthropology, NYU, who was already aware of the corrupt actions of the UISPP. It was White who irst mentioned anthropology’s problems in 1995 when my irst geometries were censored by Current Anthropology. White was followed by other authorities. Since anthropology’s agendas have cultural repercussions outside of anthropology they must be fought especially since they include aggressive promotion of a religion as science.

But this is how blinkered perception is engendered when scientiic ideology becomes religious. For habitual lack of objectivity, that ideology has spread through the entire scientiic community blitzing out critical thinking as it spreads. Even intelligent people are afraid to challenge an ideology with backing from a seemingly unanimous academic hive and are further dissuaded by the added deterrent of fanatics such as outspoken biologist Richard Dawkins

who publicly demean anyone challenging the ideology through use of propaganda techniques such as name-calling or ad hominem. The defense against challenging evidence is this crude because it is not seen as a part of scientiic process but as a threat to the paradigm. Real science, of course, doesn’t behave this way. The evolutionary community is in trouble on many fronts despite how few realize it and evidence against cognitive evolution is not one of the fronts they were prepared to defend, hence, their only alternative—suppression of evidence. Why is evidence against cognitive evolution so feared? It is because acknowledging modern-human level creativity in Homo erectus people releases them from their use as transitional ape-people; and once that happens the evolutionary community is left with little more than a few enigmatic bones of prehistoric apes and humans held up to support a six million-year evolutionary sequence. Have no concern regarding genetics either; since they have not been able to produce indisputable fossils they attempt to build cases analogically in bits. No scientist should ever accept atomistic proxies to ill in for missing Gestalts. When one ‘hominid’ is debunked, they simply change focus to another (See, Ardi: How to Create a Science Myth, PCN #3). It is part of a history of promoting an un-testable paradigm through diversion. When The Graphics of Bilzingsleben provided systematic geometric evidence that the engravings were made by intelligent people the studies were immediately censored as there is little means to counter the idea of prehistoric geometers in the light of straight edge proofs. Lines created by use of a straight-edge are impossible to attribute to apes or even ape men. As quoted in Part 1, Proof of straight edge use by Homo erectus, it was predicted to the author in advance after the evidence was presented at the XV UISPP Congress that the archaeology community would do everything in it’s power to discredit the studies as they demonstrated by falsiiable means the community’s error in its assessment of Homo erectus. One inal word on Bilzingsleben Gestalts. The tolerances applied are not only transparent but many of the claims hold true even if the images are altered. If one goes so far as to change various line lengths or certain point position interpretations or otherwise distorts the images the special qualities are often simply pushed to another location. It is similar to how a fossil clam distorted through metamorphosis is still easily recognized as a clam. This is the concept of Gestalt. The unity of the conigurations is high and possibly well-thought-out and tested on wood before committed to the archival medium of bone. Possible draft versions on wood might also explain why these engravings appear to have, for the most part, no errors or corrections.

PART 6: THE LOWER PALEOLITHIC ORIGINS OF ADVANCED MATHEMATICS “Homo erectus is an upright ape… It could make tools, but they were very limited tools.”Mark Pagel, evolutionary biologist

-

Fig. 1. Removing the radial variable (inset) and equalizing the lengths of the four 3-part composite line groups or sets (see magniication at right) of Bilzingsleben Artifact 2 (a 370,000-year old engraved rib bone of a large unidentiied mammal). The artifact was possibly a multipurpose mathematical tool as sophisticated as a slide rule with potential uses including not only simple counting or its proposed use as a straight edge (see Part 1, Proof of straight edge use by Homo erectus) but also for uses involving trigonometry, ratio, logarithms, exponents, and fractals (see Fig. 2); and equally-demonstrable non-mathematical uses. Note that all four line groups were already set by the engraver to the same x-axis (bottom edge of artifact). Mainstream science has aggressively promoted the evolutionary idea that Homo erectus was an ape-man while blocking geometric proof of modern-level intelligence. In, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, we learn how power elites control public knowledge. In the case of demeaning Homo erectus the elite are not corporations but evolutionary scientists who, unable to counter empirical data, resort to suppression—one reason the late Carl Sagan emphasized that true science must not respect authority. Suppression of conlicting evidence is how the masses are duped when it comes to the topic of human origins.

“Upright apes,” “limited tools,” not-quite-human creatures often described as “It.” We have all heard these types of things from the science community having had them repeatedly pounded into our heads from childhood as though they were facts. They are not facts. And being claimed as facts while conlicting evidence is blocked from the public (Figs. 1-5) you can rest assured that they are not science either. No true science encourages the promotion of non-facts as facts; and the sooner the world’s thinking people remember this and learn to distinguish between real sciences (e.g., chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, psychology, mathematics) and corrupted variants (e.g., evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology) the sooner we will be able to snap out of the quality of being so easily duped. Fig. 2. The four 3-part composite line sets of Bilzingsleben Artifact 2 abstracted and equalized demonstrating that Homo erectus people were exploring at high precision the nature of lines and understood at the very least the concepts of collinear line segments (two segments as parts of a single line) and sets. The visible gaps in each set (like Cantor’s ternary set) were clearly intended as emphasized by the identical diagonal lines serving as dividers in each set. Four set duplications in a row with deliberate variation should convince any mathematician as to the capabilities of the engravers. These equalized sets can be added, subtracted, multiplied, cross-multiplied, divided, or used as a matrix w/12 elements, etc; and in their original radial form (see Figs. 1, 3, & 5 and prior papers) can be used in matters related to time, change, motion, subsets, equations and functions. Evolutionary scientists tell you these people were part of a stagnant society. Do you believe them?

It is the opposite of logic to attach an ideological qualiier to the name of a scientiic ield for if the ideology is discredited the entire ield goes with it. Proof of advanced mathematics in Homo erectus must of necessity be blocked in corrupted sciences because their evolutionary qualiiers require non-objectivity from their adherents. It is why devotees such as Richard Dawkins resort to tactics like name-calling, censorship, or attempts to force legislation preventing alternatives from being discussed in the science classroom; they resort to such behaviors in order to defend corrupted ields against what they call “attacks” from challengers. Once a science calls a challenge an attack you know it is in trouble. Dawkins is well-exposed in the fact that he has more invested in evolution than science as his preoccupation with attacking religion attests. In fact, Dawkins

may feel he doesn’t have much choice but to ight in this way (i.e. kicking opponents in the groin rather than responding intelligently) because by admitting contrary evidence into normal scientiic discourse the devotee of a corrupted ield must anticipate its potential demise. Advanced early human mathematics is blocked from publication for the simple reason that the evolutionary paradigm requires an ape-man phase. Anonymous peer reviewers who censor geometric evidence to protect this paradigm need to be smoked out of their nest. What they do is not science. Evolutionary psychology, a newcomer on the evolutionary bandwagon, will be the irst to go. Since they didn’t anticipate an “attack” from empirical evidence they had no “scientiic” defense. Their only defense was, and still is, censorship. This censorship is supported by evolutionary biologists because they are aware that if one front is lost more devastating “attacks” may be on the horizon and they would be correct to imagine it. I know this because the greater part of my life was spent with paleontology for the most part unhindered by an ideologically-vectored science education so I am familiar with the evidence from fossils in a more objective way than had I been programmed. Fossils have never been anything but trouble for evolution fanatics (see Richard Dawkins’ solution in the sidebar. If you are impressed, I strongly recommend going after your alma mater, perhaps in a class-action suit as you are clearly not the only victim).

Fig. 3. Steps toward the ininite radial motif of Fig. 5. a.) Radial pattern. Proof of association between a complex graphic (or set) and an invisible abstract point . This is The Graphics of Bilzingsleben Slide #43—one of the “straight edge” proofs supporting the author’s claim of high intelligence in Homo erectus people. PROOF OF COMPLEXITY: The primary engravings of Artifact 2 consist of four repeating logarithmically-varying 3-part composite and collinear line sets (Figs. 1, 2, and 3b). These already-complex sets represent the ‘visible’ components of a large radial motif and double-serve as vectors ending at the upper edge of the artifact and as a pencil of rays extending from zero (origin or vertex of rays) toward ininity (Figs. 3 a, 3c and 5). The motifs perform these two roles by way of self-similar fractal angles between 3� and 6.5� (Fig. 3c) with the angles in the motifs (e.g., 3b) duplicated in their orientations to the x-axis (bottom horizontal of the artifact). The composite groups and two more line segments (the irst radial plus the parallel to its left) are arranged in a ratio series discovered by Dietrich and Ursula Mania (1988; Deliberate engravings on bone artifacts of Homo erectus. Rock Art Research 5[2]: 91-107) spaced at the ratio 32213 (see Part 1, Proof of straight edge use by Homo erectus). These and other details are what make Artifact 2 a complex graphic or set. REGARDING PROOF OF ASSOCIATION: Finally, this complex radial set projects outward from an invisible abstract point, vertex, or zero (3a-c and 5). The myriad qualities of this and the other artifacts from Bilzingsleben (e.g., Fig. 4) show that the infrastructure necessary for modern language was present during the time of Homo erectus 400,000 years ago with these proofs providing the irst empirical evidence supporting Chomsky’s 50-year theory that human language was fully-developed at whatever point in time it irst appeared (see Part 2, Censoring the world’s oldest human language). b.) Subsets. Level 2 fractal angles each consisting of two sets of collinear line segments with breaking divider lines ( Level 1 is the radial pattern or superset of the subsets). Noteworthy is the engraved 3� angle which is remarkable by any standards of non-mechanized precision especially seeing it was engraved with a lint knife. c.) Fractal angle symmetry. Level 1 and Level 2 fractal angles. These self-similar angles include more sophistication than detailed here such as diminution and augmentation (Feliks 2008, Phi in the Acheulian). The paper was blocked from publication for ive years by three overseeing authorities: 1.) the XV UISPP Congress under the direction of Luiz Oosterbeek (Polytechnic Institute of Tomar) who called the paper a polemic treating the author as a troublemaker, 2.) Chair of the Pleistocene Palaeoart of the World session (associate of the director) who after referring to the paper as “absolutely outstanding and stunning... breathtaking... a landmark contribution,” cc’d to researchers that it had “no scientiic merit,” and 3.) Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution (predictably defending the evolutionary paradigm with an anonymous censorship board blocking the paper from publication). This is how the science community— committed to the ape-man paradigm—responded to rigorous geometric data. In the process, the author’s work was circulated to competitive peer reviewers worldwide who absorbed the conidence of the paper into their own work without citation; this new conidence showed up in quick publications with sudden changes in direction or conviction disproportionate to the material being ofered as evidence; these changes included uncharacteristically exaggerated claims of early human intelligence and graphics ability, though with little more evidence than what the authors had ive, ten, or even 20 years prior. This was all done while the original author’s work was being relegated to an obscure miscellanea volume by Dr. Oosterbeek. I was prepared for behaviors such as this from the science community having already much experience of both censorship and plagiarism; it is why I put additional work into producing a detailed handout of all slides for The Graphics of Bilzingsleben presentation and registered the work. Conclusion: If researchers who are requested to present their latest unpublished and rigorous work in a mainstream forum cannot trust their work to the science community by granting privileged access for peer review then no one can trust this community.

Fig. 4. Five constants from an Acheulian compound line. Aplimat 2012. Study of a diferent motif included here as a reminder that the claims for mathematics at Bilzingsleben are not limited to those discussed in this article. The artifacts are also expressible in trigonometric and projective terms not at all suggesting the work of apes.

Fig. 5. Proof of association between an abstract point and ininity (via a complex set). This igure is also described as “an ininite radial motif echoed at a ‘crossing point’ in twodimensional space.” This is Slide #44 from The Graphics of Bilzingsleben program presented at the XV UISPP Congress, Lisbon, 2006. It is the radial quality of this motif—as opposed to its

popular interpretation as a set of parallel lines—that makes the association between zero and ininity possible. Without this radial quality the line segments comprising the motif would only suggest at most four ininite lines broken into collinear ray pairs or opposite rays with nothing but the gap measurable and suggesting no association except similarity between the sets. The abstract point or origin here represents “zero.” Three other Bilzingsleben artifacts feature the very same convention of radial lines referenced to an invisible abstract point so the idea of deliberate zero representation is not mere conjecture. The four artifacts have all been plotted to precision on a curvilinear grid showing not only their spatial relationship to each other but also to zero and ininity (Feliks, J. 2010. Base grids of a suppressed Homo erectus knowledge system. Pleistocene Coalition News 3 [6]: 12-14). Engraved at a high level of precision, Artifact 2 itself breaks the ininite radial motif into three parts as labeled in the igure: 1.) measurable inite distances on the side of the singularity dimension or zero, 2.) The physical artifact’s exact location in space-time (i.e. wherever and whenever it may be) where its engravings represent a visible manifestation of the invisible ininite radial motif crossing the 4-dimensional world (three of space and one of time—string theories aside for now but for good reason not discarded), and 3.) Radial motif or set extending to ininity. The full radial set—characterized by measurable angles—is compared by analogy with its four 3-part subsets (each consisting of two collinear line segments deliberately gapped like in Cantor’s no-middle-third set) with breaks conirmed by insertion of likewise measurable angled line segments (as seen in Figs. 1, 2, and 3b). In the ininite radial motif, the artifact itself (as shown in the section labeled ‘2’ of the igure above) represents the gapped space. The Graphics of Bilzingsleben thesis paper— which apart from transparent proofs of early language and mathematics also included a rigorous critical reassessment of the evolutionary view of early peoples as “hominids” capable of little more than surviving—was inally dumped into a miscellanea volume of little use to anyone. After many similar experiences it was the inal proof I needed that anthropology is not true science because it manipulates evidence and what the public knows or believes about human prehistory.

You typically hear that thoughts do not fossilize but the engraved artifacts from Bilzingsleben are mathematical ‘cognitive fossils’ as impeccable as “trace fossils” in paleontology only instead of showing the tracks and burrows of where ancient animals went with their bodies the Bilzingsleben artifacts show where Homo erectus people went with their minds. Of course, I am exposed to the ubiquitous rhetoric of “Homo erectus the apeman” just like everyone else but staying out of the system during a crucial educational time was enough to let a small spark of objectivity remain. We all need to protect our own sparks from childhood and not allow ourselves to be duped by evolutionary rhetoric. Evolutionary biology is a harder fortress to take down than evolutionary psychology for only “one” reason—a hundred years of looding the public and academia with so much convoluted rhetoric that normally intelligent people can’t even see it. Invisible rhetoric, cognitive trickery, scientiic dishonesty works like this: Begin by forcing absorption of an ideology during childhood in a captive audience setting (i.e. as ‘science’ in the classroom). By the time of high school, students will naturally mistake the rhetoric they use to “think with” as being their own mind which in reality has become the medium of the rhetoric and so draws no attention to itself. Finally, by the time of university adults have lost all critical thinking ability and are naively convinced there is nothing but tons and tons of physical evidence supporting evolutionary theory even though they have “NEVER” seen it. That’s how powerful long-term brainwashing can be.

PART 7: WHO WERE THE PEOPLE OF BILZINGSLEBEN? Even 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 ire 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 also include similar stone tools, shelters, and the shared technology of ire— 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).

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 conlicting evidence. Calico, Hueyatlaco, Sufolk, 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 igure 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. Speciics: 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 efectively 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.

Any experienced adventurer or camper (lighter or matches aside) knows that the evolutionary belief that the ability to create ire is a sign of some ape-man level rather than completely modern intelligence is an absurd notion. It is a byproduct 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 performance 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 Homo 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 Middle 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 ive-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 “scientiic” 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 inding 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 ields 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 illed 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 conlicting 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 sacriice 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 conlicting evidence but also on the assumption that no one will look into the reasons for this. Since it is proven that mainstream anthropology blocks conlicting evidence from the public the ield 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 sacriice what he knows to be true for the paradigm. Brill and Tattersall The only igure in Section V of The Graphics of Bilzingsleben was the highquality composite 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 conidence 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 conlicting 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 conlicting 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”. “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?

"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.

PART 8: EVIDENCE FOR A HOMO ERECTUS CAMPSITE DEPICTION IN 3D All mainstream scientists, by virtue of their ubiquitous faith in Darwin, have interpreted the 350,000-year old engravings from Bilzingsleben Germany as the work of “ape-men.” At the most, they have granted these early Homo erectus people a simple rudimentary language—just enough to let them hunt and perhaps build campires; but to think like us? Not a chance, because that would suggest that humans have always had the same level of intelligence, and that would be contrary to Darwinism which believes that human cognition evolves over time. However, unlike the other engravings from Bilzingsleben which are perhaps easier to interpret in mainstream terms, the engravings of Artifact 6 (Figs. 1-8, (Fig. 1) are very obviously the work of a skilled and experienced—if not professional—artist. Despite the rigorous geometric evidence presented in 112 slides at the XV UISPP Congress in Lisbon, 2006, in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben, the science community found it critical to block this paper from publication.

Fig. 1. Fig. 16c from The Graphics of Bilzingsleben showing proposed association between Artifact 6 and layout of the Paleolithic campsite, i.e. that the artifact is a representation of the site created by someone who was there 350,000-years ago. Upper left: Drawing of the artifact by Robert Bednarik used w/permission. Right and below: Details of the site by Dietrich and Ursula Mania used and angled w/permission. Circular areas: dwellings.

Fig. 2. This is Fig. 16b from the Graphics of Bilzingsleben demonstrating at right the 3D quality of the engravings in 1-point perspective (2-point and multi-view perspectives in later issue). Not-to-scale persons were inserted for sense of space. There can be little doubt that the engraving was meant to convey 3-dimensionality.

Much of this censorship, apart from a 5-year efort by the Congress editors themselves, was done through anonymous peer review at the Journal of Human Evolution. After 15 years of similar experience this was a inal straw. Connecting up with other researchers censored in the same way—and some, like Virginia Steen-McIntyre for 40 years—was how the Pleistocene Coalition was formed to demonstrate that mainstream anthropology cannot be trusted to provide the public with an objective picture of human prehistory. At the UISPP Congress, the nature and exactness of the details in Artifact 6 were proposed to represent something even less believable than Lower Paleolithic art from the evolutionary standpoint—drafting or “technical drawing” of a high caliber including 3D perspective with enough information to create a three-dimensional duplicate in physical space. ‘Artistic’ representations are usually known for their subjective or emotional qualities. Technical or engineering drawings, on the other hand, are known for conveying very speciic objective information or facts including measurable elements in several dimensions. It is not common, even in modern times, for both artistic and technical qualities to be expressed freely and equally in one drawing; but when they are, they point in the direction of artists such as Albrecht D�rer or Leonardo da Vinci. In other words, if the engravings of Artifact 6 are in any way what they are

suggested to be then the old description of early peoples such as Homo erectus as being less intelligent than us is simply no longer tenable.

Straight edge use by Homo erectus The few details on the Artifact 6 project presented at the UISPP conference and in the subsequent thesis paper were enough to show the completely modern level of Homo erectus intelligence without any ambiguity. They included 20-30 falsiiable proofs that the engravers at Bilzingsleben used a straight edge.

Fig. 3. This is Fig. 16f from the Graphics of Bilzingsleben. Here, the “upper tier” in Artifact 6 was dropped down to the level of the “lower tier” at which point the two tiers were aligned nonarbitrarily by what I took as diagonal ‘registration guides.’ The guide set on the left is from the lower tier and the set on the right is from the upper tier. Both sets are exactly parallel to each other as seen bolded in Fig. 4. (In modern pre-CAD drafting, parallel diagonal lines this accurate were typically done using T-square and triangles.) As it turns out, the direction marked North (N) aligns the triangular elements—regarded as representing the dwellings at the campsite—not only in the exact same relationship as North in the original coniguration (see Figs. 1 and 4) but also with the dwellings as depicted in the archaeological map (see Figs. 1 and 5). It is very unlikely that these uncanny correlations are a coincidence.

In modern times, prior to the advent of computer-aided design or computeraided drafting (CAD), the straight edge was the most important drafting tool. With the number and transparency of proofs presented at the UISPP Congress as well as submitted to the Journal of Human Evolution, for these organizations to argue against straight edge use by Homo erectus or to censor the evidence from publication goes squarely against the standards and ethics of free scientiic enquiry because the evidence is empirical, openly-testable, and veriiable by anyone—including modern-day drafters.

Fig. 4. A non-3D study of Artifact 6. This study is both Fig. 2g and Fig. 16a from The Graphics of Bilzingsleben. It was a central part of the straight edge thesis ofered with the caption: “Presence of the special trig angles 30, 45, 60, 90; parallels, diagonals, perpendiculars, and planes (within �3� deviation).” As 16a it was ofered as an objective courtesy to demonstrate the direction we would be going if we chose to interpret Artifact 6 not as a sophisticated threedimensional map but rather as meaningless scribbles which is how the evolutionary community was required to and attempted to describe the piece. This study was as far backwards (i.e. toward evolutionism) as I was willing to go. Yet even 2D shows Artifact 6 to be one of the most sophisticated prehistoric artifacts ever discovered.

Straight edge use by Homo erectus was the central proof of modern-level intelligence provided in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben and likely a main issue in its being blocked from publication by the UISPP and Journal of Human Evolution. As the British anthropologist Kenneth Oakley once pointed out, it is only through studying all aspects of early human culture that we can have any kind of an accurate picture of what our ancestors were like. Any institutions claiming to be scientiic that block empirical evidence or new discoveries from the public need to be re-assessed as far as their value to human knowledge is concerned.

Fig. 5. This is Fig. 16d from The Graphics of Bilzingsleben comparing arrangement of the ‘upper tier’ of Artifact 6 with the two northernmost dwellings (circular areas) in Mania and Mania’s 1988 Bilzingsleben archaeological site map. The site map was angled w/permission which was done to create a sense of the ground plane suggested in the engraving. North orientation (inserted) is preserved not only in the site map, but also in the artifact by way of its unambiguously engraved 90� corner (upperleft).

Stereograms created for seeing Artifact 6 in 3D On a few occasions some friends have mentioned to me that they had diiculty seeing the Artifact 6 engravings as 3D. So, I decided to create a few ‘stereograms’ to assist anyone in seeing the suggested 3D image (Figs. 6-8). They work by looking at an image pair side-by-side while allowing one’s eyes to go “cross-eyed” until one sees three images side-by-side. You can tell when you have successfully lined them up because the middle one will instantly pop out in 3D. Fig. 6 has very little alteration. Fig. 7 has the upper and lower tiers in 3D with the remaining lines ghosted to make it easier to see. Fig. 8 uses a similar technique to that in Fig. 3 except that the original 6-degree slope of the lower plane has been brought to horizontal to match the plane of the upper tier. The lower plane was also slid further back along the ‘registration guide’ to make the 3D easier to see. The images are still in process requiring some tweaks but I thought I would ofer a few of them here anyway for this section on Artifact 6.

was actually found in the extinct Pleistocene lake just a few meters behind or North of the campsite proper. This information is added so that the skeptical reader, no doubt thinking that this 3D map idea is improbable, will not automatically assume that the interpretation simply came out of the blue. The suggested map was discovered within a 5-second walk of the campsite. How it wound up in the lake over 300,000 years ago would be harder to explain.

Fig. 6. Stereogram Step 1: Computer lines are drawn over Artifact 6 engravings. Like the other Bilzingsleben artifacts, the engraved lines were obviously made using a straight edge. Straight edge use by Homo erectus was the central proof of modern-level intelligence provided in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben and likely a main issue in its censorship. Remember, this is the work of a person who lived 350,000 years ago and according to Darwin, early people “must” have been less intelligent than us giving evolutionary academics no choice but to regard such work as just a little beyond the capabilities of apes.

Fig. 7. Step 2: Upper and Lower “tiers” and their components are isolated by ghosting other elements. Stereo efect added at this stage.

Fig. 8. Top: Engraved Artifact 6 (17 X 10.5 X 5cm), the tarsal joint bone of an extinct straighttusked elephant from the 350,000-yr. old campsite at Bilzingsleben, central Germany. It was discovered in the Paleolithic lake a few meters north of the campsite at the same archeological level. Bottom: Stereo representation of the two horizontal planes (upper and lower as seen in Fig. 7) and their triangular components brought to the same plane and aligned according to ‘registration guides’ provided in the original engraving. The guides, planes, etc., were explained in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben thesis paper.

Conclusion The suggestion is that Artifact 6 was engraved as a very deliberate and extremely accurate multi-dimensional map of the campsite by someone who was actually there sometime 320,000-412,000 years ago (the site’s date range). In a follow-up issue, the interpretation will be given in two-point perspective as well as multi-view projection (i.e. six diferent views of the 3D image in standard layout)—enough information to reproduce the engraving in physical 3D space. Whether or not you believe the 3D interpretation of Artifact 6, one of the main points in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben paper (perhaps available at your local university if they carry British Archaeological Reports) was that 3D is actually the ‘least’ challenging interpretation (see Fig. 4). The face of the artifact (the opposite side has a similar design) consists of over 75 perfectly-straight parallel and angled lines including the special trig angles 30, 45, 60, 90, perpendiculars and planes all within a mere � three degrees deviation. Unfortunately, if you are like most who have gone through standard science training, you came out believing that your ancestors were “ape-people.” This kind of training (or ‘indoctrination’ as I prefer to call it since it was done very deliberately) will automatically disincline you from seeing these engravings as the result of a fully-modern mind. However, from the perspective of a long-time artist and designer, I can tell you with the utmost conviction that whoever did these engravings had already done this kind of thing many times before. And like all the Bilzingsleben engravings Artifact 6 has no errors and, in fact, does not show any on-board experimentation but rather has the qualities of a inal draft committed to an archival medium.

PART 9: ARTIFACT 6 'LOWER TIER' IN MULTIVIEW AND OBLIQUE PROJECTIONS 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 ofered here (Figs. 1-3) are enlarged as best they could be to it into these few pages. Please note that explanations, clariications, 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 clariied, 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 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 relect 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 ind ways to make every piece of evidence it 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 scientiic 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 of 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 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. 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 lip 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.

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 falsiied 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 ofered 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.