Problematic Discoveries

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

User avatar
circumspice
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by circumspice » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:12 pm

*big gusty sigh* :|
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope

Springhead
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Springhead » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:55 am

Circumspice,

As I am unable to hear from here, is that "gusty sigh" a tribute to the mother child bond or an involuntary frustrated response to another image you are unable to analyze? Frankly, this subject matter is neither out there nor difficult to see for the objective viewer. I am attempting to find images in my files that do not require great imaginative labor to make out. Once again, I appreciate your breathy "response."

Primary Subject Matter: Adult female on right side of image facing left and slightly down to a small child on left wearing hat, short top with skirt split on the side looking right. Other subject matter visible but not considered at this time.

Tiompan
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Tiompan » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:58 am

Springhead ,
No anlaysis is required and it would be a highly subjective viewer who believed that there was a genuine attempt at that old ,i.e. byzantine period onwards , artistic trope .
Do you think some incompetent in the 19th- 20th C had had a bash at sculpting ,failed miserably and threw it away ?
I wouldn't even go that far . It's another case of the P and D words.

Springhead
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Springhead » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:47 am

Hello Tiompan,

The last image appears to be a painting rather than sculpture. The work is typical of paintings done in the assemblage that are of similar scale, in this case about five eighths of an inch height to the mother. Judged in western realistic terms the work may seem crude, but it has a subtle sophistication of the semi abstract that is characteristic of this art in general.

"No analysis...required" would suggest this image does not exist, yet there it is. If this were the only such art work encountered it would be one thing, but with hundreds and hundreds of such art observed in the assemblage, it cannot be ignored. Thanks for your comments once again.

Tiompan
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Tiompan » Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:36 am

Springhead ,
Ok I'll rephrase ; Do you think some incompetent in the 19th- 20th C had had a bash at painting a classic artisitic trope on a bit of rock ,failed miserably , and threw it away ?
I don't believe this myself for second , but I can't imagine any other reasonable explanation other than the most obvious ,see below .
I think you would find that the vast majority of objective views on what you are describing as as art or anthropic markings would not agree with your view , they are examples of the P word ,that is why there is no analysis required .

User avatar
circumspice
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by circumspice » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:33 pm

@Springhead:

One question:

How dare you characterize any of the members of this board as lacking in objectivity? Is it because nobody 'sees' what you see? Where's your objectivity? Tell us... Your frustration notwithstanding, your objectivity flew out the window the moment you began quietly & 'civilly' telling us that we don't see 'it' because we don't want to see it. That is ascribing motives to us that you can't possibly prove because we aren't agenda driven like you are. Your agenda is pretty much crystal clear, as seen from your previous posts. You can't and/or won't accept that other people can't see what you see.

So why the hell are you here, trying so hard to convert us to support your theories? Why aren't you posting on boards that have like minded folks?

I'll answer my own question...

You know that to associate yourself & your rocks with any of those other boards & blogs is the kiss of death & would forever taint anything associated with you in the future. You know that they are on the extreme, nutty fringe...

You want to be associated with a board that is free of that taint. So you've set out on a campaign to convert us into supporters.

:shock:

It's not going to happen. Sorry.
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope

User avatar
Ernie L
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Ernie L » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:41 pm

Springhead wrote:[imImageg][/img]

Rock Art: Mother and Child
blink...blink...blink blink blink... :shock: ..wow Springhead......your world must be filled with ancient miniature art, artifacts and tools.
Regards Ernie

Springhead
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Springhead » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:47 pm

Hello Ernie,

My back porch is certainly full to capacity. I am searching for the right piece to image clearly so someone here will recognize it as art. If that person sees a worked form as well as the art, I would be ecstatic. I hope your comment was not too tongue in cheek, though I count you as a skeptic from past posts. That's OK with me because skepticism is not the terminal disease that pareidolia and delusion are, therefore I could technically sway your opinion from my death bed if I can present you with convincing information.

P.S. A very experienced archaeologist with tool and material culture expertise has identified in person twenty of my finds as provable Pleistocene artifacts.

Springhead
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Springhead » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:16 pm

Circumspice,

The objective viewer I was referring to was you. I was not questioning your or anyone's objectivity relative to my presented ideas and images. I have no agenda other than to share these finds with people that may be interested. I found many stones, then I saw the art. I did not seek this out but was confronted with the rocks. I am not trying to covert the forum members to believers, I simply want someone to see the art. My life would be a lot more simple and placid without all this controversy, but this is apparently what such a path is like. My association with this forum was purely by chance from surfing. I am unfamiliar with other forums other than snippets I see surfing. It does sadden me to think that associating with fringe or non mainstream types would exclude me from understandings I might gain from others in this field. Visible, safe boundary fences allow folks to do their thing in a secure environment, but organized religion has pretty much proved that to be unsuccessful in the long run.

So, no offense intended in any way, and I appreciate your having taken considerable time to comment, albeit not often in my favor.

Springhead
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Springhead » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:29 pm

Tiompan,

I was struck by how much your statement concerning no need to analyze the art because of my Pareidolia was of the same flavor as the law stating that once you have gotten down to clovis there was no need to dig further because nothing was there.

Tiompan
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Tiompan » Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:44 am

Springhead wrote:Tiompan,

I was struck by how much your statement concerning no need to analyze the art because of my Pareidolia was of the same flavor as the law stating that once you have gotten down to clovis there was no need to dig further because nothing was there.
Springhead ,
The you have made a category error and provided yet another example of wishful thinking . The next step is "they laughed at x " (insert the incredibly rare paradigm shifting heroine ) while ignoring the fact that they also laughed at Coco the clown .
You can't analyse something that isn't there , although you could anlyse why someone might believe that there is , two entirely forms of analysis. In this case and point in the discussion nobody was talking about the second .

There is no law re .digging lower than Clovis and excavators do . Excavation uncovers what is not seen and if interpreted correctly , it won't go away . Prior to digging the excavators don't know what will be discovered .If the site has never been dug they can only guess what will be uncovered . Depending on the guess they might be considered as being delusional as those sufferning from Pareidolia .

Springhead
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Springhead » Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:39 am

Hi Tiompan,

I am curious as to what the "mother and child" might be to you since you claim it is not there. Ignoring my idea of what the image is, could you explain what is on that rock and how it got there?

I know there is no law against digging below clovis and that folks now routinely dig below that. If a site has never been dug, then one who arrives at the clovis level in that site with tight stratigraphy can safely assume that if they keep digging any artifacts found will be pre clovis. These diggers are delusional for making this supposition? Also, why must pareidolia cause one to suffer? I would contend that those who automatically discount images they are unable to see and rack it up as a pareidolia issue are the ones who suffer. Heaven forbid anyone say something like "I don't know." The black and white world many would espouse is actually a world of shades of grey only.

Tiompan
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by Tiompan » Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:17 pm

Hi Springhead ,
Noticing the partial ( in this case ) resemblance of something natural to familiar objects ,artistic tropes etc , is common to most of us . But we realise that these natural objects from small stones to mountain ranges are just that , poor (in this case ) to quite strikingly similar appearances that were not fashioned by man or gods .

I have already asked twice what you believe could be the circumstances behind this “mother and child “ ,but you have never responded .
It’s not even a poor attempt by an incompetent artist 19th -20 th C artist .
Most people wouldn’t believe that you are serious , do you realise that ?

Suffering is appropriate , look at the amount of time you have wasted in believing what you “perceive” is man made .

User avatar
circumspice
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by circumspice » Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:16 pm

Another point...

Look at the time, effort & bandwidth that Springhead has wasted trying to force his perceptions on this board...

Couple that with his sophomoric attempts to shame us into being 'open minded' enough to accept & agree with his pet theories... SMH... :x

This exercise has devolved into a repetitive yawner of epic proportions & a waste of precious time & space.
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope

User avatar
circumspice
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Problematic Discoveries

Post by circumspice » Wed Aug 03, 2016 6:00 pm

P.S. A very experienced archaeologist with tool and material culture expertise has identified in person twenty of my finds as provable Pleistocene artifacts.

Springhead 139 19 Jan 2016, 06:50

@Springhead: Put your money where your mouth is...

You keep using Jack's name in vain... However, you're ultra-careful about how you frame your claims concerning Jack... You say that some of your supposed 'artifacts' have been identified by Jack as being Pleistocene artifacts. You use that phrase constantly to defend your rocks. So... Are we supposed to connect both 'art' & Pleistocene together on the same rocks? Are you stating that Jack endorses your pet theory that you have Pleistocene artifacts with mystical micro-art festooning every single rock, with multitudes of micro images on each one? If so, please invite him to join this board & set the record straight with all of us unbelievers. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to the contrary. You don't appear to realize how preposterous your claims are. That's why any reasonable person will view you as delusional.

So... Put your money where your mouth is & set the record straight.
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope

Post Reply