Geofacts from New England

[GoDeep]

The error you are making: pareidolia does not occur in long sequences.

Categorically and demonstrably false.

Me and my daughter can spend all day on our backs surveying the clouds and seeing every form of animal, train, plane and object the world has to offer.

Or we can spend an afternoon on the gravel bar of our local river picking out the same, over and over all day long.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[releventchair]

In an artistic mode all resemblances are superficial. I have yet to hear an explanation for the multiplicity of the atypical stones.

You're poking around in glacial till leaning towards rotted quartz. To the creative mind you'll be overwhelmed. And you already are. Therin lies the multiplicity.

Don't neglect art was (and is) a part of native culture.
If you're going to tote a stone , make it worth toting.
If you are going to work a medium , work the better medium for the purpose.
Far more than the material you're fondling was workable , and available. Don't force what is not there in art. It helps no one , let alone those whose works you seek.

 

[Ariel3]

No. You cannot. Rock formations are nothing like trees or clouds. These modified geofacts have marks from tools. You clearly don't get it. That's fine. But it's better to remain silent and be thought ignorant...

 

[Ariel3]

I am not asking you to prove me wrong. I frankly think you are wasting your time. Science isn't for everyone.

 

[GoDeep]

No. You cannot. Rock formations are nothing like trees or clouds. These modified geofacts have marks from tools. You clearly don't get it. That's fine. But it's better to remain silent and be thought ignorant...

I see no tool markings what so ever on any of the samples you've provided so far. Au contraire, i'd say you "clearly don't get it".


Here are some authentic effigies, they take no imagination and all have clear, distinct signs of human working:

 

[releventchair]

I am not asking you to prove me wrong. I frankly think you are wasting your time. Science isn't for everyone.

Apply some science.
Take a piece resembling your more common material that does not appear to have been worked , and then work it with the same tools of the era you believe you are recovering relics from. If you believe such material was ground , grind it. Use era suited methods though.
When you have hard small inclusions and voids , grinding is going to cause trouble. But hey , demonstrate to prove it.

Study local museums pieces. Study the material. And research the source of such material.
Porous rock has some use. But limited in scope too. Brittle non directional rock has less use.
Buried rock often has better quality than sun baked and frost worked.
There is a reason more porous rock is often pecked , vs abraded or flaked.
Just as there is a reason consistency can be found in purposed workings in a given material. It's characteristics suited the working.
That does not mean enhancing what a rock appears as. It's seeing what is not visible in quality first. The exposing what is desired by creating it.

Yes , I have an example or pareidolia from a far away site. But I recognized it when recovered , as I recognize it now.
Not what I wanted to recover. But it is what it is. A symbolic piece with an interesting shape.
I don't try to make more of it.
Besides , like yours , it's not really suitable for working.

 

[releventchair]

No. You cannot. Rock formations are nothing like trees or clouds. These modified geofacts have marks from tools. You clearly don't get it. That's fine. But it's better to remain silent and be thought ignorant...

Show tool marks then. Then describe the tools. Then the application of them.

 

[Ariel3]

None of these pictures resemble the evident attempts at realism found in most of the stones I have listed. A sad attempt I must say.

 

[Ariel3]

I have found a number of rock varieties that are associated with NA work but are not native to my area: obsidian and graphite. I have found a number of quartz tools useful in chipping and pecking. Also a variety of grinding tools. Materials include felsite, white feldspar, rhyolite, and glassy rhyolite.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

No. You cannot. Rock formations are nothing like trees or clouds. These modified geofacts have marks from tools. You clearly don't get it. That's fine. But it's better to remain silent and be thought ignorant...

Do not insult members.

 

[GoDeep]

I have found a number of rock varieties that are associated with NA work but are not native to my area.

Absolutely, welcome to New England, an area with a vast glacial history depositing non native rock and mineral specimens thru out.

https://truexsaracenilocalgeo.weebly.com/formation-of-new-england.html

https://newenglandtravelplanner.com/geology/

 

[Ariel3]

Yes. Of course. Your point being? If you ever come to Southern NE and want to find some glassy rhyolite, bring a lunch.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Look at these, all are natural.

 

[GoDeep]

Yes. Of course. Your point being?

Are you being purposely obtuse and argumentative or do you truly not understand the point of my post?

If not, my point was, In other areas of the country that were not covered by glaciers, a non native rock could be evidence that it was brought there or worked by humans. In your area, it lends no supporting evidence to your claim of your rocks being worked by humans.

 

[Ariel3]

Yes. I am sorry about that. Won't happen again.

 

[Ariel3]

Well, yes it does, actually. I have a block of obsidian that appears to be of the trade variety. That particular stone was traded over wide areas. "Obsidian is restricted to volcanic regions, and in the United States, obsidian outcrops are widely distributed in the Mountain West, Southwest, California, Oregon, and Washington State. Many of these sources are represented among Native American artifacts housed in the Museum's North American collections." It is commonly claimed not to be native, even through glaciation, to NE.

 

[Ariel3]

Again, they are poor quality representations, that do not appear to have been fashioned by human hands. The first figure looks human, but quite dead. That's what geofacts look like.

 

[GoDeep]

Well, yes it does, actually. I have a block of obsidian that appears to be of the trade variety.

Obfuscation and diversion, if you want to discuss your obsidian rock, you can post up pictures of it and we can certainly discuss it. But that doesn't bring us any closer to the OP's topic at hand, whether the pictures claimed to be effigies are human worked or naturally occurring.

 

[GoDeep]

Again, they are poor quality representations, that do not appear to have been fashioned by human hands.

I'm confused, what don't look to be fashioned by human hands? Earlier you stated there is evidence of your finds being worked by humans:

These modified geofacts have marks from tools. You clearly don't get it. That's fine. But it's better to remain silent and be thought ignorant...

 

[Ariel3]

The first would be in reference to the unaltered geofacts pictured by TH. Look at them. Yet if they all three came out of the same hole, would that not be peculiar?