Roanoke Virginia Indian Artifact?

[ronjon12]

Found in a gravel bed in a creek in the vicinity of Roanoke VA over the Thanksgiving holiday. I can't imagine this shape coming naturally or through erosion of a stone like this without the erosive force also polishing it somewhat. Any ideas on whether or not this is an indian artifact and if so what kind?

 

[OutdoorAdv]

I see it for what it is, a cow patty. My eye are good. Although I could post a stone that looks similar. Some can see what is meant to be seen. Others don't know what their looking for so they will make up something. There are real marking on the stones I comment on. If you want to learn this type thing. Start with a simple book. The rocks began to speak. It does get complex after that. Good luck and God Bless.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Bob, I've read a lot of your posts and your comments on many threads here on tnet. While stone artifacts are not my field of expertise, in fact I know next to nothing about them, I do see we have some EXTREMELY knowledgeable members on here with decades of experience identifying rocks that have been worked by humans and are therefore an artifact. What I have noticed is you appear to dismiss all of their collective knowledge and you tell these members, with decades of experience, that they don't know what they're talking about and they need to educate themselves. You never seem to go so far as to point out the specifics of why they are wrong, with factual details, but just brush a broad stroke stating they need to learn more.

I believe that if you were to contact someone at the Smithsonian and they tell you this is not an artifact, you will also either think, or tell them that they don't know what they're talking about. So, if someone at the Smithsonian told you that this thing was not worked by a human, would you actually reconsider what you think is an artifact? Or would you hold steadfast that everyone else is wrong and needs to learn more?

 

[Backwoodsbob]

Just gave an inaccurate advice base on your knowledge of petrographs and other type of stone markers used back in that time.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[OutdoorAdv]

Just gave an inaccurate advice base on your knowledge of petrographs and other type of stone markers used back in that time.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

So, you're saying that if they do not agree with you, you would tell them they have "inaccurate advice" based on their knowledge? If that is the case, then its pointless to even contact them. It sounds like you're only looking for people to agree with you and if they do not, then you dismiss them as not knowing as much as you. I am personally constantly learning and always open to knowledge that others have that I can learn from. If I disagree with someone I will either try to back up my position with facts, or if I cant, I will realize that perhaps what I believe might not be correct. That is how we all learn after all.

 

[Backwoodsbob]

Bob, I've read a lot of your posts and your comments on many threads here on tnet. While stone artifacts are not my field of expertise, in fact I know next to nothing about them, I do see we have some EXTREMELY knowledgeable members on here with decades of experience identifying rocks that have been worked by humans and are therefore an artifact. What I have noticed is you appear to dismiss all of their collective knowledge and you tell these members, with decades of experience, that they don't know what they're talking about and they need to educate themselves. You never seem to go so far as to point out the specifics of why they are wrong, with factual details, but just brush a broad stroke stating they need to learn more.

I believe that if you were to contact someone at the Smithsonian and they tell you this is not an artifact, you will also either think, or tell them that they don't know what they're talking about. So, if someone at the Smithsonian told you that this thing was not worked by a human, would you actually reconsider what you think is an artifact? Or would you hold steadfast that everyone else is wrong and needs to learn more?

I understand your the reasons. But I have on many occasions tried to explain and even offered a sample to examine. They don't want any part of it. As far as the S.I. is concerned. I'm not worried about that. Did you hear of them taking my challenge. No. I gave them that chance. I'm done with them. Although Charles is looking into the threads I mentioned. He still insisted on giving his interpretation. If you don't know what something is ,say so. If I make a guess I say it my interpretation. This has been walked over for hundreds of years. They knew what they were doing in the methods they used. I know this methods of their. Thank you and have a good day. I know I will


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Backwoodsbob]

Thanks outdoor for your response. I contact the finders of such. I'm not here for any other reason. If you are interested I will refer you to read certain books and threads. Disagreements is not the problem. I did not call this piece here a certain thing . I said the system is being used. It could be by a Jesuit or someone else. If you don't know the system then how could you make a decision? That why I say they are uninformed. There is a difference between calling a person delusional and uninformed. There are things I know nothing about. This is not one of them.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I understand your the reasons. But I have on many occasions tried to explain and even offered a sample to examine. They don't want any part of it. As far as the S.I. is concerned. I'm not worried about that. Did you hear of them taking my challenge. No. I gave them that chance. I'm done with them. Although Charles is looking into the threads I mentioned. He still insisted on giving his interpretation. If you don't know what something is ,say so. If I make a guess I say it my interpretation. This has been walked over for hundreds of years. They knew what they were doing in the methods they used. I know this methods of their. Thank you and have a good day. I know I will


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Bob as one of "them", no one took you up on your challenge because no one is interested in the imaginary writings on the rocks, (no different than someone seeing shapes and faces in the clouds) Just because "they" didn't take you up on your challenge doesn't make you right, just means no one was interested in spending the time to study rocks made by nature....

 

[Backwoodsbob]

It means they don't want it known that I'm right. That would ruin your credibility

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Scrappy]

 

[huntsman53]

Just gave an inaccurate advice base on your knowledge of petrographs and other type of stone markers used back in that time.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Ahab8]

What the hell just happened? I normally avoid these but got sucked into this twilight zone somehow. My IQ just dropped a few points....and it wasn't all that high to begin with....WOW just wow

 

[FreeBirdTim]

Please, not another 20 page rock thread! No mas! No mas!

 

[Scrappy]

I said wha what?!

 

[NHBandit]

So are you speaking as the Moderator or a person who has the knowledge to tell the difference? People see you as a moderator and think that has wieght. When it is your job to keep the sight clean. Opposed views is one thing. There all rocks yes. Not all are the same. Bring objective can be a good thing. It give way to debate and can force a conclusion. In the end the answer will come out and I will be standing. That is something I'm sure of. I do have an advantage that your not aware of. That is my Ace in the hole. What will it take from you. Let me put it this way how would you like to solve this debate? Get the best person you know who knows about Jesuit stone work. Let me know and I will set up some kind of meeting. Then all I want from you is to concede. Simple!!!

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I don't know you or what your agenda is but the original poster simply wanted to know from the experts if he had some sort of a native american made artifact or not. Not some ancient secret agent decoder ring.. You have completely taken over his thread and turned it into your private circus. Shame on you... GO AWAY !

 

[Daryn]

I'm thinking there is a good reason bob goes by backwood. But I'm sure he would tell me I'm wrong.

 

[screwynewy]

The joke is on all of us. Bob is going to win every logical argument presented to him. He has made that pretty clear already. It must be fun to be in Bob's head - living in a make believe world that only you can see but are convinced that everyone else should believe. Congratulations Bob - you are are the winner!