Rabbit effigy

I found this recently in a creek in western Kentucky. I did use a pencil to highlight the legs, eyes and tail so that the details could be seen in the pictures[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
, but did not alter the figure in any way.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

First thing I saw was gorilla on all fours

This view appears to depict a human head facing left, wearing a headdress.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Took me a minute but I see it now, cool piece

Rocky wrote:This view appears to depict a human head facing left, wearing a headdress.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not quite, it has no chin, but could be artistic licence, or bad observation/workmanship

There is actually a lot going on in that image, gorilla, ape like, and  even more sub human than that one, whole large eared elephant, when I can twist my mind around it.

And I've just found the actual human, with proper chin, inset, top third, left looking.

I agree it is a subjective observation of a "possible" human depiction. Re chin - archaic humans had little or no chins
Could possibly be a modern human and the lack of a chin was just due to the lack of available material in the natural rock. That is more likely as there is no obvious enlarged brow typical of archaic humans.
What ever the case the rock does appear to depict an animal possibly a rabbit and a possible human
Made the view more obvious.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here look.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I think I owe Brett an apology.  I had some serious doubts about the multiple figures on rock art, but to say my mind is blown would be a definite understatement.  I see the gorilla, multiple gorilla faces, the elephant, horses head whale, several birds, cats head and many of the symbols from the chart.  Just a quick glance at some of the others I thought were simple, single animals has shown me that they certainly have some hidden surprises.  I don't like being wrong but I was and this new information only confirms that my "rocks" are authentic, which is why I registered for this forum.  Thank you Brett!

Hey Welcome to the exclusive club of 'we can't read another archeological paper and keep a straight face' and 'we cringe everytime scientist make 'evolutinary' discoveries'.

Just wondering if you have read my science work, it's second to none in this field, I have a few things in the pipeline two, but I have something real big to reveal that will change the perspective on everything, just about flints, honestly how they have blaged and BSed everyone for this long I don't know.

It also appears to depict an "elephant" possibly a mammoth or mastodon head. It could be an earlier "elephant" species (note the large ear indicating a warmer interglacial period).
There are more than 160 extinct elephant species. A better quality photo would show it much clearer.
https://www.rockartmuseum.com/elephants-mastodons-and-mammoths/
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

One comment I would to make re "I did use a pencil to highlight the legs, eyes and tail so that the details could be seen in the pictures" In my opinion that is an absolute no no. A professional archaeologist would spot that and use that to discredit it as a legitimate artifact. High quality photos with multiple views are more that adequate.

I have read some of what is on the blog. Is that where I find your science work? I leave for Kuwait Sunday and will be traveling for over 30 hours so I will have plenty of time to read. I'm still going to tell my doubters that I know they are real and were made in Illinois. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Remember “proven” science is today’s best guess. You will have about the same success in convincing your doubters as they would have convincing you that you are mistaken.

Greglafla wrote:Remember “proven” science is today’s best guess. You will have about the same success in convincing your doubters as they would have convincing you that you are mistaken.

Very true, Ive proven art, 'artefectuality' and manufactured pigments, these cannot be disproved, but I can't prove age, who, or even species depiction

WesyKyCreekWalker wrote:I have read some of what is on the blog.  Is that where I find your science work?  I leave for Kuwait Sunday and will be traveling for over 30 hours so I will have plenty of time to read.  I'm still going to tell my doubters that I know they are real and were made in Illinois. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Using my phone again, I will attempt straight cut and paste rather than BB code links etc.
First up is my article that was posted in PCN magazine, it was shortened and Americanised with help from Prof. Verginia Steen-Macintire (proved artistic people lived in the Americas some 250k BP), I apologize for my inability to spell words longer the three letters, but I make up for.
 it with an IQ of about 160. 
https://eoliths.blogspot.com/2017/05/eoliths-flint-tools-and-figue-stones.html

Here is a more recent 'paper' :
https://eoliths.blogspot.com/2021/01/portable-rock-art-and-figure-stones.html

There are bits and bobs about, I have some math that 'proves' 'artafactuality' in some individual cases despite repeating topology. A half-cocked method for proving figuration, that another rock art proponent dissed, copied, and then Im pretty sure lied about the results and was partially cought at it.