Portable rock art - Common Figures

Hi all, I created this with in the view of some of the common faces I find in my own finds I would like your opinions on these, are these some of the faces you also find? I have plenty more on its way, this is just a little taster. This is My own work and cannot be re-distributed or reposted without my express permission. This does not effect your normal rights.
Top layer is Gorillas, second layer is chimp likes (both very clear and uncontested by people with a reasonable understanding of figure stones, Third is Australopithecus, forth is Neanderthals, however the aforementioned two layers are open to conjecture, and interpretation from my artifacts, the images ive found could represent entirely different groups, Australopithecus are hardly much different from chimps if truth be told, and some of those suspected neanderthal images could be more like homo-erectus or other apes?

I forgot the Baboon like depictions.

I have another set of these with more variance, the variation is too subtle in this set.

What are your most common dinosaur interpretations in your Portable Rock Art finds? Theropods seem the most popular in my own finds.

Could it be that you are not finding dinosaur Portable rock art, but just ordinary lizard art? If not why not?

Post Moved.

This is my basic Theropod interpretation, i should of probably drawn bigger teeth on it, as the teeth are a key trigger and feature in recognition of this subject.

Hello Brett! It's a pity that you didn't outline the photos of the stones. But I will say that I also meet such images. But, sometimes giants are very similar to gorillas and then someone should be depicted next to him who will convey his size, for example, a boar, deer or man. And a person may have an unusual headdress on his face, or a camouflage mask similar to an animal. Dinosaurs in those days were also enough. I'll try to send you some photos of my transcripts. Try to find a drawing on the original and you will see that I have not outlined everything and there are still a lot of small details.

I don't generally like to draw on the pictures of the stones, although I have a few times in the past. I'm of the opinion that if it needs to be drawn its not really fit for purpose, although there are a few flaws in that thinking, for the most part it stands true. I have very clear ape, gorilla, chimp images. And ive seen pretty good ones from others, Indonesia, usa etc. However it does rely on the honesty of others, I have seen obvious fakes in a database on another's website, and even complete modern fantasy pieces used to gain attention on ancient origens. Despite all this I feel that my world view still holds true, and the majority of finds are genuine by people not trying to con or scam anyone.

As for small details, I like to see the bigger picture firstly for each piece, I feel this is the correct and only way to interpret, and avoids subjective fantasy that is often pushed with PRA.

As for dinosaurs, being literally one of the first and only people to speak out with any seriousness and credibility in PRA I stand by my conclusions, my pieces here are in my own collection are limited, perhaps 50 or so that are self evident and diagnostic, even with some of these interpretation is still subjective, some could be conger eels, but on the whole I've 100% proven it to myself, even if I haven't proven it to others, I have withheld a lot of evidence, but will share something 100% diagnostic soon.

I hope that clears a few things up for you.

--------> Portable Rock Art <--------- As promised something more diagnostic and I have plenty more of that....