Can anyone identify this effigy?

I tried to get different angles...there are so many Ares to look at on this. Sure wish u could see it and hold it for ur own eyes to see. I spend long periods of time examining sections at a time. I'm amazed to say the least with the ability shown in these artifacts

These are pretty good Amy, however I would be cautious of people making claims without lots of supporting evidence, tha fact is nobody knows exactly how and why these finds were made, and the exacting purpose. I have some of the world's most detailed and complex finds, from one site, with undeniable serrated edge napped tools among them, that had produced a topology that can be recognized in proffesdionaly recorded flint tools from aroud the world, found by actual Archeologists. Until Brad can factualy demonstrate his claims, as I have, I would be very very sceptical

I understand. These pics I posted yesterday are all of the same item. I only turned it and took a pic....turned it again then took a pic...and so forth. That's y I was curious about this one. It's pretty amazing.
I'm not sure what I would think if such an awesome artifact as such was said to not be authentic. The way I c it is that sort of act is morally wrong if not illegal! It's not just...oh.like a picture I've drawn or etc. These items were basically thier existence. The tools of life their means...etc. U know what I mean? Well I have a BIG problem with the fact that people reproduce fakes and initiate them into the stream of historical artifacts that meant more to the proprietor than just about anything I own surely!

Your photos in a collage shows numerous effigies. Both top left and top right appears to depict a short-faced bear (they went extinct 13,000 years ago). Bottom right is the most interesting. It appears to be a feline on top of it's prey which appears to be an ape or archaic human. Higher res images from a good digital camera would help enormously.

I really don't know of any convincing fake, and it's pointless to fake, as soon as the item is in hand the deception would become obvious. There are poor interpretations, and finds that show so little evidence of modification that authentication becomes impossible. Your find is clearly genuine to anyone who truly understands, or even only basically understands figure stones, or even stones at all for that matter. I need to write a post divulging the basic secrets of stone.

Ok...i guess maybe I kinda thought along the wrong lines from what u were telling me. I c now. U just wanted me to know that anyone can SAY anything....doesnt make it a fact. Am I correct?

Above all interpretation, forgetting loose ape faces, we have a large eared elephant, clearly depicted with details and even the correct colour.

Top right?

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan who reworded Laplace's principle, which says that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” (Gillispie et al., 1999).

Sorry top left.

Ok I c. I just turn my phone until I was able to get it. There is so much going on with this one. And I love the color! So can u tell me anything I might feel is accurate regarding time origin...purpose.

No, I can tell you that this is very old, way before any standard mainstream acheological view of USA, or its been redoposited say by a flood. It simply does not fit with any mainstream narrative. It is a figure stone by my definition, and holds ambiguous optical illusions. It was crafted by an exstreamly skilled and intelligent person

If anyone doubts there were apes in North America at the same time as humans, it's pretty hard to fake this this multi ton effigy (possibly a Gigantopithecus). It's also in the middle of an ancient Native American site with countless rock art, from portable rock art to megaliths. The land was purchased by Matt Howard to preserve all the rock art there.

Yet there are no ape bones from standard timeline native Indians. Also the mask could easily be reinterpreted differently. I dont disagree, it's just everything points to either complete falsehood in the given narrative or extreame antiquity.

Yes! Optical illusion. Perfect description of some areas on different places I've found. Then there's those that will show u two or 3 animals occupying the same space. This one is very detailed. I'm always thinking to myself when I find a nice piece is that it's such a wonderful thing it belongs in a museum.
I do live out at the lake very near the Red River. A flood I think could be possible. So when u speak of....archeological narrative. Precisely what is it that U are referring to...that it doesn't fit. If u don't mind the explanation.

The site with that ape effigy is littered with mammoth, camel and what appears to be archaic human faces carved in large rocks, so yes it is a pre-Clovis site. How old - who knows. Someone obvious carved these effigies. That ape effigy is amazing, notice the fingers and even finger nails. The last 3 major new human species discovered were only discovered in the last twenty years with very little bone evidence in Eurasia and that is with ongoing deep excavations. Unlike in North America where most archeologists don't even dig below the Clovis level for fear of losing their jobs. Saying no bones is no evidence negates 99% of all portable rock art finds. When stone age tools or portable rock art are found anywhere else in the world besides the Americas, without bone evidence, it's is taken for granted they exist yet to found.
https://www.rockartmuseum.com/in-search-of-archaic-humans
https://www.rockartmuseum.com/pre-clovis-discoveries

Giants in North America and the "bone problem"



One of the few sites in the US that is still digging below the Clovis level

OK !  I like image # 2.  I can decipher this one easily with confidence.  These are good quality Neanderthal carvings within the face of this rock.  I'll start with the animal image in the middle (among the three that are all lumped together) because it is the best one. It is located on the bottom right on the edge. It is a clearly defined bear's head that is facing left.  The muzzle is red (blood soaked and this is where the spirits will exit into the spirit world).  The artist has put two ears in at the top that are separated by smoothing and finishing out in two different and separate planes (neat). The shape/silhouette of this bear's head is excellent for a Neanderthal and is well defined.  The top of the head is defined and outlined by a linear chipped out trough but the rest of the bear's head is well defined with a sharp edges. In addition you will find a chipped out area (depression) at the right base of bear's head that was created to highlight the spirits within this red area which has two separate spirits but it might be one.  To the immediate right of the bear's head is a mammoth head.  The end of the trunk has a little red with white and again this is where the spirits will exit the body upon death.  The spirits are seen at the far right in a cluster of about six within a light brown area (blood) and it appears there might be two more outside this cluster at 10:00 o'clock. To the left of the bear head is another mammoth (black) with a smoothed out red area underneath the mammoth that depicts the bleed out area on the ground produced from all the inflicted hunting wounds. Please take the time to read all my posts and learn from that.  Review all images I have posted in the art gallery section 86 (for example- note the small linear row of dots on my posted bear's head which is the recognition to the spirit world of the number ceremonies conducted).  Notice my other bear image posting- all 3 of these bears have a short face or abridged muzzle, that is because they are a different N. American species (short-faced bear) that is now extinct (from over-hunting).  In other words examine all the details as they have an important story to tell about the ceremonies that followed the hunt.  NICE CEREMONIAL PIECE !!!!

Thx!!

Rocky, you completely missinterpret my stand point, I was one of, if not the first to be claiming America had an ape population along side a population of artistic people at some time in the past, just that linking that with common theory native Indian timelines is a non-starter.

Amy, the term mainstream narrative is actually a straw man effectively, if you know what that means. So to explain let's lable the straw man as wikihistorik, rather like Wikipedia, it is the defacto knowlage base but for human origins and ancient archeology, it is being constantly changed and updated. It contains gaps in knowlage and as many would admit some falsehood. Wikihistorik has an agenda, and is ignorant of facts that don't fit that agenda, wikihistorik with some simple investigation into figure stones appears so far from the truth, it should simply be largely ignored. I could explain exactly why, and demonstrate the masses of evidence that is contrary to the narrative, but I will work on a couple of blog posts firstly.

rockstar1 wrote:OK !  I like image # 2.  I can decipher this one easily with confidence.  These are good quality Neanderthal carvings within the face of this rock............ NICE CEREMONIAL PIECE !!!!

Rather than read the whole post and try to debunk it, I will start with the opener and the closer and demonstrate these are nothing like scientific facts. Nobody knows who carved that stone, the facts are that only homo sapiens are conclusively proven to be able to create figurative art. However it's quite possible that Neanderthals did have artistic ability. I have finds that show carvings of humans without 'arcaic brow features' in one case combined face and inset skull, suggestive that it was not a neanderthal who carved that piece, I have also demonstrated how other tool assembledges, attributed to  Hobbit and homo sapiens also carry my figurative symbology discovery, so Brad is completely unable to rule out those two or any other prehistoric homo family population.

So who witnessed the ceremonies Brad? Where are the acheological scientific proofs of theses? There are many good suggestions for the use of figure stones, ceramonual being one with the least convincing supporting evidence or suppirting logical conjecture.