Including Original "Paul H. Letters" Copyright © 1996-2018 Paul V. Heinrich - All rights reserved.

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

"150,000 BP claim" or Geofact ??

"150,000 BP claim" or Geofact ??

In "150,000 BP claim" at:
Robert wrote,

""150,000 yrs BP" isn't a typo. The reason I pointed to this website 
( and mentioned the 
supposed antiquity of the rock with the Big Dipper configuration 
was to underscore the widespread acceptance in China of this 
concept of the evolution of the position of the stars of the Big Dipper 
[as repeated in diagrams (A), (b), and (C)]. It's used in teaching 
materials, for example. Apparently, the presence of this concept 
has led to the accommodation of exaggerated claims of antiquity 
as well as more modest claims."

A geologist, who has seen various rounded pebbles and cobbles
with identical circular markings on them, I wonder what evidence
that they have for these markings as having been carved. The 
differential weathering of animal burrows in a sedimentary rock
can easily produce circular markings that are identical to the ones
that appear on the stone. The circles with connecting bar is what 
could easily be the eroded and differentially weathered cross-
section of  animals burrows (trace fossils), of which I have 
personally seen examples examples while doing field work.

One real possibility is that someone unfamiliar with how specific
types of trace fossils look like in cross-section on the eroded 
and differentially weathered surface of a stone has confused a
natural trace fossil with manmade carvings. If so, this would not
be the first time, that a nongeologist, when finding natural circular
patterns on a stone jumped to the incorrect conclusion that it
was manmade. For an example of how trace fossils have been 
confused by nongeologists with manmade artifacts can be seen 
in "Artifacts  or Geofacts? Alternative Interpretations of Items 
from the Gulf of Cambay" at;

My impression of this alleged " 8000BC Big Dipper Petroglyph: 
Evolution of star positions" is that it very well might be an geofact
that has been misidentified as a petroglyph. 

Best wishes,

Paul H.

No comments: