The  Majes  Falsifications

A  story  of  lack  of  integrity

The Majes Falsifications Updated

The Inconvenient Truth


Maarten van Hoek


Abstract: Prof. Scaffidi, Prof. Tung and Prof. Turner are fooling their readers. Moreover, on the 23rd of July 2022 I received an email from Mr. Michael Streeter (Director, Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics - Wiley) who wrote that Wiley considered the matter closed: no changes to the published Erratum. Thus, also Mr. Streeter and Publisher Wiley approve of the falsified illustrations published by Scaffidi and Tung and approved by Turner.

Please read carefully the following update that shows them completely wrong!

Also read the subpages "Tung" and "2020"




In November 2020 I found out that a publication by Prof. Scaffidi and Prof. Tung contained two intentionally falsified photos of rock art panels from the Majes Valley in southern Peru (read their 2020-paper, available at Academia, especially the caption of Fig. 3). In November 2020 I commented on their falsification (Van Hoek 2020), while - also in November 2020 - an academic archaeologist wrote me that Scaffidi and Tung would be writing an Erratum to be published in the same Journal.

I waited many months, but no Erratum was published. Ultimately, by the end of February 2022 (thus after 15 months!), I wrote the Editor of the Journal - Prof. Dr. Trudy Turner - and asked her assistance in this matter. However, no answer from the Editor. Therefore I wrote her again in March and - finally - on March 21-2022 I got her answer stating that an Erratum would be published by the end of May 2022. I wrote her back on March 22 (CC to Scaffidi and Tung!) and raised a few urgent points for which I asked her answers, especially asking for the full-size, original, unaltered photos of the two rock art panels. But from then on no answer from her (or anyone-else). And no Erratum by the end of May! And no original photos!

Therefore, on the 6th of June 2022 I wrote three USA guardians of integrity that are supposed to monitor instances of falsification in scientific publications. Again, not a single positive reaction. Therefore, on the 17th of July 2022 I published my updated thoughts about this situation (check the info immediately below this paragraph) and fortunately got an immediate response (I wonder why) on the 18th of July from Mrs. Greenough (Journals Publisher of the relevant Journal, Wiley) confirming that an Erratum would be published shortly.

Full details and all relevant illustrations are available (published on the 17th of July 2022): Van Hoek, M. 2022. Vandalism and Falsification of Rock Art: A Matter of Integrity. PDF available at ResearchGate, and on YouTube (, and on two online reports: my first report at TRACCE (2020):, an update at TRACCE (2022): and on my personal web page:

On the 19th of July 2022 I answered Mrs. Greenough (CC to Scaffidi, Tung and Turner!) that I expected (again) that (among other things) the original, unaltered photos would be sent to me promptly and before the publication of the Erratum. I never got an answer from Mrs. Greenough, but the day after my email to Mrs. Greenough I got an email from Prof. Dr. Turner (dated the 20th of July) (her first email to me after four months!) with a link to the published Erratum. Reading her email the next day (the 21st of July 2022) I immediately emailed her back writing "If this Erratum will not be deleted immediately, I will continue to publish information about the scandalous, intentional falsification by Scaffidi and Tung, which I CAN PROVE despite their lame Erratum. It is obvious to me (and everyone-else!) that they intentionally ignored my published photos and drawings completely when writing their Erratum." Importantly however, no-one ever sent me the original, unaltered photos. A very obstructive attitude of Scaffidi, Tung and Turner.

Now you wonder why I would publish this "The Majes Falsification Revised" paper when an Erratum was published after all. Why? Please read on. The situation gets even more absurd.


About the Erratum

The Erratum written and published by Tung and Scaffidi (source) is completely unsatisfactory and enormously evasive. First of all Scaffidi and Tung intentionally ignored all my emails and all my publications regarding their falsification. I published several drawings and photos of the two rock art panels and informed them about those drawings and photos (via emails, via CC emails and via my publications: see above). However, they preferred to ignore all my drawings, all my photos, all my emails and all my publications and as a result their published Erratum is demonstrably seriously misleading. Their Erratum is a ridiculous attempt to distract any uninformed reader from The Inconvenient Truth.

I am certain that if I would not have published my 2020-report, the falsification would have remained unnoticed. And if I would not have pursued this awkward case in March 2022 by contacting the Editor - Prof. Dr. Turner - nothing would have happened at all. However, the sad result of my actions is that only a completely inadequate and misleading Erratum was published in July 2022. Therefore, in July 2022 I directly asked the Editor to delete the online version of the Erratum, but this never happened and a new Erratum - that I can approve of - was never published. Moreover, on the 23 of July 2022 I received an email from Mr. Michael Streeter (Director, Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics - Wiley) who wrote that Wiley considered the matter closed: no changes to the published Erratum. Thus, also Mr. Streeter and Publisher Wiley approve of the incorrect illustrations published by Scaffidi and Tung and approved by Turner.

Thus (again) Scaffidi, Tung,Turner and Mr. Streeter all seem to accept lies and falsifications! I hold the three academic "scientists" (not Myke Scaffidi for generating the petroglyph line drawings) responsible for allowing falsifications being published and thus denying and rejecting The Inconvenient Truth: Scientists work with facts, not with falsifications and lies.

Now I will start with dealing with the factual text of their Erratum. After that I will discuss the photos-issue. They wrote in their Erratum: "This is an open-source plugin to the free and open source Image J software, commonly used to perform decorrelation stretching in various false color composites of rock art to enhance lines otherwise invisible in RGB images (e.g., Quesada & Harman, 2019)." This remark is completely irrelevant and does not address my concerns, not even when referring to "to enhance lines otherwise invisible". I will return to this "enhance" issue later on.

"Both panels are well-known among Majes Valley inhabitants and are still present at their respective sites for interested observers to visit and conduct their own image analysis and interpretations." Also this remark is completely irrelevant and does not address my alarms at all.

More disturbing is their following remark (my emphases and additions [beteen brackets]): "The authors suggest that the figures are holding human trophy heads [plural??] in their right hands, an interpretation based on Nuñez Jimenéz [should read Núñez Jiménez; who - moreover - never recorded the panel at Alto de Pitis] (1986) and the authors' own bioarchaeological and archaeological research in the region." Scaffidi and Tung must be aware by now (being able to read my emails and all my publications) that I never made a point of the Trophy Head being correctly drawn by them or not. Again, the main point is that they introduced a weapon into their discussion that does not exist at all (not in any of my published illustrations, and not even in their D-Stretched image). Seeing a "weapon" on the (manipulated, D-Stretched) photo of the Toro Muerto panel (their Figure 3a) is just wishful thinking, which is intolerable when this is published as a fact by any academic scientist. It proves that in this way the authors desperately ignored all my remarks, all my illustrations and the illustration by Núñez Jiménez (all sent CC to them and all published: see the information above). Backed by their Editor (who accepted the Erratum knowing my concerns in detail), Scaffidi and Tung thus deviously avoid to address the true issues in their Erratum and thus continue to fool their readers.

Again, I am still appalled that Scaffidi and Tung refer (in their 2020-paper and in their Erratum) to the otherwise correct drawing by Núñez Jiménez (see Figure 1) to prove their point by only focussing on Trophy Heads. However, Scaffidi and Tung are demonstrably incorrect because also the drawing by Núñez Jiménez definitely shows no weapon. Why referring to his illustration and why referring to my 2010-paper (also showing the correct illustrations) and then intentionally ignoring the facts? It proves that in this way Scaffidi and Tung desperately ignore the drawing by Núñez Jiménez, all my remarks, all my illustrations and all my comments (all sent CC to them and all published: see the information above) and thus deviously are misinforming and deceiving the readers of their 2020-paper and their Erratum.

Then their final remark (again my emphasis): "Readers are encouraged to examine the DStretched images below, along with the tracings that were in the original article and evaluate on their own whether they agree with our interpretation that those are trophy heads or not." Again, the issue does not concern the Trophy Head. The issue is that their published - and original - photos are superimposed by completely incorrect "tracings" (moreover introducing a non-existent weapon), both apparently based on one of their D-Stretched photos. This brings me to discuss their D-Stretched photos, especially because their remark addresses another serious issue.

"Readers are encouraged to examine the DStretched images below, along with the tracings that were in the original article .....". It is scandalous of Scaffidi and Tung to ask any reader to examine the D-stretched images and their published photos (2020: Figs 3a and b). First of all, all "four" photos are far too small to allow a proper examination. That is why I published my full-size photos. My photos show the factual layout of the two petroglyphs.

But that is not all. Scaffidi and Tung did not include the original, unaltered photos in their Erratum, while those unaltered photos were published in their 2020-paper (digitally superimposed by their incorrect "tracings"). However, in their Erratum they only use altered photos! In this way Scaffidi and Tung do not allow any reader to make an honest comparison. I anticipated trouble in this respect (disrespect). That is the reason why I repeatedly asked for the original, unaltered photos to be sent to me. In my email of the 21st of July 2022 to Prof. Turner I again asked for the original, unaltered photos and wrote her that "If you or Scaffidi are not prepared to send me those photos, I will consider that as intentional obstruction." At this moment (writing 24rd July 2022) I still have not seen any original, unaltered photo in my email box. Therefore, I now reveal (again) The Inconvenient Truth in this current report.

There is a final but important issue regarding the D-Stretched photos in the Erratum by Scaffidi and Tung. I know from experience that the - otherwise excellent - program by Harman is not very suitable at all to enhance photos of petroglyphs. The many different possibilities yield very different results. Often lines or features will show up that are not at all part of the ancient petroglyph and especially those natural rock features are easily incorporated as if parts of the petroglyph. Now, with so many variable outcomes it is easy to select a suitable result to suit your needs and to legalize your (fabricated) theories. Thus the two altered, D-Stretched photos in their Erratum only distract the reader from The Inconvenient Truth. Their falsification is definitely not a case of "enhancing the readability" of the two "photos". They added items that do not exist (a weapon) and they changed the factual layout of both images considerably and built misleading conclusions upon their "photos". Finally, they published those falsifications and their misleading conclusions in their 2020-text.

Importantly, the Erratum works with only two photos that both are altered (!) photos, while strangely and confusingly their Erratum speaks of four photos (two at the top) and two "bottom" images. Any reader of their Erratum will search in vain for the two "bottom" images. Another way to mislead any reader. Throughout the whole Erratum Scaffidi and Tung are pathetically creating a (false!) impression of providing truthful information (hence the overkill of irrelevant information). However, they do not admit in the Erratum that their "tracings" are incorrect!

Final Conclusions

Both the publication of the paper by Scaffidi and Tung (2020) and their misleading and evasive Erratum (2022) - based on manipulated D-Stretched photos only - are strongly damaging and undermining science in general and the prestige and status of Scaffidi and Tung and in particular of their Editor, Prof. Dr. Turner. If I would have been the Editor, I would have forced Scaffidi and Tung to write a truthful Erratum. Scaffidi, Tung and Turner were well informed, well in time (and several times) about the situation and especially about my wish to receive the original and unaltered photos and yet all my requests have been completely and repeatedly and obstructively ignored by all three academics. Why?

Why am I not allowed to check the original photos?

Even without having the possibility to check their original, unaltered photos, it is a fact that their Erratum is completely worthless. It does not in any way address the issues that I raised (and repeatedly emailed Scaffidi, Tung and Turner). In their 2020-paper and their 2022-Erratum Scaffidi and Tung seriously and negatively deceive and manipulate their readers (and they are backed by their Editor). They only focus on the photos and Trophy Heads, completely ignoring the absurd conclusions in the text of their 2020-paper.

Moreover, in the Erratum Scaffidi and Tung do not admit that their illustrations (2020: Fig. 3) are incorrect. They do not admit that my illustrations (and Núñez Jiménez' drawing) are correct (see Figure 1). In this way Scaffidi and Tung persist in claiming that their published 2020-illustrations and conclusions are correct. Well, they are not, and I proved it. Scaffidi and Tung are lying to their readers and they are negatively manipulating their readers by pretending and claiming - via their 2020-paper and via their 2022-Erratum - that their illustrations are still correct. Well, they are not!

Figure 1: The Toro Muerto petroglyph. A: After Núñez Jiménez (1986: Fig. 2304). B: After Van Hoek (2010: Fig. 2). C: After Scaffidi and Tung (2020: Fig 3a). Drawings "A" and "B" referred to by Scaffidi and Tung! Despite the huge differences between drawings "B" and "C", drawing "C" is still accepted by Tung and Scaffidi and Turner and Streeter as the one and only correct rendering. Mind you, the issue does not concern the Trophy Head, but the completely incorrect drawing "C", which also introduces a non-existent "weapon".

In their Erratum Scaffidi and Tung write: "Readers are encouraged to examine the DStretched images below, along with the tracings that were in the original article .....". Alternatively, I ask unbiased readers to examine the illustrations published by Scaffidi and Tung (2020: Fig. 3) and compare them with my photos, drawings and with Núñez Jiménez' drawing (1986) (see Figure 1 above and the earlier paper below this update). Any person of integrity then must admit that Scaffidi and Tung are lying. Their illustrations and their conclusions about the rock art are incorrect. And anyone who has had or will have the integrity to indeed fully read my reports and check all the illustrations that I (and Núñez Jiménez) have published, should have the integrity and courage to tell everyone (and me) that I am correct! I wonder who will back me (and not back-stabbing me, only being the messenger)!


Again, I do not rest my case. Further actions may be expected.


¿Quiere usted fortalecer su caracter?...

¡No abandone la lucha simplemente porque sea dificil!...

Roy Chapman Andrews


Below you will find the first update published earlier in July 2022


The Majes Falsification

Falsification versus Integrity

 Read the story of "The Majes Falsification" below.

By Maarten van Hoek

Inappropriate image manipulation is a form of fabrication or falsification. Unfortunately this also (occasionally) occurs in publications about rock art by academics. When exposed, the falsification should be acknowledged and rectified with a satisfactory Erratum to be published in the same Journal.

I am appalled that in one case an alert regarding an intentional falsification is ignored and thus justified by the academic authors, the editor of the relevant Journal and two official guardians of falsification in the USA.

There never was published an Erratum, which was promised to me.

Read the story of "The Majes Falsification" below.


In January 2020 two academics - Prof. Beth Scaffidi and Prof. Tifiny Tung - published a research article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology called "Endemic violence in a pre-Hispanic Andean community: A bioarchaeological study of cranial trauma from the Majes Valley, Peru". Several months later I came across two photographs of their paper in Google Search, recognized two illustrations and managed to download a copy of their paper (available at Academia).

I was honestly shocked to see that in their article two "photographs" of petroglyphs had been published that are unmistakably falsified (Scaffidi and Tung 2020: Fig. 3). After reading their paper and checking their "photos"(they are definitely not just photos, which would have looked completely different!), I was one hundred percent convinced that the two "photos" had intentionally been manipulated, also by adding items that do not exist on the two rock art panels. In November 2020 I published an online reaction to their paper in TRACCE and emailed the two authors about it, but never got any reaction. It proves that Scaffidi and Tung prefer to submerge themselves in the well-known Egyptian river! And they are not the only ones!

Figure 1. The falsified "photos" published by Scaffidi and Tung (2020) compared with my photos taken in the field. Enlarge this Figure in another window. Deleted.

Figure 2: My drawings (© by Maarten van Hoek) published in 2010 (publication referred to by Scaffidi and Tung in 2020 !).

Figure 3: My drawings (© by Maarten van Hoek) published in 2020, showing the huge difference between my drawings and their drawings in Figure 4. There is no question of "enhancing" "photos". I challenge any scientist to go to Peru and make the same "photos" as made by Scaffidi and Tung. This will prove to be impossible !

Figure 4: The DRAWINGS (digitally superimposed upon photographs) by Scaffidi and Tung (2020) (© by Maarten van Hoek) showing the huge differences in layout and - above all - the addition of a non-existent "weapon", held by the left-hand figure. Based on the "weapon" Scaffidi and Tung claim "a preoccupation with violence" in the local, prehistoric communities of the Majes Valley, Peru. I unambiguously demonstrated (2021) that NO violence is present in Majes Style rock art.

Van Hoek, M. 2021. War and Weapons in Majes Style Rock Art ? In: TRACCE - Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy.


After having discussed this serious issue with an academic archaeologist in November 2020, this colleague wrote me the following: In any case, it is my understanding that Scaffidi and Tung are writing a short erratum that would be published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. While this may not indicate culpability, it would suggest that the rock art was misrepresented in the publication and hopefully furnish an image of the unaltered rock art (my emphasis). In March 2022 I was informed by this colleague that the initiative to write an Erratum most likely came from Prof. Scaffidi.



Publishing an Erratum would only be the correct thing, especially as I read in a web site that "Data fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research data by making-up findings, recording, or reporting of results. Data falsification is the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, including omitting and changing data, with the intention of giving a false impression. Changes to images can create misleading results when research data are collected as images. Inappropriate image manipulation is one form of fabrication or falsification that journals (or readers!) can identify." (source; my emphases and addition).

I also read that "Specific features within an image should not be enhanced, obscured, removed, moved, or added." (my emphases). And that is what Beth Scaffidi and Tifiny Tung have done. They intentionally added a "weapon" onto an anthropomorphic petroglyph, while the weapon demonstrably does not exist at all. In fact the anthropomorphic figure only carries a "Trophy" Head in its right hand. The left hand is empty and thus does not carry a weapon. Therefore, also their conclusions regarding Majes rock art are misleading (not to say "absurd"; the images being interpreted by them as "half-human / half-animal").



Their graphical falsification is the more perplexing as in their research paper Beth Scaffidi and Tifiny Tung refer to the work of Antonio Núñez Jiménez, who published a correct drawing of one of the petroglyphs (1986: 407; Fig. 2304), which is visible in one of their falsified "photos" (Scaffidi and Tung 2020: Fig. 3[a]). Even more perplexing is the fact that Beth Scaffidi and Tifiny Tung also refer in their research paper to a work of mine that I published in 2010, in which the correct drawings of both their falsified "photos" can be studied (Van Hoek 2010: Figs 2 and 8; see Figure 2).

Moreover, in their list of 196 (!) references they sloppily included an incorrect reference to my 2010-paper: 'Trophy' heads in the rock art of the Majes Valley, Perú: Exploring their possible origin. In: Rupestreweb: (in fact "carancha" [an intentional typo of the authors !?: carcancha] should read "trophy"). Long ago an archaeologist told me that the more references a paper had, the more trustworthy it would be (look?). Because Scaffidi and Tung did not use my paper (except for referring to it), I suppose they wanted their scientific paper - and thus themselves - to look trustworthy by using so many references. However, they achieved the opposite, especially by falsifying their "photos".

My problem is now, why referring to publications that feature the correct drawings, then ignoring those correct illustrations and then still publishing falsified graphical material and misleading conclusions? Their falsification is definitely not a case of enhancing the readability of the two "photos". They added items that do not exist and they changed the layout of both images considerably. That is a huge difference. I challenge everybody - also the authors, Scaffidi and Tung - to make a photo of the two petroglyphs in the field that will look exactly like their published "photos". It will be impossible! For that reason I asked for the original, unaltered photos, but my requests were ignored.

Therefore, their falsification could only have been done to "justify" their - otherwise incorrect and misleading - conclusions regarding the content and meaning of certain images of the rock art of the Majes Valley (which I also lengthily demonstrated to be completely wrong: see Van Hoek 2021). It seems that Scaffidi and Tung are obsessed with violence in Majes and will do anything to prove their point. They may be right about occasional (ritual?) violence in local communities, but they are definitely incorrect about violence in Majes rock art (again: see Van Hoek 2021).

In this respect it is relevant that - in November 2020 - an academic archaeologist emailed me about this matter and wrote (and I quote): "As for the Scaffidi and Tung paper, I said ...... that your argument about the rock art was correct. I do think that the authors see violence everywhere - they interpreted some headdresses as helmets that I doubt functioned as so." and ... "I also thought you were correct in calling out the writing over of the rock art in the image and in the introduction of a weapon that does not appear in the original."



After having been informed in November 2020 that an Erratum would be published, I waited for about 15 (!) months and frequently checked On Line Library to see whether an Erratum would had been published. On the 28th of February 2022 I checked for the last time, but I still did not see any Erratum being published. Therefore, in February and - again, because receiving no answer (!) - in March 2022, I wrote to the Editor of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Prof. Dr. Trudy Turner - politely asking her whether she would be so kind as to ask the two authors of the falsification if they would indeed be prepared to write an Erratum and publish it in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (all those emails were also sent CC to Prof. Tung and Prof. Scaffidi - yet [again] without any reaction). In the meantime I already had also emailed Prof. Beth Scaffidi myself (CC to Prof. Tung) in March 2022, politely asking her whether she would indeed be prepared to publish an Erratum in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. But again: no answer.

Finally, in her (belated) email of the 21st of March 2022 Prof. Dr. Trudy Turner promised me that an Erratum would be published and that the publication of (and I quote): "the Erratum may take a month or two" (thus it should be published online before the end of May 2022) and finally in "her" Journal. On the 22nd of March 2022 I answered her that I also expected that the two authors would acknowledge in their Erratum that not only the "photos" had intentionally been falsified by them, but also that their conclusions regarding Majes rock art are completely absurd and incorrect. I also asked her to send me the original, untouched photos. However, by the end of May 2022 I had not received any answer or any photo from her and even mid-July there was not any response to my email of March 2022 and ... no original photos and no Erratum. Also, all my other requests were ignored as well. Very disrespectful and dishonorable of her!

Because Prof. Dr. Trudy Turner did not have the decency to answer my email of 22 March 2022 and because the Erratum that was promised to me by Prof. Dr. Trudy Turner failed to be published, I browsed the internet to find out what further steps could be taken now. First I learned that "Original unprocessed images must be provided by authors should any indication of the foregoing be identified. It may be helpful for journals to suggest that original unprocessed images be submitted alongside any images that have been processed.", and also that "We suggest that journals ask authors to declare where manipulations have been made; we also suggest that journals ask authors to supply original images or be able and ready to supply them on request" (source).

I now wonder why Prof. Dr. Trudy Turner was not prepared to send me the original photos, after having asked her to share those photos with me twice. Does she agree with the falsifications? Does she tolerate such falsifications in her "respected" Journal? Well, I know that I do not; hence my 2020-paper in TRACCE and my further actions.



Not having received anything from Prof. Dr. Turner, I continued my fight against the intentional graphical falsification of Majes rock art (and the misleading fake information based thereon). Via email I informed three official institutions in the USA that monitor instances of lack of integrity and/or malpractices in scientific publications.

It concerns the following offices that I wrote jointly on June the 6th 2022.

1) The Wiley Publication Ethics Team. URL.

2) The Council of Science Editors. URL.

3) The Office of Research Integrity. URL.

The 7th of June 2022 I received the following answer from The Office of Research Integrity: "The questioned paper in your email was supported by non PHS funds and, therefore, falls outside ORI's jurisdiction. ORI will not take any further action in this matter." The 7th of June 2022 I also received the following answer from Wiley: "Kindly allow us to look further into your query and we will get back to you as soon as we have an update." However, I never received any further update or email from Wiley. Moreover, The Council of Science Editors did not even answer at all. It proved that the three instances that I considered to represent guardians of integrity of scientific publications were not interested. Thus they all seem to accept the falsifications!

By mid-July 2022 I still had not received any answer from the two remaining "guardians" (The Wiley Publication Ethics Team and The Council of Science Editors), nor from Scaffidi, Tung or Turner. Therefore, I stopped waiting for decent answers or an appropriate Erratum and published this full report on my personal web site, a short-version video on YouTube and a new, updated paper on TRACCE. (URL new paper).

Ignoring a falsification (in other words: uncritically accepting and tolerating fake information), but also disrespectfully ignoring a (my) person is a matter of lack of integrity. Scaffidi, Tung, Turner, The Council of Science Editors and the Wiley Publication Ethics Team all failed to show integrity, not only towards falsifications, but also towards my person. They all seem to consider falsifications and fake information acceptable. Well, I do not!

However, to be honest, what bothers me most is that - by the end of March 2022 - "distinguished" Professor Trudy Turner promised me that an Erratum would be published by the end of May 2022. This did not happen. She is either not a "man" of her word or does not have the decency to correctly inform me about whatever reason for any delay. Keeping me on a string for more than three months and ignoring me for so long is unacceptable and insulting!

It is a matter of integrity (an internal mechanism that an increasing number of people seem to have lost or simply prefer to ignore) to acknowledge, expose and fight falsifications and fake news, especially as in this chaotic century - writing July 2022 - (deep) fake news and outrageous lies are dangerously booming. Lies even "justified" a most disgusting "peace" invasion (a war started by the Russians). The only (huge) difference between fabricated Z-photos and the falsified "photos" of Majes petroglyphs is a matter of scale!

I do not rest my case. Further action may be expected.



¿ Quiere usted fortalecer su caracter ?...

¡ No abandone la lucha simplemente porque sea dificil  !...

Roy Chapman Andrews


Also read:

Van Hoek, M. 2022. The Mislaid Beringa Petroglyph. A Missed Opportunity or a Misleading Missive? In: TRACCE - Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF at ResearchGate.

© Maarten van Hoek - Updated June - 2024
Mogelijk gemaakt door Webnode
Maak een gratis website. Deze website werd gemaakt met Webnode. Maak jouw eigen website vandaag nog gratis! Begin