3 ms·
The mushrooms in the figure masked as some ungulate are the hands, maybe shaped like hoofs, or any other ornament. The people "levitating high" are clearly swim
by pvaldes 4y ago
The mushrooms in the figure masked as some ungulate are the hands, maybe shaped like hoofs, or any other ornament. The people "levitating high" are clearly swimming in an age when Sahara was covered with lakes.
I don't see anything suggesting mushroom use in the pictures, I see another victim of publish (anything) or perish. But people will see what they want to see, of course.
And to prove it wouldn't be difficult. If you paint something in presence of fungi, the spores will be everywhere and fuse with the paint. Each spore has a different shape and size, so you could even guess the family or genus.
No spores or spores of other species? don't make us lose our time.
Spores over the painting? recent times. The images would represent any other thing.
But if they find ancient spores under the layers of painting, (or traces of it as bubbles in the pigment), and are of the shape and size correct, the theory would start having any support at least.
In the giant I see a foetus dead, with a small figure next that has a suspiciously round belly.
- Enginerrrd 4y ago>The mushrooms in the figure masked as some ungulate are the hands, maybe shaped like hoofs That would explain the bottom two but it doesn't the top two. The alternative is to take it more literally and see them as attached to the upper arm and upper thigh. I'm also not overwhelmingly convinced that they represent mushrooms though.
- pvaldes 4y agoYou're right, there is a second set. Maybe feathers then?