I skimmed the papers, because I have not the time to read them in detail.

But let me tell you this: even as a non-expert, comparing the pictures of the claimed phenomenon with various pictures of petroglyphs it's pretty clear that the correlation is extremely loose. And there's nothing in the text I skimmed to address some of this misses.

Maybe you can tell me though. For the images that most identify as depictions of humans that the paper instead identifies as a toroidal flux tube around a plasma column because of the presence of two round dots: how does the presence of many similar human-like figures without those two dots match the same phenomenon?

To put it in really frank terms: this field is problematic in general because spurious correlation is really common. So any paper needs to start by demonstrating not merely correlation but something that makes it seem actually causative, some other factor to make me believe that it might be true. Without that link, Occam's Razor says it's just another thing on the heap of spurious correlations.

> how does the presence of many similar human-like figures without those two dots match the same phenomenon

Toroidal instability and shape-evolution is given considerable attention in the paper. The toroids fold and warp and what the human eye perceives will depend on the viewing angle. If you're looking at the toroid edge-on you get the "dot" effect, cf. Figure 31 in the first paper. The "double-dot" squatter petroglyphs are rarer, as that paper points out.