Did Humans And Dinosaurs Co-exist? (Icca Stones)

Originally posted by Klassified
Just one more example of muddying the waters so the real truth gets buried under a mountain of excrement.

If something legitimate surfaces, discredit it. Then put out a fake story with the intention of it being discredited, to do even more damage to the original story you discredited. Same old tired game. Over and over and over. But it works every damn time.

The truth is out there, but we'll most likely never be privy to more than a smidgen of it here and there mixed with the aforementioned pile of manure.

Why were these stones isolated?

There are near identical petroglyphs found vast distances apart, how come these were all localized to one cave and the location never disclosed to anyone?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

The information about the varnish is really interesting thanks.

That really adds another layer to this. I wonder if they have gone through all of them and tested for this to separate out any fakes from the "authentic ones".

Oh and that photo with the stegosaurus carved on the wall, that's a totally different case across the Pacific ocean, on a temple wall in Cambodia. (Strange how that case is totally unrelated but shows something that looks like a common dinosaur).

There are thousands of random websites with pics of it, and this is the first one I found through Google.
Cambodian stegosaurus carving

edit on 11-4-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

What do you think?

Originally posted by boncho

Her quote of another site sums it up:

-This article systematically considers both points of view in analyzing whether the Ica Stones are authentic or a hoax but eventually concludes they are a hoax but in need of more scientific research to put the matter to rest.

She doesn't even make logical sense. It's contradictory double speak. Cognitive dissonance.

Oh I conclude it's a hoax but it needs more research to put it to rest?
Why would we bother researching it anymore if it's so obviously a hoax?

It's a contradiction. Either it requires more investigation to fully verify either possibility, or it's concluded. You cannot conclude the investigation yet allude to a need for further investigation.

Also you cannot just use this one aspect to attempt to dismiss the entire gamut of the controversy. We have other totally unrelated finds that correspond and also have not been fully explained either.

It's just not good enough for me. I need to know history. I am not happy believing in whatever random bull that suits me at the time. I want to know the truth of what reality was actually like. But I am wise enough to know that is impossible because there are too many pieces of information that we don't even have a clue about.

Maybe I will never be satisfied, but that's fine, because I'd rather be thirsty for eternity than to drink the cool aid and believe in totally random crap just to sleep better at night so I won't have to deal with all the hard questions.

Originally posted by boncho

What do you think?

That is not adequate.

Rhinos do not have plates on their back.

Also, judging by the "mouth and eye marks" on the animal in question, the horns are located on the back of the head behind the eyes, not on the snout like in rhinos.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

The information about the varnish is really interesting thanks.

That really adds another layer to this. I wonder if they have gone through all of them and tested for this to separate out any fakes from the "authentic ones".

Oh and that photo with the stegosaurus carved on the wall, that's a totally different case across the Pacific ocean, on a temple wall in Cambodia. (Strange how that case is totally unrelated but shows something that looks like a common dinosaur).

There are thousands of random websites with pics of it, and this is the first one I found through Google.
Cambodian stegosaurus carving

edit on 11-4-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

What do you think?

What do i think?

I think that is not a rhino.

By looking af the other carvings these 'artists' made i think i can safely rule out the rhino theory.

Every other animal that is depicted closely resemble the actual animal.
( the swan looks like a swan, the lizard like a lizard and so on)

Why would they make an esception for the 'rhino'?

reply to post by kn0wh0w


There are probably actually rhino carvings at that temple but this isn't one of them. I can't find a site with photos of all of the carvings though, apparently there is a ton of them all over.

Also notice how the "plates on the back" of the animal in question are shaped just like the peculiar shape that we find on the stegosaurus fossils? In the same order and fashion and everything. It's a perfect match.

Plus, get this :
Both the American and Asian sites reveal stegosaurus had it's "tail spikes" on it's head, not it's tail.
I find that the most surprising of all, and compelling. It really sets this mystery on fire.

reply to post by muzzleflash

Oh I conclude it's a hoax but it needs more research to put it to rest?
Why would we bother researching it anymore if it's so obviously a hoax?

It's a contradiction. Either it requires more investigation to fully verify either possibility, or it's concluded. You cannot conclude the investigation yet allude to a need for further investigation.

By the evidence provided. The dig site was hidden, having access to it would provide evidence that should be conclusive to all parties interested. However, by not disclosing the information, the Dr. only added weight to argument of a hoax.

reply to post by muzzleflash

Also notice how the "plates on the back" of the animal in question are shaped just like the peculiar shape that we find on the stegosaurus fossils? In the same order and fashion and everything. It's a perfect match.

The area of the stegosaur appears lighter (especially the raised portions) because it was cleaned by the famous photographer described below.

What's that coming out of the Water Buffalo's back?

reply to post by kn0wh0w

Every other animal that is depicted closely resemble the actual animal. ( the swan looks like a swan, the lizard like a lizard and so on)

And this is a swan?

Originally posted by CowabungaPT
I believe it.
I remember reading something about a mammoth with a perfect hole on is skull, and someone said that was made by some kind of weapeon. Dont know if is truth.

edit on 11-4-2012 by CowabungaPT because: (no reason given)

But it's well known that Mammoths were still around until about 4,500 years ago. Dinosaurs were ectinct 65 million years ago.

Weighing in on the topic - my vote is the third option; an elaborate hoax.

Some of the Dinos are depicted in the classic mid 20th century style as being tail dragging, lumbering beasts but we know better now.

Originally posted by boncho

By the evidence provided. The dig site was hidden, having access to it would provide evidence that should be conclusive to all parties interested. However, by not disclosing the information, the Dr. only added weight to argument of a hoax.

I understand having to face the strong possibility that dinosaurs may be depicted on these finds may be horrifying and uncomfortable, but it must be faced with bravery.

It was the Mexican government that controls the site.
Everyone knows the locations of these places, it's common knowledge - "Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico" in the surrounding mountains of El Toro and Chivo. All you have to do is go visit and investigate first hand. They don't keep it all secret either it's just access is restricted.

The National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico and the American Museum of Natural History supposedly conducted official digs. Back in the mid- 1940's. And that's where they found tens of thousands of these things. This was claimed in an interview by then Director of Archaeology for Acambaro, Carlos Perea, which was under the authority of the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City.

In like 1954 the government supposedly created another expedition and went out and confirmed the claims and uncovered even more artifacts.

Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey produced radiocarbon results showing 1000-4500 BC.
University of Pennsylvania produced thermoluminescent results showing 2500 BC.

I found all of this in 10minutes of Googling. I am sure others can find tons of more intricate and detailed information by simply diving into this for a day or two.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Weighing in on the topic - my vote is the third option; an elaborate hoax.

Some of the Dinos are depicted in the classic mid 20th century style as being tail dragging, lumbering beasts but we know better now.

edit on 11-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

Why would the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City fake all of this stuff just to turn around and discredit themselves? Seems kinda fishy, considering they claim to have conducted digs in conjunction with American Museum of Natural History back in the 40s.

Also it's funny the Univ of Penn and Isotopes Inc would give hoaxed results from their testing.

I cannot find a single one of these carvings showing a dinosaur's tail on the ground either. Could you link me to those pics? In all of the carvings I am looking at the tails are suspended in the air above the ground.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Weighing in on the topic - my vote is the third option; an elaborate hoax.

Some of the Dinos are depicted in the classic mid 20th century style as being tail dragging, lumbering beasts but we know better now.

edit on 11-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

Why would the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City fake all of this stuff just to turn around and discredit themselves? Seems kinda fishy, considering they claim to have conducted digs in conjunction with American Museum of Natural History back in the 40s.

Also it's funny the Univ of Penn and Isotopes Inc would give hoaxed results from their testing.

I cannot find a single one of these carvings showing a dinosaur's tail on the ground either. Could you link me to those pics? In all of the carvings I am looking at the tails are suspended in the air above the ground.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Wait... Radiocarbon isotope testing was performed on the stones? Or are you referring to the figurines found in Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico? I think you may have your hoaxes mixed up.

Why is there no evidence of oxidation in the etchings? If they are as old as they are said to be, there would be oxidation. In fact, the etchings were made by scraping off the oxidative layer from the Andesite.

No... man I'm not buying it for one second.

As PT Barnum once said; "there's a sucker born every minute"

Do you seriously believe that there is a concerted, organized effort by all Historical Geologists and Archeologists to fabricate a hoax that dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago? Because that's exactly what you're suggesting. If what you say is correct then it would mean that every single Archeologist in the world would have to be in on the BIG secret.

That's really laughable...

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Do you seriously believe that there is a concerted, organized effort by all Historical Geologists and Archeologists to fabricate a hoax that dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago? Because that's exactly what you're suggesting. If what you say is correct then it would mean that every single Archeologist in the world would have to be in on the BIG secret.

That's the thing, I DON'T BELIEVE anyone.
I want to find out the truth of reality.

But hey, you are entitled to believe in your fantasy of pretending to know what happened 60 million years ago because some people told you it must be true.

However due to the preponderance of controversy and contradictory information, truth seekers such as myself are forced to admit that it is unresolved and that the exact truth eludes us currently.

Anything is possible, the only hard part is determining which possibility actually happened.
I try very hard to make sure I don't start believing in dogmatic doctrines whether they wear the guise of a religion or a scientist.

Don't rush into the fray in an impetuous mistake, temper your zeal. Hold the line, remain steadfast and wait for the pieces to fall in their place but be ready for whatever random eventuality may arise.

Well there were other intelligent beings here before we came. Other humanoid creatures were here for over a million years and they could have been intelligent at different points of their evolution. All evidence of their civilizations would be gone within 100 thousand years or less. We'll never know for sure. I'm sure that the stones used to build temples could be used stones also, coming from an old building from previous times. Mankind used to recycle a lot more than we do now. Bricks were always recycled in the past and also stones. Why not reuse the stones that are sitting in a pile, why dig out new ones and start shaping them. We should learn something from our ancestors. Oh rats, I forgot that our current system is capitalism and that reusing something is stupid, unsafe, and bad. Those old pyramid blocks won't last, they aren't certified by a building inspector. Buy new hollow cinder blocks because we know they are from a certified producer who has minimum standards to follow. No used material is allowed to be used in building construction anyway unless it is re-certified by a licensed individual.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters

Who is to say they didn't find fossilized remains themselves?

I see where you're coming from but this theory doesn't sit well with me for the simple reason that the etchings seem to portray what we know what dinosaurs look like. I don't see how primitive man would have known what the fossils would look like from their remains. Indeed, I read something a while back about how the myth of the Cyclops had possibly come into existence by mistake due to the unearthing of Mammoth (or possibly just Elephant) skulls and people mistaking the void where the trunk stems from being one big eye (this is from memory, I'm online on my phone, it's late and it would take too long to research if it was a Mammoth/Elephant skull)

I do find this topic intriguing and hadn"t actually heard about these stones (so thank you OP) bit had heard of the carvings of Stegasaurus, Triceratops and other dinosaurs on ancient temples. I do think that a lot of what we [I]think we know about history is wrong and it's only a matter of time before we start to find undeniable proof this. Until then we can only look at things like this with an open mind and share our thought and theories. I just wish we could all do so without the dramatics and pedantry.

reply to post by boncho


Those are all good questions, my friend. And I'm not by any means saying these stones are, or are not, the real thing. Because I don't know for sure either way. And therein lies my point.

I have an equal distrust for mainstream and alternative archaeology, geology, and so on. When I read and research all these artifacts and other finds. I always see the same patterns develop. Anything that doesn't fit consensus or paradigm either gets dismissed quickly as a hoax, or gets built up, and torn down.

Unless of course, an "oopart" fits the direction consensus wants to take us. Then it's lauded as the find that rewrote history.

Sorry to be so cynical, but I've been reading about this stuff since I was a kid. And some of the things I've seen and heard have changed my perspective of our academia over the decades.

Originally posted by boncho
Forget DC as this picture shows the type of reliable information they have:

Ok, so you're right, there has been no lab reports with carbon dating posted on here to accompany this story but to rubbish the claims of the Discovery Channel because one of the people on the show has dodgy taste in hairstyles? Come one, between that and the picking up on a grammatical error I'm having a hard job understanding why people talk so highly of you. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a personal attack, I'm just basing my observations on your behaviour in this thread, I'm sure you are as intelligent and balanced as people give you credit for. I've watched a few DC shows that this guy (can't remember his name, George something I think) and he really doesn't attribute everything to aliens, he does actually give other reasons for things. Is he even on the show discussed by the OP?

reply to post by djz3ro


Example Post

I tend to source my information and look at both sides of a story,

In some cases I fail to and I appreciate anyone that will put me back to place. The problem with word of mouth sourcing and information that isn't properly backed is that there are thousands of hucksters out there trying to make a buck off gullible people. So we have a former doctor (dentist) who met a farmer selling supposed archaeological artifacts, and then he collected them and made a museum.

Well that's all and nice but what I found with this story is a lack of information just as you find with a number of stories claiming the same kind of incredible 'facts'.

Information on the sites representing the Ica stones as legitimate are either pushing an agenda for alien visitors from the past or creationist theories to validate the bible.

I can just as easily say they are not real as someone can say they are. And that isn't even worth a debate. But promoting the idea is pushing one side with blinders in my opinion.

reply to post by djz3ro


As far as DC goes, they have programming specifically for gaining viewership where the primary motive is to make money off advertising and they even state that they do not endorse the theories. It's a money thing. But we are supposed to take this as credible in some way?

What we have here, as with a few other ooparts, is an object (or objects) in this case that are isolated and do not fit in with current theories on archaeology.

"Oh well, that's simple Boncho, Gee WHiz! What kind of mainstream scientist would wanna go against mainstream theories??!"

....

See, the reason we have "mainstream" theories, or explanation is because all of the data either fits in tightly or loosely together. Plenty of scientists would be all to happy to turn common knowledge on it's head, but that isn't done by selling dinosaur stones to tourists. While common beliefs are tough to change, and in some cases (downright criminally supported) it doesn't mean that ever scientist in the world is trying to maintain some status quo that is 1000 million times different than we know.

We know what we know because we find evidence of it everwhere. All over the place. Supporting information found continents away from each other. And every now and then something ruffles the feather of common knowledge and makes a change.

I welcome those finds. And wish there were more of them.

Unfortunately, word of mouth evidence from people selling books and speaking arrangements (or things along those lines) is just not going to do it for me.