And where, pray tell, have there been reports of dinosaur skin with circles on them?
The depictions of dinosaurs on the Ica stones are nowhere near accurate. Besides the fact that they are highly stylised, they are all based on depictions of dinosaurs that were popular in children’s books in the mid-twentieth century but that are now known to be wrong. For example, they depict T-Rex as having stood upright and dragged its tail along the ground, rather than as having had its body parallel to the ground using its tail for balance. It has been known since the 1970s that this depiction was in error but it was only in the 1990s with Jurassic Park that T-Rexes started to be depicted accurately in popular culture.
Furthermore the dinosaurs depicted on the Ica stones were not found in that part of South America. T-Rex lived in what is now the north western USA (Washington/Oregon/Idaho/Montana and thereabouts). Furthermore, the large prehistoric animals that did exist in that part of the world are notable by their absence. Why are there no depictions of terror birds, for example?
And then there are all the other weird and wonderful things that the Ica stones depict. Modern surgical procedures. World maps. Horses (which were not known in the Americas until the Europeans arrived). Space travel. Flying saucers.
I hope you realise that the ancient aliens guys are all in love with the Ica stones too? And they all acknowledge that humans evolved over millions of years. Only they think that humans evolved from aliens rather than a common ancestor with the great apes. And guess what? They cite the Ica stones as evidence for that.
And this is a tactic we see time and time and time again from cranks who think that they can single-handedly overturn decades of painstaking research supported by hundreds of thousands of scientific studies. No evidence? No adequate documentation for your evidence? No problem. Just blame the police/the military/the Government/the Illuminati/the Men in Black/the SCP Foundation.
Works to perfection on people who have been trained to swallow every conspiracy theory hook, line and sinker, no matter how implausible. Doesn’t work on people who have wised up to the fact that some conspiracy theories are implausible to the point of being patent nonsense. Such as, for example, the idea that hundreds of thousands of scientists could have been systematically falsifying evidence on an industrial scale for more than a century.
I did read the article. They tested only one stone of known provenance, alongside one that was known to be fake and one of “unknown provenance.”
The one of known provenance looks like this:
And how, pray tell, does this highly stylised picture unambiguously represent a sauropod dinosaur? It could just as easily represent a horse or a crocodile or a reticulated python as far as I can see.
Once again, same problem. You’re trying to overturn hundreds of thousands of painstaking high-precision measurements with the most vague and ambiguous evidence imaginable. You simply can’t do that.
