The Ica Burial Stones (And Other Evidences Of Humans And Dinosaurs)...Fact, Or Forgery?

To let the evil spirits out, or to air the blood and cool the brain. Completely useless ideas. It may have had some benefit when dealing with brain swelling, since it would relieve pressure (if enough of the skull was removed), but this is only symptomatic treatment.

1 Like

I am amazed that you would be amazed.

2 Likes

Bring it on.

@J.E.S

Did you identify the experts yet? Have you seen that video for sale on eBay?

Why isn’t the art world showing any response? Have you contacted anybody? Perhaps the Museum of Modern Art would be interested in these ancient stones…

@J.E.S

The problem with the YEC View of the world, and especially with your view, is that you think one exception conclusively dismantled evolution.

Balderdash.

It’s the larger pattern of evidence, and the convergence of multiple lines of evidence, which conclusively corroborates the following:

  1. The YECs have no explanation for the 100,000+ years of uninterrupted annual weather patterns.

  2. The YECs have no explanation for millions of years of mammalian differentiation above the K-T boundary, vs the even more robust millions of years of reptilian differentiation below the K-T barrier;

  3. The YECs don’t even have an explanation for how there could be a K-T boundary in a flood scenario;

o Nor why there should be reptile foot prints in the middle layers of flood sediments;

o Nor why there should be no flowering plants (which can’t swim) in the primitive plant levels;

o Nor why there are blooming plants and even rain drop patterns in the middle of these alleged flood sediments.

‘4.’ The YECs don’t have an explanation for how marsupials gained an ecological monopoly in Australia… if both placental and marsupial mammals were released from the Ark at the same time.

‘5.’ And finally, there are YECs who fail to reconcile how there can be a phase of animal hyper- speciation immediately after the Ark is opened… all the while speciation is considered “impossible”.

1 Like

Hehe, my analysis of these stones:

I was kind of bewildered that we had a new thread chatting about it as I was fully persuaded that if this is the best evidence for Dino’s and humans, this is a pretty sad story.

I was also asking about bringing in other evidence to know if it’s okay to like any evidence from geology, stratigraphy, radiometric dating, archaeology, etc. all of which provide loads of knockout evidence against the stones depicting people and dinosaurs. I’ve also repeatedly shared about Megafauna (or real animals that coexisted with humans) on different continents which also can easily inspire imaginations of people - 4,000 lb bears in South America? 25 ft lizards in Australia? So even if the stones are real (which evidence is weak), I’ve provided plenty of more reasonable explanations, hence my incredulity that this was up for discussion. I too was awaiting more evidence but it turns out, there is none

3 Likes

If the dino stones are real, I want them to be sent on a traveling exhibition! I just don’t understand why this hasn’t happened yet if they are genuine.

1 Like

@pevaquark
Did you notice my saltasaurus comment?

This is probably not the best evidence, but it is actually the one that I have conducted the most research in.

Maybe in the future when the world’s ready for them.

@gbrooks9
What exception do I think dismantled evolution that is balderdash?

Does it unambiguously depict a saltasaurus? Can you post a photo of the stone in question, showing the dinosaur in question, here, side by side with a picture of a saltasaurus please?

(Tip: you can insert a picture into your post just by a simple copy and paste – Ctrl-C to copy it from its original source, then Ctrl-V to paste it.)

1 Like

@beaglelady
Is this another, more subtle, stab at the authenticity?

The “art world” probably knows nothing of the Ica stones.

Alejandro Pezzia Assereto, a trustee of the Ica regional museum (and responsible for archaeological excavation in the area), was present for the discovery of some of the stones (this from an article in the Lima newspaper [December 11th, 1966] by Agurto Calvo, rector of Peru’s national university of engineering. In his article, Calvo argued that Alejandro Pezzia Assereto’s discoveries would lead to the logical conclusion that the Ica stones were mostly (if not all) authentic, and should merit further investigation. Later, after having the stones studied by the laboratories of the mining faculty at the national university of engineering, Calvo concluded from the results that the stones were indeed of pre-hispanic origin!

There’s more than that, but as you may have guessed, it took a tiny bit of research to assemble and summarize that information. More on this later…
@beaglelady

See it at the bottom there? I hadn’t noticed it a few years ago, but I noticed that the characteristics of that carving match almost perfectly with the picture of Saltasaurus in this convenient Scholastic dictionary of dinosaurs that I have here. Note the shape of the head, and the armor plates (or whatnot) on the creature’s back. And even if that isn’t saltasaurus, you can also clearly see another sauropod, a ceratopsian, a therapod, and apparently a stegosaurus as well! I’ll try to find a better picture…and always remember: saltasaurus was not discovered until 1980! I believe other stones as well depict things that came later than the 1960’s (meaning that they would not have been carved on the stones), but I’ll have to do some more research (yes, I’ve researched it already, but must dust off some cobwebs :slight_smile: )

@jammycakes

@jammycakes
Oh! And here’s your picture of saltasaurus too!

Let me see…

  • The legs are completely different. Saltasaurus’s thighs are vertical; the carving’s thighs are horizontal with a 90° bend at the knees.
  • The shell of armour plates has a completely different shape:
    • Its hump is too pronounced.
    • It is smooth (albeit with a cross-hatch pattern) and does not depict the armoured bumps that we see on Saltasaurus.
    • Its base is depicted as being straight and horizontal rather than contoured, and is distinctly higher than the tops of the thighs.
  • The carving has four circles on the belly that the saltasaurus does not.
  • Could saltasaurus really bend its neck in a swan-like manner like that?

Jonathan, you seem to have some very … interesting … ideas of what “match almost perfectly” means…

4 Likes

@J.E.S

Confronted by stones which may or may not be frauds, you fixate on the possibility of the stones being genuine despite the fact they come with no additional corroboration that would be necessary for them not to be fakes .

4 Likes

@jammycakes
You must remember, however, that the picture of saltasaurus (not the one on the Ica stone) was drawn by an artist who did not see one alive. There could have been patterns like that on the dinosaurs skin…

Also note that the saltasaurus on the Ica stone may be

  1. Stylized
    or
  2. Drawn from a description given by someone who saw the creature by someone who did not see it.

Since you think the stones are forged, what do you think the forger was actually trying to draw?

And when will the world be ready?People just LOVE dinosaurs. They throng the fossil halls of the American Museum of Natural History. They pack the theaters to see the Jurassic Park movies. They buy the Dinotopia books. (And btw, the Dinotopia books also show unambiguous evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.) I could go on and on.

It is cruel to deprive the world of these stones.

Oh come on…it had 4 legs and a tail, didn’t it?

@jammycakes
@gbrooks9
@jpm
@Jonathan_Burke
@beaglelady
@etc.
Let’s go on to some more evidence for dinosaurs and humans, other than the Ica Stones. Here is a picture I took a year or two ago:

Others have taken better pictures than I have, and you should be able to find some, but you can vaguely see the sauropod dinosaur pictured here…Thoughts?

Perhaps you have more leverage in your current life’s station to get scientists interested in the Ica stones? Or perhaps someone else does? I think they are worth another look, don’t any of you?

For the record, it had way more similarities than that!