But that is my whole point! Either of these two cases makes the drawing too ambiguous to conclusively identify it as a saltasaurus!
Jonathan, it's not just a case of thinking that the Ica stones were forged.
When the ONLY evidence we have about an artefact's authenticity is AN ADMISSION OF FORGERY BY THE PEOPLE WHO FOUND IT, dismissing its status as a forgery as "that's just your opinion" or something like that is completely out of touch with reality.
"Vaguely" being the operative word. I can't make out a thing. Where are the alleged sauropods, and in any case, where were these photographs taken?
Jonathan, I've said before and I'll say it again. Getting scientists interested in the Ica stones isn't just a matter of who you know. Scientific research costs money. In other words, someone has to pay for it.
Last time I said this, you quote mined me as saying "it's all about the money," so I'd better make myself clear on this one. Research into the Ica stones is a cost centre, not a profit centre. It isn't an idea that's going to rake it in, unless you consider "raking it in" being selling the things as over-priced trinkets to gullible tourists.
If you think you that they are worthy of serious scientific research, you need to put your money where your mouth is and offer some serious scientists a grant to do so. Or if you can't afford to do so yourself, try crowdfunding it -- start up a campaign on a site such as GoFundMe to see if you can get anyone else interested.