This is one of many things I don't understand about your approach to evidence and sources: You appear---correct me if I'm wrong---to ignore 99.9% of the most valuable, well-documented, peer-reviewed published evidence and focus instead on the least reliable sources and evidence. Why?
For example, you appear to rely heavily on relatively obscure and well-debunked hearsay and that which is little more than rumor. Paleontologists have absolutely shredded any purported anatomical accuracy which a very few non-experts claim to have found in the Inca stones and the Cambodian temple engravings. Yet, it sounds like you consider such "evidence" (i.e., Inca stones and an alleged stegosaurus engraving which looks far more like a rhinoceros surrounded by leaves) as outweighing tons and tons of geological, paleontological, anatomical, and genomics evidence which establishes sound timelines for dinosaurs and humans. Why? I ask NOT to ignite another debate on these topics. No, I'm trying to understand (1) how you go about selecting that which constitutes evidence, and (2) why do you disregard peer-reviewed science in favor of questionable sources, such as a book written by a person untrained in archaeology (or any other relevant field) but having a PhD in Systematic Theology? (That author's reactions to Stephen Meyers questions about his book and the underlying evidence were both curious and disturbing---and certainly was neither academic nor professional or even the expected reaction of a mature adult.)
And why do you consider Chariots of the Gods a "worthy read" when the author has never bothered to educate himself in any academic field relevant to the book's focus and his career is marked by sensationalist nonsense that was debunked by scholars long ago? You admit that "most of it" is questionable and even, as you stated, "looney". Why do you look to discredited sources and (correct me if I'm wrong) you rarely if ever cite peer-reviewed scientific works of proven value? Are you more interested in the sociological aspects of pseudo-science and tabloid journalism? If so, I readily admit that I share that fascination. I am very interested in how people go about selecting the data which matters to them as well as show people go about taking sides in popular controversies. Yet, I don't look to amateurs for help with scientific analysis requiring intensive training and experience, just as I don't look to Jenny McCarthy for a scientific analysis of vaccine efficacy.
On the topic of whether humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries, have you ever compiled a list of YES and NO arguments/evidence? Again, I'm not trying to rehash the specific evidence---but I am trying to understand the processes you went through in determining your own position on this topic. Why does something as obscure and poorly evidenced as Ica stone dinosaur drawings feature so prominently in your conclusions?
I had thought that at some point you would post a list of scientific evidences for your position---but I get the impression that your conclusion is based more upon what you want to be true rather than upon the available evidence. Do correct me if I am wrong. But even though the title of this thread includes "and Other Evidences of Humans and Dinosaurs", we've not seen any other of such evidence after 97 posts.
Again, I'm trying to understand how you reached your present position rather than wanting to rehash the merits of specific arguments. Many millions of people believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed at the same time, but I doubt that even one in a hundred would point to Ica stones as the reason for that opinion. Many people have told me that they don't even need any tangible evidence for their position because they are simply "taking the Bible as the truth", even though millions of Christians who disagree with them on dinosaur timelines also believe that the Bible is true. So please help me to understand where you are coming from methodologically. Thank you!