Do you see how that post might be a bit confusing to readers? You state that the two men confessed to fraud and forgery. Then you claim to understand their motives for making such a confession. Then you object to my calling them "admitted hoaxes" even though that is what the men admitted.
As to your claiming to know their motives, if they wanted to avoid taking the blame for plundering artifacts, why did they choose to lie by saying that they defrauded the public instead of the many much safer and more convenient lies? They could have said "My grandfather had kept them as treasured heirlooms and I inherited them when he died" or even "I bought them from a guy who said that they had been in his family for years. It never occurred to me that the guy was a grave robber or an artifact thief." Yet again your conclusions perplex me, especially when you appear to favor the least likely of all possible explanations.
You've made several bold assertions about scientists ignoring contrary evidence and allowing their biases to interfere with good science and scholarship. Have you considered the possibility that that is exactly what you are doing with the cherry-picked Ica stone evidence? (Based on your article and its citations, I'm not even entirely comfortable using the word "evidence" in this context but this is an informal discussion, not an academic journal. The gentleman you cited in your article did little more than make unsupported assertions.)
Also, when dealing with the Ica stones, what is the nul hypothesis? What position has the burden of proof? It sounds like you are saying that these stones of unknown provenance, which have already been discredited by confessions of forgery, should be accepted as compelling evidence for relatively recent dinosaur populations in Peru until someone can prove otherwise. Yet, the scientific method and standard logic would consider the Ica stones nothing more than interesting oddities until someone discovers compelling evidence for them (1) being the product of an ancient, or nearly ancient, culture; and (2) demonstrates that they were intended to depict real animals observed by the artist or by someone else within that culture and not just meant to reference the culture's mythological stories. Without a known provenance, those are _enormous encumbrances to what is always a challenging burden of proof in science and other scholarship.
Of course, even if those hurdles could be overcome, one can't simply dismiss or ignore the enormous volumes of weighty evidence for established geological/paleontological timelines. And considering the enormous climate and habitat changes over time, it is very difficult to imagine that Cretaceous and Jurassic era dinosaurs would have remained relatively unchanged anatomically/morphologically speaking until not all that many centuries ago. (In other words, if a population of what we would generally define as dinosaurs somehow survived until recent times, we wouldn't expect them to look like residents of Jurassic Park. Indeed, the dinosaurian descendants which actually have survived and live among us today as birds look quite different.)
There are a significant number of curious objects in the world today of unknown or sketchy provenance which scholars have studied for many years without being able to reach any unambiguous conclusions. Such oddities get lots of attention on Internet websites and in books written by imaginative non-academic authors. It's fun to think about mysterious objects and their possible implications.Yet, we can't let ourselves go way beyond the available evidence just because we want something to be true.
Perhaps you could explain why you appear to cherry-pick the data and want to believe the fanciful interpretations of the Ica stones.
I do think that this entire topic is an interesting and very instructive exercise. And who doesn't love dinosaurs?