Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, the farmer baked his stones in cow dung to give them that patina, as he admitted to doing.
Really Campbell, it is Ok to believe in your God and Scripture without turning to these charletons and frauds for substantiation. Just ask any Priest. And a good priest will let you know that you are "baking your own patina" for fixating on these frauds as well.
Seriously, is your Faith so weak you must latch desperatly onto anything that comes down the lane?
1. Both Ark sites are not the same. One site is near the top of Mt. Ararat at around a 15,500 foot altitude. The other site I believe, is about 17 miles away, and is found at an 8,000 foot altitude.
2. The science of Bacterial varnishs, cannot be fooled by someone baking stones in cow dung.
And I can point out fakes in almost every line of study here on the planet. Yet to take only one example of fraud, and then suggest that all known 15,000 Ica stones must be frauds to, would be foolish. Ica burial stones have been with us for hundreds of years. One Spanish priest was sending them back to Spain in the 1500s. And he was asking the question. What are all these strange animals depicted on them? 30% of Ica burial stones depict dinosaurs. So historically you cannot blame the farmer or his wife for what was known in the 1500s. Dr. Swift who was a strong believer in evolution also believed the Ica stones were all frauds as well. Yet he changed his mind, when he entered an Ica tomb for the first time, and discovered an Ica burial stone with a dinosaur engraved on it. Here agian, we cannot blame the farmer and his wife, for what was an obvious stone from the ancient past.
My faith does not require me to filter out factual evidence in order to accept a popular theory today.
1. Both Ark sites are not the same. One site is near the top of Mt. Ararat at around a 15,500 foot altitude. The other site I believe, is about 17 miles away, and is found at an 8,000 foot altitude.
2. The science of Bacterial varnishs, cannot be fooled by someone baking stones in cow dung.
And I can point out fakes in almost every line of study here on the planet. Yet to take only one example of fraud, and then suggest that all known 15,000 Ica stones must be frauds to, would be foolish. Ica burial stones have been with us for hundreds of years. One Spanish priest was sending them back to Spain in the 1500s. And he was asking the question. What are all these strange animals depicted on them? 30% of Ica burial stones depict dinosaurs. So historically you cannot blame the farmer or his wife for what was known in the 1500s. Dr. Swift who was a strong believer in evolution also believed the Ica stones were all frauds as well. Yet he changed his mind, when he entered an Ica tomb for the first time, and discovered an Ica burial stone with a dinosaur engraved on it. Here agian, we cannot blame the farmer and his wife, for what was an obvious stone from the ancient past.
My faith does not require me to filter out factual evidence in order to accept a popular theory today.
Why do you refer to these fakes as burial stones? I have not found that reference anywhere, and from the information I've seen they were all supposedly "found" in a cave in some undisclosed location....Regarding the patina ( varnish ) on the stones. That is not important because the engraving cut through this varnish and there is none of this patina in the grooves, although when tested the grooves were found to contain traces of modern paints and abrasives.
In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill.
1. Both Ark sites are not the same. One site is near the top of Mt. Ararat at around a 15,500 foot altitude. The other site I believe, is about 17 miles away, and is found at an 8,000 foot altitude.
You are correct, and I stand corrected. However, that doesn't change the plain fact that BOTH sites are frauds. Where the up close and personal photos. Where are the artifacts. From either site!
What we have are clear frauds, perpetrated by men intrested only in fame, riches, and furthering their religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
2. The science of Bacterial varnishs, cannot be fooled by someone baking stones in cow dung.
And I can point out fakes in almost every line of study here on the planet. Yet to take only one example of fraud, and then suggest that all known 15,000 Ica stones must be frauds to, would be foolish. Ica burial stones have been with us for hundreds of years. One Spanish priest was sending them back to Spain in the 1500s. And he was asking the question. What are all these strange animals depicted on them? 30% of Ica burial stones depict dinosaurs. So historically you cannot blame the farmer or his wife for what was known in the 1500s. Dr. Swift who was a strong believer in evolution also believed the Ica stones were all frauds as well. Yet he changed his mind, when he entered an Ica tomb for the first time, and discovered an Ica burial stone with a dinosaur engraved on it. Here agian, we cannot blame the farmer and his wife, for what was an obvious stone from the ancient past.
Firstly, why do you think legitimate scientists reject those that the farmer created? Secondly, if you scroll back through our debate, you will find that I point out that not all the stones were fake. The farmer had to, of course, base his work on something that was already well known, an "artifact" that he could sell. The Ica Stones showing dinos (and aliens) are frauds.
Lastly, you DO realize that you are being a hypocrit, I would hope. You denigerate and dismiss science, as long as it says the earth is over 4 billion years old and states humans and dinos did not coexist. Then you thoroughly embrace "science" as long as it supports your view, a "science" that cannot be called such, because an MD merely claiming the scientific community refuses to look at something, and Swift taking the stones around for everyone to look at (not test), is not science.
And, finally, to lay this matter (hopefully) to rest...
In 1967, Cabrera asked friend Eric Wolf, a mining engineer, to arrange an analysis and published the results in his book. The stones were indeed andesite, worn smooth in ancient rivers. “I have not found any notable or irregular wear on the edges of the incisions,†Wolf notes, concluding: “These etchings were executed not long before they were deposited in graves or other places where they were discovered.†6 Cabrera adds, specifically, that “the coating of natural oxidation covers the incisions as well.†This would suggest the stones were indeed ancient. However, this has to be balanced by the first-hand observation by Neil Steede that, even though the stones he examined did have this patina, there was no patina in the grooves. This suggests that while the stones were certainly very old, the carvings were clearly of far more recent origin.
While some investigators claim that they were refused permission to see the Calco collection in the Museum of Ica stash, Neil Steede was granted access. He concluded that these “definitely genuine†stones show a finer workmanship and have less deep cuts than Cabrera’s stones. This is a clear indication of a more highly skilled manufacturer than Cabrera’s artisan. Furthermore, they are restricted to depicting conventional humans and existing animals, not extinct animals; nor do they include any examples of the more exotic motifs of the Cabrera stones.
Why do you refer to these fakes as burial stones? I have not found that reference anywhere, and from the information I've seen they were all supposedly "found" in a cave in some undisclosed location....Regarding the patina ( varnish ) on the stones. That is not important because the engraving cut through this varnish and there is none of this patina in the grooves, although when tested the grooves were found to contain traces of modern paints and abrasives.
In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill.
Why do you only refer to the fakes, and ignore the others? Why no mention of comments made by the priest from the 1500s ? Or the Dr. who imbraced Evolution until he discovered the Ica Stone in a tomb with a dinosaur carved in it ?
You are correct, and I stand corrected. However, that doesn't change the plain fact that BOTH sites are frauds. Where the up close and personal photos. Where are the artifacts. From either site!
What we have are clear frauds, perpetrated by men intrested only in fame, riches, and furthering their religion.
Firstly, why do you think legitimate scientists reject those that the farmer created? Secondly, if you scroll back through our debate, you will find that I point out that not all the stones were fake. The farmer had to, of course, base his work on something that was already well known, an "artifact" that he could sell. The Ica Stones showing dinos (and aliens) are frauds.
Lastly, you DO realize that you are being a hypocrit, I would hope. You denigerate and dismiss science, as long as it says the earth is over 4 billion years old and states humans and dinos did not coexist. Then you thoroughly embrace "science" as long as it supports your view, a "science" that cannot be called such, because an MD merely claiming the scientific community refuses to look at something, and Swift taking the stones around for everyone to look at (not test), is not science.
And, finally, to lay this matter (hopefully) to rest...
In 1967, Cabrera asked friend Eric Wolf, a mining engineer, to arrange an analysis and published the results in his book. The stones were indeed andesite, worn smooth in ancient rivers. “I have not found any notable or irregular wear on the edges of the incisions,†Wolf notes, concluding: “These etchings were executed not long before they were deposited in graves or other places where they were discovered.†6 Cabrera adds, specifically, that “the coating of natural oxidation covers the incisions as well.†This would suggest the stones were indeed ancient. However, this has to be balanced by the first-hand observation by Neil Steede that, even though the stones he examined did have this patina, there was no patina in the grooves. This suggests that while the stones were certainly very old, the carvings were clearly of far more recent origin.
While some investigators claim that they were refused permission to see the Calco collection in the Museum of Ica stash, Neil Steede was granted access. He concluded that these “definitely genuine†stones show a finer workmanship and have less deep cuts than Cabrera’s stones. This is a clear indication of a more highly skilled manufacturer than Cabrera’s artisan. Furthermore, they are restricted to depicting conventional humans and existing animals, not extinct animals; nor do they include any examples of the more exotic motifs of the Cabrera stones.
The above link also contains rather damning evidence concerning Cabrera himself, and a continuing scam perpetrated with the farmer.
No, it allows you to filter through the sciences, pseudosciences, and charletons to cherrypick whatver fits your already biased views and beliefs.
Cherrypick? It appears it is science that cherrypicks the evidence to be reviewed. And that is why much of this evidence has never been considered. El Toro figuriens have been waiting for science to do a time test on them for the last 60 years. And what of the Ica burial stone discovered by Dr. Swift, do you just ignore his discovery? Good thing you can focus on an obvious fraud, that allows you to ignore the other factual evidence. How about the priest from the 1500s, do you just ignore his comments as well?
Cherrypick? It appears it is science that cherrypicks the evidence to be reviewed. And that is why much of this evidence has never been considered. El Toro figuriens have been waiting for science to do a time test on them for the last 60 years. And what of the Ica burial stone discovered by Dr. Swift, do you just ignore his discovery? Good thing you can focus on an obvious fraud, that allows you to ignore the other factual evidence. How about the priest from the 1500s, do you just ignore his comments as well?
Like I said, pack a lunch and get in line. I am waiting for the scientific tests on the Jackalopes supposedly showing that these are fraudulant caricatures when I know they real creatures, still alive today with their carcasses mounted and sold across the country. Oh the humanity! Until I see those scientific tests, I have no reason to believe otherwise, especially since I have seen them. I am simply not going by supposed eyewitness accounts. I have seen them first hand. WHO'S WITH ME?!!
Why do you only refer to the fakes, and ignore the others? Why no mention of comments made by the priest from the 1500s ? Or the Dr. who imbraced Evolution until he discovered the Ica Stone in a tomb with a dinosaur carved in it ?
1. Not all the stones are faked. Those with dino and aliens ARE fakes.
2. The opinion of one man (whose "change of heart" may have well been motivated by dollar signs, and not a "sign from god") matters little. It is mere unsubstantiated opinion.
Cherrypick? It appears it is science that cherrypicks the evidence to be reviewed. And that is why much of this evidence has never been considered. El Toro figuriens have been waiting for science to do a time test on them for the last 60 years. And what of the Ica burial stone discovered by Dr. Swift, do you just ignore his discovery? Good thing you can focus on an obvious fraud, that allows you to ignore the other factual evidence. How about the priest from the 1500s, do you just ignore his comments as well?
Science has indeed reviewed the fake Ica Stones, and dismissed them for what they are, frauds created by locals too lazy to farm their own lands.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until I see those scientific tests, I have no reason to believe otherwise, especially since I have seen them. I am simply not going by supposed eyewitness accounts. I have seen them first hand. WHO'S WITH ME?!!
