Did humans walk with dinosaurs?

Note this extract from the Wikipedia article on the Ica Stones mentioned earlier.

Background

“Archaeological discoveries show evidence of Peruvian cultures going back for several thousand years. At some later stages, the whole of modern Peru was united into a single political and cultural unit, culminating in the Inca Empire, followed by the Spanish conquest. At other stages, areas such as the Ica Valley, a habitable region separated from others by desert, developed distinctive cultures of their own.

Engraved stones have been known from the region since long before the Ica stones were reported. The earliest known reports of similar artifacts are records by the Jesuit missionary Padre Simón, who travelled Peru during the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire in the early and middle fifteenth century. Examples of these stones were reportedly sent back to Spain in 1562.

Early archaeological excavations in the Ica Province in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century by scholars such as Max Uhle, Julio C. Tello, Alfred Kroeber, William Duncan Strong and John Howland Rowe did not result in any reports of the finding of engraved andesite stones.Nevertheless, engraved stones which had been looted by huaqueros (grave robbers) at some point began to be offered for sale to tourists and amateur collectors.

An extraordinary amount of Ica stones are known today, with the total number estimated to be around 50,000–100,000.”

I wonder how many of those are genuine grave goods?

So it seems these stones were being discovered long before tourists were visiting the region … and these ‘farmers’ were faking replicas in the 60’s. … with such fertile imagination … that scientists had to step in and do serious peer-reviewed studies on their ‘authenticity’.

“ Analysis

Stone supposedly depicting a heart transplant
No formal scientific research on the Ica stones has been published. Since they do not contain any organic material, the stones cannot be dated using radiocarbon dating,meaning that any hypothesis of ancient origin cannot be tested with currently existing technology.If any stone was presented for scientific analysis in situ (at its original site of discovery in the ground) they could conceivably be dated from the surrounding material. No Ica stone has ever been found or presented in a certain and examinable archaeological context.

Cabrera claimed to promote scientific analysis of the stones and claimed to have sent individual specimens to researchers at the universities of Bonn and Lima. Both a researcher at Bonn and the mining engineer Eric Wolf, a personal friend of Cabrera, supposedly confirmed that the stones are made of andesite and that they seem to be of significant age due to their oxidized patina.No evidence for these results or for the analyses ever having taken place has ever been presented. Even if these unverified assessments of significant age for the stones is true, it would not confirm an ancient age for the engravings since there is no patina in the grooves. The lack of a patina covering the sharp engravings instead suggests that they are recent.

In 1977, a BBC team visited Ica as part of the filming of the Horizon episode "The Case of the Ancient Astronauts". Cabrera provided the team with one of the small stones, which was later analyzed in London. The stone itself was found to possibly be Mesozoic in age but the engravings were determined to be recent since the clean edges of the incisions were unlikely to stay that way for long due to erosion. The engraving was thus determined to have been carried out after the oxidation process. In 1993 and 1994, some Ica stones were examined in Barcelona and evidence was found for the engravings having been made recently with tools such as saws, acids, and sandpaper.”

Do grave goods show signs of erosion? …. only when they are washed out of deposits or damaged by excavation.

So no studies were done on the Ica Stones?? … and the ones recovered in the 1500’s and brought to Europe … why weren’t they studied?? … or was it just the BBC and their chosen researchers that were delivering the final word on ‘authenticity’?
- We all now know how reliable the BBC version of ‘reality’ is these days … take with a pinch of cocaine … and you’ll know what I mean! 😁

Possibly authentic stones.

“It is possible that some of the Ica stones are authentic artefacts, a notion for instance supported by the early Spanish records of similar stones. The large number of stones has been used as an argument both for and against the idea that some are authentic. The number of stones could for instance be interpreted as evidence against their authenticity since it might indicate large amounts of them having been made for the purposes of selling them to tourists. Modern "Ica artists" have allegedly followed in Uschuya and Gutiérrez's footsteps in producing new forged stones, some based on their designs.

No studies have been made attempting to distinguish possible genuine stones in the collections. Even if some of the more outlandish stones were genuine artifacts, their motifs could plausibly depict less anachronistic scenes than what has been claimed; the images are all highly stylized and what precisely is being depicted is in many cases not clear. It is for instance possible that scenes interpreted as showing advanced surgery in reality show acts of mutilation and some supposed flying machines could alternatively be interpreted as birds.

It is possible that the stones donated to the Regional Museum of Ica by Calvo are genuine. In contrast to those in Cabrera's collection, Calvo's stones supposedly have shallower cuts, show finer workmanship, and do not depict any extinct animals, unconventional humans, or advanced technology. The motifs of Calvo's stones are typical of pre-Columbian artwork, for instance depicting flowers and birds. If Calvo's stones were to be verified as genuine, it would not imply that the more outlandish stones in Cabrera's collection are also genuine.

In order to defend the assertion that the stones were made by an advanced civilization, Cabrera stated that andesite is a hard stone that is difficult to carve, particularly using stone tools. Contrary to Cabrera's assessment, the stones are not carved but engraved; the engravings were made through scratching away the surface layer of oxidation. Furthermore, many pre-Columbian cultures, including the Aztec, Inca, and Maya, had advanced metallurgy and were not limited to stone tools.”

It’s odd modern day archaeologists have found no grave goods with similar carved stones like those recovered in the 1500’s?

Again no serious studies … yet this article speculates and debunks the artwork in these pieces. … and nit picks about native artistic accuracy? … I’m sure not every cave painting in Europe shows animals with pin point anatomical accuracy!
It’s odd scientists can’t accept the idea that this Ica region might have a very localised source of andesite grave art that wasn’t discovered by 19th and 20th century explorers … and it’s possible this region, which was fairly isolated topologically … could have created a sort of ‘Lost World’ where certain dinosaurs survived well beyond normally accepted extinction predictions … because conditions for fossilisation on Earth rarely existed… as the flora and marshy conditions in the terrain disappeared … especially in the Ica region over this time … as the desert lands expanded.

It is quite worrying to me that scientists haven’t stepped in to analyse these stones seriously … and separate the genuinely old stones from the modern fake replicas in this museum and other collections?

If these ancient people had the same metal skills and tools as modern man … whose to say that the etching would age over time due to erosion? … when they are buried freshly carved … and stuck in an undisturbed grave for so long?

Is it unreasonable to ask scientists to sift the Ica Stone collections … and sort which are genuinely old … and which are recent faked tourist nik-naks.??

It’s interesting to see where these simple farmers carving these fakes got their inspiration … and the ability to copy the artistic style … and come up with reams of original concepts in rock art.

Meanwhile, other Palaeontology study groups are finding dinosaur bones in Montana and other regions that are C14 dating to much much younger than the Science Establishment is willing to acknowledge.

www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/humans-walk-earth-dinosaurs-triceratops-horn-dated-33500-020159

Data here that is throwing dinosaur extinction theory in the garbage can.

There seems to be a battle for ‘transparency’ going on between various factions … which is leaving the Public confused over the credibility of the Smithsonian and other Institutes that are refusing to test specimens and refusing to give a platform to serious discussions on dinosaur extinction timelines.

Here is an interesting piece that discusses how certain species are likely to have found pockets of habitat to survive in … despite the immediate species crashes that occurred when the asteroid hit 65 million years ago.



Note: near the end he mentions discoveries that saw some species being in later layers … surviving 500,000 years after the impact … but Scientists ignoring these results … because they bucked the Establishment narrative on extinction.

This is typical of an Establishment that builds careers on Theories … and God forbid if you dig up something that destroys their narratives … They will go ALL OUT to destroy you … and your reputation.

Here’s a fun clip … which I am assuming is CGI or AI ??



…. but if the pteradactyl reported surviving in the region in the early 1900’s … attacking fishermen … plus giant monitor lizards still roaming around … whose to know what might be in those dense remote jungles??!

Here’s the paper by Mary Schweitser … that some scientists and publications have tried to suppress.

media.longnow.org/files/2/REVIVE/annurev-earth-final-published.pdf

Detailing her research into dinosaur soft tissues …

See examples below:



Maybe recovery of DNA will bring back these species … in the way described in Michael Creighton’s visionary book “Jurassic Park”??

For those here who cannot accept the reality of soft tissue pointing to more recent dinosaur survival … and human footprints in ancient rock as conclusive evidence humans walked in much earlier times … here is a religious groups presentation on dinosaur soft tissues



It’s a pity that this video, which is one of the best graphically on Youtube collating much of the important evidence around dinosaur tissue recovery … is ruined by the flakey theory Noah’s Flood was responsible … unreliable Biblical timelines apply …and therefore dinosaur bones must be less than 10,000 years old!

Most scientists accept the idea that the mineralisation of bones takes a long time, plate tectonics is a very slow process … and exceptional conditions are necessary for fossilisation.
Floods and other asteroid hits/volcanic pyroclastic events can explain regional collections of bones … but the Bible isn’t a good tool for dating specimens … certainly not as good as radio isotope testing (flawed as it may be) - when determining the AGE of certain materials..

We have to consider a European flood event might be on a different timeline to an American dinosaur graveyard event …

Why not accept that exceptional conditions also prevent soft tissue decay and mineralisation … so survival of collagen etc could go well beyond timelines that current studies predicted.

[Let’s not make stupid assumptions human history and planetary history is accurate purely from a collection of Biblical narratives - composed and edited to manipulate the Masses back in Roman times … as Religious Factions evolved to exert their stranglehold on our Freedoms and tried to control our development, imaginations - and rewrite our history.]