Ica Stones

NO you are for believing it.

No, that's not true. Your bible-thujmper web site claims that Harvard claims that. I'm surprised you're not too broke to pay for your ISP--you're so easily suckered, i would think you'd be broke all the time.

Id like to request that gunga find the report and plop it on screen so we can see where it says what he claims it says. A research paper in ethnography wouldnt be making such wild ass claims unless there was some other agenda driving the conclusion.

These "dino" stones are so obviously fakes . . . in most other cases, though, the claims are based of whacky interpretations. Ethnologists are highly unlikely to look at an ambiguous image and assume they are looking at an image of a dinosaur. Of course, you also have the problem of the rush to judgement. A good example of this is the images of Missipeshu, the "underwater panther" of Algonquian myths. An underwater panther is obviously not a reptile, and the legends describe a creature with fur--but the lunatic fringe are so eager to believe that dinos and humans cohabited (without benefit of clergy), that they're prepared to ignore things like that.

Iroquoian people (Susquehannocks) also had the "water panther" . Several petroglyphs on Turtle Island and Bear Island in the Susquehanna River , clearly show the beast with long tail and the "SPikey hair". Not unlike the glyph that gunga claims is a stegosaur.

Anyone who looks at such images, and honestly believes it resembles a stegosaur obviously doesn't know what stegosaurs would have looked like.

"Oh look, it's got 'spikey' things on its back . . . it must be that dinosaur . . . you know the one . . . whaddaya call that?"

re Gunga's claim about the state of human and dinosaur interaction in 1962: the Flintstones first went on TV in 1960. Coincidence? I think not.

Welcome to my ignore list...

Thank you, gunga, I'm honored.

This appears to be at least most of it:

http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm

I figure it's only a matter of time before Gunga Dim has no one left to talk to . . .

The "reprint" is actually a newer version of the report with obviously later references thrown in. Its presented by a source that is obviously Creationist. I like the section that purports to be "2 years later" in which the author comments on how he is a commited Creationist.In an unrelated matter, lots of the actual scientific conclusions, like the geologic ages and the Formations have undergone severe re interpretation based upon new methods of geochem, physics, tectonics, paleo , and mathematical stratigraphy. The original ages and stratigraphy have therefore been corrected by advances in science.

Back to your point, --In your mind, does a pictograph on a rock wall constitute evidence that the artist actually saw a living dinosaur? The museum report seems to indicate that its the main authors interpretation. ISnt that a wee bit presumptuous for a scientist whose only job was to do an ethnographic analysis?. Did this guy who led the "expedition" come from the same rootstock of these fellas that are out there searching for the ARK? To reach a conclusion that he did would certainly require a passel more evidence for his colleagues than he presents. He shows a pictograph and then says its a dinosaur and that, in his mind leads to quetioning the antiquity of man? REALLY?
Even in 1924 we did have some basic rules, among which were,

"'Dont practise outside your field of expertise unleass you have collaborators who cover that discipline into which youre straying."

ANYWAY, its a fact that There is no evidence from fossils that dinosaurs were present in any formational zone after the terminal Creataceous. There are vast deposits of rock units from the Eocene to the Holocene and nowhere do we see any dinosaur fossils. Youd think that, logically, there would be some evidence in the US (hell even worldwide) that the order of dinosauria continued as living beings up into the Holocene (when the pictograph was obviously made), so that the pictograph artist could use as a model.Or, as I think is more probable, the petroglyph animal depicted was either imaginary or else a fanciful representation of another, but living, animal.
Does that seem more likely? I mean the evidence does not support anything like what you seem to believe. (I say "seem" because I cant really believe that you do believe this crap and that , in reality, your just yanking our collective cranks by finding some of this stuff and posing it as part of a personal joke).

I still have hope that you will jump out and say "Fooled Ya, Im really a paleontologist who works for the Museum of NAtural History!"

However, pure logic is staring you in the face and relegating your tentaTive "evidence" to an ash bin.

I wonder what more recent ethnographic studies of the same outcrop have disclosed? Im sure some kid did a MS or PHd thesis about this and dis a detailed study discounting the conclusions of the Doheny report

He will have me until he dumps me into an ignore bin. Im still operating with half a conclusion that GD is just fuckin with us.

One such glyph? Obviously not. But when you have accurate images of known dinosaur types all up and down the Americas on canyon walls, inside caves, and around rivers as warnings as in the case of the 'Mishipashoo' glyphs, then you have to rethink if you want to be honest about it.

Again Lewis and Clarke described their Amerind guides being in mortal terror at the sight of such glyphs.

Add in the question about the Ica stones and one or two similar categories of stones in central America, the thing about Amerind oral traditions accurately describing known dinosaur types and Amerind ancestors having to deal with them as per Vine DeLoria, and you really have to rethink.

DeLoria said that this used to **** with his mind early on. He'd apparently made a sort of a lifetime study of Indian oral traditions and that involved traveling up and down the continents talking to every storyteller and keeper of such traditions from Alaska to South America and he said that 80 percent of them had such dinosaur details and he thought they were jerking him at first but there was too much of it and not enough in the way of a means for them to have gotten together to decide to jerk poor old Vine DeLoria.

He said that the other thing that dawned on him was that the stories he was hearing all seemed to involved moving villages to high ground or building stockades to keep dinosaurs from trampling villages, i.e. practical considerations, and not the sort of thing he'd expect to hear if the stories were made up, which would have sounded more like the Indian hero killing the monster with his spear.

For whatever reason all such dinosaurs in oral traditions appear to have been things like stegosaurs and tricerotops, and sauropods; raptors are not mentioned to my knowledge and I cannot picture humans surviving around raptors without automatic weapons. I'd assume that with very few if any exceptions, the raptors were gone by the time Amerind ancestors arrived on the scene.

The fact that the carvings appear as white lines in a black stone are pretty damning. If the carvings were of any age, they would actually appear darker than the surrounding stone. (The lines would oxidize the way the surrounding stone has, and collect debris, but the surrounding stone would be polished by handling, etc.)

Do you need someone to explain what that paragraph is actually saying? It states that, due to the nature of the material, a scratch on a rock could have been done perhaps hundreds or a thousand years ago, it also could have been done last year.

Desert varnish is a wind action proess with accompanying precip of Fe N oxides. The presence of the desert varnish may indicate several millenia of action, the scratches do not. These two phenom are not contemporaneous.

"Unknown ages of time"? I thought the earth was only 5000 years old!

But wait! If the "unknown ages of time" causes the rock to oxidize, then the "unknown ages of time" would cause the scratches to oxidize as well.

unknown ages of time > Ica stone >= 30 years old. Gotcha.

How silly of you DD. Archbishop James Ussher, the Anglican primate of Ireland in the early 17th century, calculated creation to have occurred on the night before October 23rd, 4004 BC. Sir James Lightfoot refined that calculation to 9:00 a.m., October 3rd, 4004 BC.

Obviously, the earth is a lot older than just 5000 years. Try to keep up, will ya, DD?

What's a millennium between friends?