Talk:Ica stones/Archive 1

Archive 1

One sided

Article seems slightly one-sided. Other sources say that there is a dark varnish in the grooves, seeming to state that they were of ancient origin. Also I read somewhere about the facts of how many people and how much time it would take to hoax all those stones. I might eventually edit this page, but I'm pretty busy. I just thought it should cover both sides of the argument.--216.229.235.67 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I included an edit to this effect, along with sources (which this article could surely use more of), but it was promptly deleted. I re-added it, but I'm not going to take part in a political battle over it if someone is going to enforce one-sidedness. My comments were fair, but if someone else is not going to be, then at least I tried. MXVN (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the sources I was using, because they were not the original scientific magazine articles, weren't good enough, so I'm looking for better sources for these so that thes eissues can be presented. MXVN (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For the point of the spinal ridges, I found the source science report, which will surely be sufficient. For the etching varnish, I found a source which quotes a book published by a PHD, who worked directly with the stones, and quotes the geologist who did the direct study of them. If this isn't also sufficient, I don't know what is. ;)76.83.50.176 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and there has been no extraordinary evidence (effectively no evidence at all, for that matter) presented to back the extraoridnary claims made. Even some corroborating circumstantial evidence would be worth mentioning. "That no one has ever found any other remnant of this great culture [indicated by the stones] should be troublesome, however." (Carrol, http://skepdic.com/icastones.html) Until someone can come up with more than anecdotal testimony from an individual or two (who, not coincidentally keep changing their stories about the origin of the stones) that they are anything but modern-day carvings, I don't see that there is "another side" to present about them. 208.26.45.85 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct, but if the reasons for doubting the stones' ages are to be presented, then it is only fair to mention the couple arguments that could be made for their age, since they are scientifically and historically valid. That doesn't prove that they are old, but it is not actually proven that they are not. MXVN (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people will believe the stupidest bullshit... I dont see any neutrality problem at all, both pro and counter claims are present.

Sagan's oft quoted statement is unscientific and silly: extraordinary claims DO NOT require extraordinary evidence...they merely require evidence. To suggest that ordinary evidence is itself not worthy of supporting one kind of claim but perfectly valid in another (say, a murder trial, for instance, in which even circumstantial evidence is allowed) is to inavlidate the scientific method, which rests on gathered data. It implies that evidence is not indeed evidence. The data need not be extraordinary; if it is merely ordinary, and yet supports the thesis, then it is perfectly valid. Furthermore, who is to decide what constitutes "extraordinary" when we are interpreting data? If, for instance, a double-blind study on ESP reveals that 51 percent of the time, the test-subject are making hits, this is statistically significant, even though it is not a great number of hits beyond chance. So, while ordinary, it is also in a sense extraordinary, because it tends to support the existence of psychic phenomena. I find the entire discussion about the Ica stones to be biased from every angle, and see very little openmindedness, or true scientific investigative curiosity, on display here. All the evidence should be looked at, including the grooves and varnish, as well as the hoaxed data, and comments such as "some people will believe the stupidest ***" should be regarded as childish ill will - just more of the same derision by those who are challenged by concepts that may not yet have been explained by scientific methods, or may be unexplainable using current scientific knowledge. -DP

--Sagan's oft quoted line is absolutely scientific and your argument against it simply displays a singular misunderstanding of science that is oft repeated by fringe believers who seem to think precious time and money should be spent continually investigating ridiculous claims and when this isn't done they charge the scientific community as being unimaginative and closed minded. Ica Stones as an example: Known factual scientific evidence in favor of their being genuine:

None, other than they exist.

Known factual scientific evidence in favor of their being a hoax:

No dinosaur fossils have ever been found after the KT barrier. Conversely, hominids did not exist before this time either(and for long after that time for that matter). No concurrent supporting artistic renditions of dinosaurs in any of the civilizations that developed in Peru. Pre-Columbian engraved stones brought back to Spain do not show anything like dinosaurs or operations or anything unusual. Stone engravings could not survive millions of years in such numbers and all be perfectly intact.

THis assumes, though, that the sediment layers did in fact settle as current theory predicts. While this may be the most likely case, there is actually a great deal of argumant about it, and evidence that confuses us all, such as fossilized trees upside down, crossing many millions of years of strata, impling that they settled by density. Again, these anomalies are not proof, but still interesting. MXVN (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Known circumstances in favor of a hoax:

One man claims to have found all the unusual stones and will not show scientists where he found them, nor will he allow scientists examine to them anymore after one man noted the lines don't display the patina noted on the stone. This man is making lots of money of the tourist and fringe book industry. This man is a physician but makes claims in fields he has no knowledge of. Multiple artists (and the farmer who provided him with his first stones) have stepped forward and stated they made the stones for him with images based on comics, newspapers and books. The dinosaur depictions show dinosaurs standing in postures that have long ago been shown not accurate but fit nicely with the idea that they were taken from old renditions prior to new factual evidence arising. These stones are common folk art in Peruvian markets and none but the good Doctor claim them to be more than than that.

So, looking just at the scientific evidence alone, evidence supported by over a century of research in every field of science, you can see that a singular claim that supposes to defy the fields of geology, archeology, paleontology, anthropology, biology, gentetics, cosmology and many more (tens of thousands of researchers) that all arrive alone and through relation to similar conclusions about out planets history must, by definition be described as an "extraordinary claim". A claim of such magnitude would need a similar amount of corroborating evidence through repeatable tests and supportable predictions which would have to be termed "extraordinary evidence". That's science.

As for your ESP notion, 1% is not statistically significant in any way unless the test group numbered in the many millions. There has never been a scientfically monitored double blind study of ESP that has not fallen under the previously established criteria for statisical significance. Which by the way, must be established prior to testing because it is woefully easy to find statistical significance in any study if data is provided first. That's the first ground rule of statistical studies. That's science. Capeo 16:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Original creator admited it was a hoax. End of story.

Oh please, he was forced to say they were a hoax, otherwise they would have kept him in jail for life. Here is an article about this subject: [ http://s8int.com/dinolit25.html] 71.89.6.90 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Heart Transplant

I used to have a copy of the BBC program -- it showed the stones depicting this, and an illustrated magazine article of a heart transplant that the original creator said he'd used. It was really pretty obvious that the stones were a copy of the article.--Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is actually pretty fascinating. If these were to be compared side-by-side, this would indeed be strong evidence that at least some of the stones were forged, and therefore likely all of them. Then again, I think it is obvious to all that at least *some* of the stones were forged. Whether the originals were or not is still unknown.MXVN (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary Claims....

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" yeah i feel the same way about gods existance and yet billions of people worship him everyday....... Squad'nLeedah 12:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend apologetic "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis for such sceptical minds as your. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.121.100.137 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

That said, I don't see where the neutrality problem is as far as this article is concerned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.128.36.37 (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Citing a book by a famous Christian apologist does not prove the existence of God, let alone any god at all. -JC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.47.7 (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A truth seeker Theses disputes are good and all but for those skeptics out there there is bountiful information that humans and Dinosaurs existed together there were ruins found some time ago in a temple that dates back to the 1300s just to point that out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.154.228 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do tell. I see there are no details we can check. --Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Any information you could present would be appreciated.MXVN (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

just a thought

Some of the stones depict some sauropods with spines coming out of their backs. The presence of flesh spines on diplodicid sauropods was confirmed in the 1990's, yet the stones were first found in the 1960's. From where did the artist get the knowledge of these spines?

Occam's razor: the simpler explanation is that unschooled hoaxers made a mistake in their creation. If you ask American school children to draw dinosaurs, you will get mistakes like this - they haven't read up on the latest findings, they just remember some dinosaurs had spines and some looked like big long necked Sinclair dinos and put them together because it looked cool. I don't intend to belittle the genuine drive to examine phenomenon with an open mind, but that open mind has to work both ways.Smoulder (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your point makes sense, however the stones did have those markings, and interestingly enough they were later shown to be accurate. This may be coincidence, sure, but it did happen, and saying so in the article is relevant, and doesn't necessarily claim to prove the authenticity of the stones. MXVN (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sad. Very very sad.

Their origins have been attacked, to make them worthless, so they could go to collectors. There is plenty of evidence that only someone who saw things from space could have depicted things on these rocks. And I can show you plenty of that evidence. One of the rocks, depicts a man in front of a monster (beast) and you can find that same image, in rock, in Peru, if you are at an elevation, of 40 miles. http://s2.supload.com/free/JungleBoy-10-5-2007-20071005043946.jpg/view/ Better still is the rock which depicts the impact at the south pole of the moon, and since that information is too verbose for this discussion, I will forward you to sci.archeaology to a message for you to read which contains the links and images. http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.archaeology/msg/bd1319f6a84c3557 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick S33555 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

- A skeptic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.250.197 (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

neutrality

The article seems perfectly neutral to me. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia has no need to give extensive space to fringe views, which include the view that the stones are anything but a hoax. Kalkin (talk)

This, again, is opinion. Granted, I would never think that claims to the contrary should be bresented as fact, but if the scientists in the area have a conflicting opinion, stating this as well, in the proper context, is certainly also valid for its reasons of interest.MXVN (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

Copyvio from here:

Source:

In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Basilio Uschuya produced a “genuine” Ica stone with a dentist’s drill and claimed to produce the patina by baking a stone in cow dung. In 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones.

Article:

In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung.[2]

In 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones

Source:

Under Peruvian law, it is illegal to sell archaeological discoveries. Basilio recanted that he had found them and instead claimed that they were hoaxes he and his wife created. He was not punished, and continued to sell the stones to tourists as trinkets. He confirmed that he had forged them during an interview with Erich von Däniken, but recanted that claim during a later interview with a German journalist.

Article:

under Peruvian law it is illegal to sell archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead claimed that they were hoaxes he and his wife had created. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2]

He also confirmed that he had forged them during an interview with Erich von Däniken, but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist.[2]

Kalkin (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Review

- It appears that the work at http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ica-stones/ is actually taken from Wikipedia, not the other way around. The article on cryptomundo says it was "Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 19th, 2007" The Historical version on Wikipedia as edited by 58.108.224.55 at 14:10, 12 August 2007 contained the work prior to the publication at cryptomundo.

Historical August 12, 2007

In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods there was an interview of Basilio Uschuya, who produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to produce the patina by baking a stone in cow dung.

I am removing the copyvio tag from the article. Jeepday (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally I removed the Circular reference to coleman from the article and add a improve references template. Jeepday (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Nice work. Now the article needs a citation more specific than the year for the BBC documentaries, but I don't know where to get one. Kalkin (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Images please.

Pics, or the stones didn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.75.108 (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

suggesting that the engravings are indeed younger than the rocks.

is it just me, or is this a non statment? the engravings cant be YOUNGER than the rocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corhen (talk • contribs) 01:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)