-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Aliens, yay or nay?
- Thread starter Hubbleman
- Start date
Him
Member
Evidence against:
1.) Basilio Uchuya and Irma Gutierrez are two Peruvians who claim to have made the Ica Stones. At one point, Irma claims to have made all the stones.
2.) The Institute of Geological Sciences in London examined one of the stones and confirmed its modern origin.
3.) The original owner of the largest collection of stones, Dr. Javier Cabrera Darquera, was a bit eccentric. He believed that men and dinosaurs did live together, only he believed that they lived together 65 million years ago. He was known to be a propagandist for his stones.
4.) The Nova program, “The Case of the Ancient Astronauts,” proclaimed the stones to be frauds. In this program, Erich Von Daniken presents evidence for what he believes to be ancient alien astronauts. The Nazca Lines are part of the evidence. Dr. Cabrera is also shown with his Ica Stones depicting surgeries and men with telescopes explaining that aliens must have been responsible for this level of technology. After interviewing Dr. Cabrera, the program moves to footage of Basilio Uchuya who claims to have carved the stones, whereupon the program declares them to be frauds.
Evidence for:
1.) There are 15,000 or more of these stones in existence, each of which would have taken some time to carve. One estimate put the total time to carve all the stones at 375,000 working hours. That would be 12 hours a day, seven days a week for about 85 years! Only two modern-day Peruvians, Basilio and Irma, claim to have carved any stones. It seems impossible for them to have had the time to carve all 15,000 stones.
2.) Irma was asked about where she got the stones to make the carvings. She showed the interviewer a couple of small pits in the ground where she had dug out the raw stones. She then proceeded to dig for another stone and removed quite a bit of earth before finding one. She explained that the stones that she carved where about the size of an orange. However, many of the stones are larger and some of them are quite large, about 1,000 pounds. It would be impossible for all of the stones to have come from the small pits.
3.) It is illegal in Peru to sell ancient artifacts. Those caught can be punished by a long, hard jail sentence. If Basilio and Irma had admitted to finding the stones that they sold, they would face prosecution. This would be a strong motive for lying to stay out of jail.
4.) Many of the Ica Stones where found in the early 1960′s when a flooding of the Ica River uncovered a large number of them. Most of the other stones have been found in graves by local farmers, graves robbers, or anthropologists. Some features of dinosaurs were not known to modern science until recently. It wasn’t until 1975 that the Brontosaurus was displayed with the correct skull and renamed Apatosaurus. It also wasn’t until more recently that dinosaur skeletons were displayed with their tails up and heads down when walking. Recent fossil finds also show crests on their heads and ridges on theirs backs. The Ica Stones have the right head on the Apatosaurus, the heads and tails displayed correctly, and head crests and back ridges, even though they predate the modern findings.
5.) Other Peruvian artifacts, e.g. Nazca Lines, pottery, textiles, and figurines, depict dinosaurs as well. The stones have been found together with other artifacts in ancient graves. It is clear that the ancient Peruvians had a fascination with dinosaurs.
6.) There is evidence of men and dinosaurs living together from around the world.
7.) The modern-day forgeries are relatively easy for an experienced person to pick out. Dr. Cabrera knew about the faked carvings and said that he could spot them easily. After contracting with Basilio to make a stone, Dr. Dennis Swift could see obvious differences between his stone and the stones in the museums.
8.) Finally, although some examinations have found carvings of modern origin, other examinations show carvings that are ancient. The examinations that claim the carvings to be of modern origin were probably examinations of the faked stones! These show metal flakes left by hacksaw blades, a bright surface in the grooves, and some artificial aging. Other examinations of the genuine stones have shown none of the distinguishing characteristics of the modern-day forged stones. What they did find was stones that were covered with a layer of patina, or mineralization, both on the surface of the stones and in the grooves. They also found layers of biological varnish produced by algae or bacteria. These same layers of patina and varnish are found on other artifacts found in the area. Some of the carvings were obscured by the thick layers of patina and varnish. It generally takes many hundreds of years to account for this much buildup in the arid environment of Peru.
1.) Basilio Uchuya and Irma Gutierrez are two Peruvians who claim to have made the Ica Stones. At one point, Irma claims to have made all the stones.
2.) The Institute of Geological Sciences in London examined one of the stones and confirmed its modern origin.
3.) The original owner of the largest collection of stones, Dr. Javier Cabrera Darquera, was a bit eccentric. He believed that men and dinosaurs did live together, only he believed that they lived together 65 million years ago. He was known to be a propagandist for his stones.
4.) The Nova program, “The Case of the Ancient Astronauts,” proclaimed the stones to be frauds. In this program, Erich Von Daniken presents evidence for what he believes to be ancient alien astronauts. The Nazca Lines are part of the evidence. Dr. Cabrera is also shown with his Ica Stones depicting surgeries and men with telescopes explaining that aliens must have been responsible for this level of technology. After interviewing Dr. Cabrera, the program moves to footage of Basilio Uchuya who claims to have carved the stones, whereupon the program declares them to be frauds.
Evidence for:
1.) There are 15,000 or more of these stones in existence, each of which would have taken some time to carve. One estimate put the total time to carve all the stones at 375,000 working hours. That would be 12 hours a day, seven days a week for about 85 years! Only two modern-day Peruvians, Basilio and Irma, claim to have carved any stones. It seems impossible for them to have had the time to carve all 15,000 stones.
2.) Irma was asked about where she got the stones to make the carvings. She showed the interviewer a couple of small pits in the ground where she had dug out the raw stones. She then proceeded to dig for another stone and removed quite a bit of earth before finding one. She explained that the stones that she carved where about the size of an orange. However, many of the stones are larger and some of them are quite large, about 1,000 pounds. It would be impossible for all of the stones to have come from the small pits.
3.) It is illegal in Peru to sell ancient artifacts. Those caught can be punished by a long, hard jail sentence. If Basilio and Irma had admitted to finding the stones that they sold, they would face prosecution. This would be a strong motive for lying to stay out of jail.
4.) Many of the Ica Stones where found in the early 1960′s when a flooding of the Ica River uncovered a large number of them. Most of the other stones have been found in graves by local farmers, graves robbers, or anthropologists. Some features of dinosaurs were not known to modern science until recently. It wasn’t until 1975 that the Brontosaurus was displayed with the correct skull and renamed Apatosaurus. It also wasn’t until more recently that dinosaur skeletons were displayed with their tails up and heads down when walking. Recent fossil finds also show crests on their heads and ridges on theirs backs. The Ica Stones have the right head on the Apatosaurus, the heads and tails displayed correctly, and head crests and back ridges, even though they predate the modern findings.
5.) Other Peruvian artifacts, e.g. Nazca Lines, pottery, textiles, and figurines, depict dinosaurs as well. The stones have been found together with other artifacts in ancient graves. It is clear that the ancient Peruvians had a fascination with dinosaurs.
6.) There is evidence of men and dinosaurs living together from around the world.
7.) The modern-day forgeries are relatively easy for an experienced person to pick out. Dr. Cabrera knew about the faked carvings and said that he could spot them easily. After contracting with Basilio to make a stone, Dr. Dennis Swift could see obvious differences between his stone and the stones in the museums.
8.) Finally, although some examinations have found carvings of modern origin, other examinations show carvings that are ancient. The examinations that claim the carvings to be of modern origin were probably examinations of the faked stones! These show metal flakes left by hacksaw blades, a bright surface in the grooves, and some artificial aging. Other examinations of the genuine stones have shown none of the distinguishing characteristics of the modern-day forged stones. What they did find was stones that were covered with a layer of patina, or mineralization, both on the surface of the stones and in the grooves. They also found layers of biological varnish produced by algae or bacteria. These same layers of patina and varnish are found on other artifacts found in the area. Some of the carvings were obscured by the thick layers of patina and varnish. It generally takes many hundreds of years to account for this much buildup in the arid environment of Peru.
Let's review, shall we?
You present a video which I took the time to watch and take notes on as I watched. Then I did some very light detective work for each of the claims. I then referenced the points in the video so anyone else here can find it easily, and then I presented evidence against it.
You reply by cherrypicking a single line from my list of criticisms, then changing the argument to something related (i.e. at 8:40 in the video, Cremo says the fossils were[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"completely MODERN human footprints no different than you or I would leave on a beach today" and then when challenged, you say "they look like footprints, though, right?") [/FONT]and then attacking the related argument as if that answered the question!
When I ask for more of a reply, you say you're done. then you go on to try and present NEW evidence without having even ANSWERED the criticism of the first? No bueno!
Then you post another video?
Why would I bother to watch it?
You present a video which I took the time to watch and take notes on as I watched. Then I did some very light detective work for each of the claims. I then referenced the points in the video so anyone else here can find it easily, and then I presented evidence against it.
You reply by cherrypicking a single line from my list of criticisms, then changing the argument to something related (i.e. at 8:40 in the video, Cremo says the fossils were[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"completely MODERN human footprints no different than you or I would leave on a beach today" and then when challenged, you say "they look like footprints, though, right?") [/FONT]and then attacking the related argument as if that answered the question!
When I ask for more of a reply, you say you're done. then you go on to try and present NEW evidence without having even ANSWERED the criticism of the first? No bueno!
Then you post another video?
Why would I bother to watch it?
lol don't take it so personal man, i do think the foot prints you showed look weird too though. they look like they are built on top of the sand instead of being imprints.
as for the fossilized ones, you do see that several sized feet are walking in the same foot steps, but despite that you do see they have an arch and the toes are not monkey toes, nor do we see knuckle marks.
the rest of your debunking was quite convincing though.
Holy Shit!
I thought those little grey trick or treaters costumes looked pretty damn real...
Ilikecookies
Member
Anyone can see/talk to other life forms, just get together with DeMiTri
But are you just talking to yourself, your subconscious, or are you, as Terence Mckennas followers would have you believe, actually talking to aliens/elves/inter-dimensional spirits.
Last edited:
Ilikecookies
Member
I wish I could answer that for sure, but you see things that you couldn't comprehend in this world, and are told things you were previously unaware of.
The guy who introduced me to it says it's interspatial interdimensional travel, but you gotta do enough to cross over to the other side.
The guy who introduced me to it says it's interspatial interdimensional travel, but you gotta do enough to cross over to the other side.
it's interesting when you see the term 'fact' thrown around, good sounding word that gives credibility to the argument
but when you look at the scientific method, you won't find much too much about facts
you will see 'observations' and the like, which don't quite make the grade of fact
the scientific method provides a way to test theories, it's better at disproving theories than proving them
after a time when a theory has with stood many tests, it gets credibility, and becomes generally accepted
but it can never really be proved, at least not with the scientific method, it is limited in this respect
it's the best we got, but at it's heart it admits we can never be absolutely sure of anything
is this all a dream? a vision? most don't think so, but it can never be completely ruled out
but when you look at the scientific method, you won't find much too much about facts
you will see 'observations' and the like, which don't quite make the grade of fact
the scientific method provides a way to test theories, it's better at disproving theories than proving them
after a time when a theory has with stood many tests, it gets credibility, and becomes generally accepted
but it can never really be proved, at least not with the scientific method, it is limited in this respect
it's the best we got, but at it's heart it admits we can never be absolutely sure of anything
is this all a dream? a vision? most don't think so, but it can never be completely ruled out
Things become facts when our observations marry up with and confirm our ideas. If something demonstrably works, repeatedly, you can call it a fact.
Also, in science, you don't prove theories. You don't even get to call it a theory until you have amassed a lot of evidence. What you are erroneously calling a theory, is actually a hypothesis, it doesn't even get to be called a theory UNTIL you have demonstrated it.
What a scientist calls a theory, and what some creationist who says " Evolution is just a theory" calls a theory are very different things.
Gravity is "Just a theory". When was the last time you dropped something and it floated off into space?
In science, a Theory is the very highest level of certainty an idea can attain. A scientific theory, is as close to a fact as you will ever get.
String Theory for example, does not qualify as a theory, and the physicists who call it that should be ashamed of themselves.
Well it's been a while since I looked into them, but I believe there are some that can only be seen by aerial view (though some can be seen from the hills).
I only asked that because your other statement seemed much more definitive in terms of their origin and meaning than any information I'm aware of.
<3 Tesla
Exactly my point.
You can't separate the perception from the perceiver. You can never completely filter every iota of subjectivity out. The best you can do is science, the well-refined process of observation and agreement. But IMHO there must always be a grain of salt.
<3 Tesla
good point on that, String Theory isn't really testable, at least not at the present time
i think some variants are conceivably testable with outrageous test setups like particle accelerators the size of our solar system(or bigger)
but i agree with your assessment, until there's some plausible way of testing, it really doesn't cut it as theory
B
boho
Um theory is not the highest level an idea can obtain. There are physical laws, such as all of newton's in classic kinetics.
However fact is not something science is about. What it is about is creating demonstrable and repeatable results. Then they try and to develop a framework as to why something is repeatable. This is generally where people again make assertions. There are no facts here, just demonstrable ideas.
To put it another way, if science were full of facts gravity would of been a law. However they know people would call bullshit because there is no way to prove the mechanism that causes it, we only know how it relates to mass of an object. This is where Higgs boson comes in and pretty much flips all we thought about gravity and mass on it's head. The idea of a fact really has no utility in science; it's laws,theories, and statistical probabilities of repeatable results.
However fact is not something science is about. What it is about is creating demonstrable and repeatable results. Then they try and to develop a framework as to why something is repeatable. This is generally where people again make assertions. There are no facts here, just demonstrable ideas.
To put it another way, if science were full of facts gravity would of been a law. However they know people would call bullshit because there is no way to prove the mechanism that causes it, we only know how it relates to mass of an object. This is where Higgs boson comes in and pretty much flips all we thought about gravity and mass on it's head. The idea of a fact really has no utility in science; it's laws,theories, and statistical probabilities of repeatable results.
B
boho
^ This is why relying on science to find ET isn't going to work. Life tends to have very few repeatable signs that a scientists can grab on. They look for chemical signatures. However they are using out Earth as a framework... so at the end of the day you can't really expect the question to be answered by science. In their mind it is answered, and it's probably there is but the likelihood is low.
If you read the quotes I posted you'll see that nobody is disputing that these were made by HOMINID (human ancestors). Nobody is debating that. What we're debating is whether the impressions are IDENTICAL to the impressions MODERN HUMANS would have made. Because the exact claim in that video is that they are identical. I even quoted it and pointed to the point in the video where the claim was made. The video is pointing to these impressions and saying "ah HAH! this is evidence that modern humans have been around 2 million years.
When he says humans were around before the Jurassic is where I started actually guffawing out loud.
But OF COURSE there were pre-human ancestors walking upright 2 million years ago! This is common knowledge in scientific circles.
