Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Fwd: UTube Ica Stone from PI member

Expand Messages
  • Richard Murray
    Hear, hear, I couldn t have said this better and I agree with your views. I had been trying to ignore the arrogance of Stan and others who have poo poed the
    Message 1 of 8 , May 24 6:49 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hear, hear, I couldn't have said this better and I agree with your views.
      I had been trying to ignore the arrogance of Stan and others who have poo poed the stones and their significance not because of the facts but from what they had been"told"??? Man has been on the earth far longer than what is recorded "Epic of Gilgamesh and the Ninevah Number" to start with.
      Lets keep an open mind.
      Murph
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: bigalemc2
      Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 3:11 AM
      Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Fwd: UTube Ica Stone from PI member

      Susan and Stan -

      I am fairly close to Stan on this, but there are some parallels that make me want to keep an open - though doubtful - mind.

      Parallel 1, the Acámbaro Figurines:

      The figurines of Acámbaro in the Mexican state of Guanajuato.  They also have a central figure, in this case, a German ex-patriot hardware store owner, who found the first of the figurines.  Before it was all over, they had uncovered over 22,000 of them according to the curator at the Julsrud Museum who told me about them (Wikipedia claims 32,000).  The central issue of them is that no one has definitively dated them.  Some tests show them to be a few thousand years old, but those are not accepted as valid by science.  Complicating the issue is a direct parallel with the Ica stones:  Julsrud paid 1 peso for each undamaged one found.  Julsrud, after finding the first few, on Cerro del Toro (Bull Hill) hovering over the city's eastern flank, showed a local where they were and dug up some to show him.  After that, Julsrud continued to pay for them, and 22,000 pesos in those days (1944) was a heap of money.  (I tried to find out the average wage in Mexico then, and found no direct clear numbers, only relative figures which suggest that the average Mexican earned about 1/7th of what Americans earned in 1937, and that by 1945 that had declined by 55%.)  So 22,000 pesos (nominally about $3,000US then) was a lot of money.  Consider that in the early 1950s $5,000 a year was considered a very successful salary in the US.  In Mexico at the time a successful wage was about $350US or 2500 pesos.  Farmers in Guanajuato were on the low end of the scale, so figure about 100 pesos a year.  For Julsrud to pay 22,000 pesos then is remarkable.  (And BTW, Julsrud was a close friend of Porfirio Diaz, one of Mexico's most famous presidents, so he was not just some German country bumpkin.)

      Wikipedia has this entered by someone who is obviously a skeptic, some of which I can tell you is patently false:

      Condition of the Figures and the excavation

      According to DiPeso, the surface of the figures was practicallybrand new and they showed no characteristic evidence of having been inthe ground for at least 1500 years. If they were authentic artifacts,they should be scratched and marred from the rocky soil, which ischaracteristic of artifacts found in that area of Mexico.

      [I saw MANY of the figures with scratches.  This statement is completely made up.]

      Also, whileinexperienced people were digging up the artifacts, DiPeso mentionedthat he saw them actually crush through authentic artifacts to reachthe figures, yet none of the figures themselves displayed any marks ofdamage. Other evidence includes fresh manure and fingerprints foundunder the ground, and black fill from other strata which was discoveredin sterile red earth, all of which critics cite as evidence oftampering with the site.

      [These arguments are ludicrous.  The farmers digging for these were not archeologists who would take care to see that no surface debris fell into the trenches they were working in.  Manure, if on the surface, could and would certainly have fallen in.  As to fingerprints, the farmers hands were down there, so of course there would be fingerprints.  If archaeologists were down there one would sooner or later find their fingerprints there, too.]

      The Number of Figures and their Condition

      The sheer number of perfect figures found is cited as evidence for a hoax.Over 32,000 figures were found, and all of them in perfect conditionexcept for a few that were cleanly broken, perhaps to create theillusion of antiquity. If these were authentic antiquities, they wouldnot be preserved with such perfection in such an inhospitableenviron ment. Pottery is almost always uncovered as fragments called sherds;nowhere have 32,000 unblemished ceramics been uncovered with none ofthem in fragments and all of them in perfect condition (cleanly brokenin two does not count as fragments).

      [Nowhere in this account does the author mention that Julsrud's offer to the original farmer was for undamaged figurines, and he had to do this  because the first ones brought to him were broken by the farmer, who didn't understand that finding intact ones was the object.

      The accounts I have read, by Charles Hapgood (friend and fellow professor of Albert Einstein at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies - and you don't get in there by being a gullible fool), who worked with Julsrud, indicate that the figurines were not simply tossed about in their strata, but seemed to have been very carefully interred.  HAPGOOD HIMSELF FOUND FIGURINES IN UNDISTURBED STRATA.]

      The Wikipedia author did a hatchet job on this, as skeptic hit-men do on behalf of "science" from time to time.  He even makes it a point to repeatedly bring up creationists, to paint Julsrud guilty by association.  That is a low blow.

      (Stan, your paean to Carl Sagan on your blog is in honor of one of the true hatchet men of science.  I won't post there how he tried to take down Immanuel Velikovsky in the 1970s.  The scientists assert that the assassination was successful.  I beg to differ, but I won't go into it here.)

      If the Ica stones have been as ill-treated as the Acámbaro figurines, then I would assign as little validity to the hatchet men as to the original evidence.  REMEMBER THAT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOOTING THIS DOWN ARE THE SAME CLASS THAT SHOOTS DOWN THE CARVINGS ALL OVER NORTH AMERICA.  So I would advise one to take their attacks as Swift-boating and make up one's mind for ones self.

      All that said, what is MY take on the Acámbaro figurines?  I simply don't know how to take them.  I have actually held some in my hands, and I have seen the crates upon crates of them.  Julsrud was not a freaking idiot and would not have paid a sizable ransom for them.  Many of them DO show humans and some sort of off-the-wall dinosaur creatures together.  If fakes, the uneducated farmers of the 1940s somehow sure knew a lot about dinosaurs that even the scientists of the 1940s didn't know.  I simply do not know what box to put them in.

      But these stones and figurines are brothers and sisters to carvings and pre-Columbian artifacts we here believe are real.  We should not blow them off casually. 

      Stan, your comment is heard, but I don't always give the scientists the benefit of the doubt.  They have axes to grind (and I don't mean the plural of "axis").  And they discount anything found by ANYBODY that is not them.  To me, they are racists of a sort, with them and their degrees placing them in the clouds, while the stupids live down in the dirt.  I have met far too many VERY smart independent researchers.  Degrees and jobs with universities does not give anyone a monopoly on the use of brains. 

      But there also are some really dumb researchers, too!  And it seems all of them are on TV these days, being ghost busters or UFO busters.  Or maybe on YouTube.

      Stan, if I may suggest:  Don't blow off the Ica stones based on one crappy ill-informed presentation on YouTube/ The Travel Channel or the comments of one Peruvian guy.  I agree with the points you make, but I have seen a few somewhat similar stones here in the U.S. and I give them at least some respect for now.  Go as close to the source as you can before writing them off.  Yeah, that guy was one of the people caretaking the stones, but I don't know that that qualifies him to know enough not to make wrong assertions.  He may be a friend of the family...

      Susan, if I may suggest, be hard headed about new things.  Be open, but make them convince you.  Look for ways they could be overstating or misrepresenting their case.  On this one you may have been a little to easy on them.  I agree with Stan that the video segment was more show that substance and vetted assertions.

      Parallel 2 - The Ica Skulls:

      Something else in Ica:  They have in a museum in Ica the most remarkable dolichocephalic skulls on the planet - extended skulls, REALLY extended skulls.  NOT flattened skulls.  Flattening with boards does not cause craniums to increase in size.  These have cranium volumes up to 80% LARGER than modern man (2500 cc vs 1350 cc).  These guys don't have fore heads, or even five heads (as an old joke goes), but maybe nine heads!

      Fakes?  Not on your life.

      I don't think anyone really has any idea how to classify these.

      And they are not the only ones in the world.  They seem to be found all over, even though they are rare.  (and these don't include Lloyd Pye's 'Star child' skull)

      If anyone is interested, do look these up.  They will have you wondering "WTF?"

      I don't know what they represent, but they are not modern humans.  What or who they were is beyond me at this time.
      Steve

      --- In ancient_waterways_ society@yahoogro ups.com, "Susan" <beldingenglish@ ...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Am trying to catch up on posts from over half a dozen web groups as well
      > as pressing personal correspondence, so only have time to make a brief
      > comment here. The PreColumbian Inscriptions group has been active
      > lately and one post in particula this group might find highly
      > intriguing is a short U-Tube video sent by linguist Rafael Andrés
      > Escriban. I'd heard reference to the Ica Stones, but was unknowledgable
      > of their description, especially those pertaining to medical science,
      > and the stones' almost unfathomable antiquity:
      >
      > http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=TXv2Z6dinSA
      > <http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=TXv2Z6dinSA>
      >

    • Rick Osmon
      There is one degreed archaeologist who has taken an interest in the Ica Stones. He is Dr. Dennis Swift and
      Message 2 of 8 , May 24 8:08 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        There is one degreed archaeologist who has taken an interest in the Ica Stones. He is Dr. Dennis Swift  and he also is a creationist and a minister, hence his interest in stones showing humans and dinosaurs togtether. He has conducted tests on some of the stones and concluded that some are indeed genuine while others are indeed recent products. I've invited him to come on the show and describe his testing methods, etc., so we can draw our own conclusions. So far, he hasn't responded.

        To the best of my ability to search the internet, he is the only person who has conducted any type of laboratory tests on these items. These stones were always controversial. The "death knell" for these things among formal science circles was Erich Von Daniken showing an interest....

        However, the sheer number of them is one damper on the hoax angle.  If the fakes were done with a dentists' drill, there would have to have been a large number of bits worn down in making that many images and a record of the sales of additional bits would exist. Dremel Tools don't necessarily have similar records, however. But, using such rotary tools leaves a distinctive tooling pattern that is easily recognized with a magnifier and no amount of "cooking" with cow manure will erase the tooling marks and still leave the image.

        Any artist who is capable of rendering that many images in such a difficult medium while maintaining both anatomical accuracy and artistically pleasing form  (and some are beautiful art) should consider switching to caricatures at $12 a pop... Dr. Cabrerra was paying pennies for some of these things. What is left out of most of the literature is that he also found several on beach rocks, worn, but still legible. These were not sold or transportable, but they contain equally controversial images and similar style to the more portable ones form the cave.

        Pick a culture: Egypt, Rome, pre-contact Native American, Peruvian Inca, Mayan, Aztec, Sumerian, Israelite,  (the Jesus ostuary box), etc., somebody has faked and sold "relics" attributed to them. That does not preclude the authenticity of other relics, but ot makes us more careful knowing that some fakes exists and some fakers are very clever.

        In my view, although there are, admittedly,  some fakes, the jury is still out on the majority of these things.

        Oz

        --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
        >
        > Susan and Stan -
        >
        > I am fairly close to Stan on this, but there are some parallels that
        > make me want to keep an open - though doubtful - mind.
        >
        > Parallel 1, the Acámbaro Figurines:
        > The figurines of Acámbaro in the Mexican state of Guanajuato. They
        > also have a central figure, in this case, a German ex-patriot hardware
        > store owner, who found the first of the figurines. Before it was all
        > over, they had uncovered over 22,000 of them according to the curator at
        > the Julsrud Museum who told me about them (Wikipedia claims 32,000).
        > The central issue of them is that no one has definitively dated them.
        > Some tests show them to be a few thousand years old, but those are not
        > accepted as valid by science. Complicating the issue is a direct
        > parallel with the Ica stones: Julsrud paid 1 peso for each undamaged
        > one found. Julsrud, after finding the first few, on Cerro del Toro
        > (Bull Hill) hovering over the city's eastern flank, showed a local where
        > they were and dug up some to show him. After that, Julsrud continued to
        > pay for them, and 22,000 pesos in those days (1944) was a heap of money.
        > (I tried to find out the average wage in Mexico then, and found no
        > direct clear numbers, only relative figures which suggest that the
        > average Mexican earned about 1/7th of what Americans earned in 1937, and
        > that by 1945 that had declined by 55%.) So 22,000 pesos (nominally
        > about $3,000US then) was a lot of money. Consider that in the early
        > 1950s $5,000 a year was considered a very successful salary in the US.
        > In Mexico at the time a successful wage was about $350US or 2500 pesos.
        > Farmers in Guanajuato were on the low end of the scale, so figure about
        > 100 pesos a year. For Julsrud to pay 22,000 pesos then is remarkable.
        > (And BTW, Julsrud was a close friend of Porfirio Diaz, one of Mexico's
        > most famous presidents, so he was not just some German country bumpkin.)
        >
        > Wikipedia has this entered by someone who is obviously a skeptic, some
        > of which I can tell you is patently false:
        > Condition of the Figures and the excavation
        > According to DiPeso, the surface of the figures was practicallybrand new
        > and they showed no characteristic evidence of having been inthe ground
        > for at least 1500 years. If they were authentic artifacts,they should be
        > scratched and marred from the rocky soil, which ischaracteristic of
        > artifacts found in that area of Mexico.
        >
        >
        > [I saw MANY of the figures with scratches. This statement is completely
        > made up.]
        >
        >
        > Also, whileinexperienced people were digging up the artifacts, DiPeso
        > mentionedthat he saw them actually crush through authentic artifacts to
        > reachthe figures, yet none of the figures themselves displayed any marks
        > ofdamage. Other evidence includes fresh manure and fingerprints
        > foundunder the ground, and black fill from other strata which was
        > discoveredin sterile red earth, all of which critics cite as evidence
        > oftampering with the site.
        >
        > [These arguments are ludicrous. The farmers digging for these were not
        > archeologists who would take care to see that no surface debris fell
        > into the trenches they were working in. Manure, if on the surface,
        > could and would certainly have fallen in. As to fingerprints, the
        > farmers hands were down there, so of course there would be fingerprints.
        > If archaeologists were down there one would sooner or later find their
        > fingerprints there, too.]
        >
        >
        >
        > The Number of Figures and their Condition
        > The sheer number of perfect figures found is cited as evidence for a
        > hoax.Over 32,000 figures were found, and all of them in perfect
        > conditionexcept for a few that were cleanly broken, perhaps to create
        > theillusion of antiquity. If these were authentic antiquities, they
        > wouldnot be preserved with such perfection in such an
        > inhospitableenvironment. Pottery is almost always uncovered as fragments
        > called sherds;nowhere have 32,000 unblemished ceramics been uncovered
        > with none ofthem in fragments and all of them in perfect condition
        > (cleanly brokenin two does not count as fragments).
        >
        > [Nowhere in this account does the author mention that Julsrud's offer to
        > the original farmer was for undamaged figurines, and he had to do this
        > because the first ones brought to him were broken by the farmer, who
        > didn't understand that finding intact ones was the object.
        >
        > The accounts I have read, by Charles Hapgood (friend and fellow
        > professor of Albert Einstein at Princeton's Institute for Advanced
        > Studies - and you don't get in there by being a gullible fool), who
        > worked with Julsrud, indicate that the figurines were not simply tossed
        > about in their strata, but seemed to have been very carefully interred.
        > HAPGOOD HIMSELF FOUND FIGURINES IN UNDISTURBED STRATA.]
        >
        > The Wikipedia author did a hatchet job on this, as skeptic hit-men do on
        > behalf of "science" from time to time. He even makes it a point to
        > repeatedly bring up creationists, to paint Julsrud guilty by
        > association. That is a low blow.
        >
        >
        > (Stan, your paean to Carl Sagan on your blog is in honor of one of the
        > true hatchet men of science. I won't post there how he tried to take
        > down Immanuel Velikovsky in the 1970s. The scientists assert that the
        > assassination was successful. I beg to differ, but I won't go into it
        > here.)
        >
        > If the Ica stones have been as ill-treated as the Acámbaro figurines,
        > then I would assign as little validity to the hatchet men as to the
        > original evidence. REMEMBER THAT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOOTING THIS
        > DOWN ARE THE SAME CLASS THAT SHOOTS DOWN THE CARVINGS ALL OVER NORTH
        > AMERICA. So I would advise one to take their attacks as Swift-boating
        > and make up one's mind for ones self.
        >
        >
        > All that said, what is MY take on the Acámbaro figurines? I simply
        > don't know how to take them. I have actually held some in my hands, and
        > I have seen the crates upon crates of them. Julsrud was not a freaking
        > idiot and would not have paid a sizable ransom for them. Many of them
        > DO show humans and some sort of off-the-wall dinosaur creatures
        > together. If fakes, the uneducated farmers of the 1940s somehow sure
        > knew a lot about dinosaurs that even the scientists of the 1940s didn't
        > know. I simply do not know what box to put them in.
        > But these stones and figurines are brothers and sisters to carvings and
        > pre-Columbian artifacts we here believe are real. We should not blow
        > them off casually.
        >
        > Stan, your comment is heard, but I don't always give the scientists the
        > benefit of the doubt. They have axes to grind (and I don't mean the
        > plural of "axis"). And they discount anything found by ANYBODY that is
        > not them. To me, they are racists of a sort, with them and their
        > degrees placing them in the clouds, while the stupids live down in the
        > dirt. I have met far too many VERY smart independent researchers.
        > Degrees and jobs with universities does not give anyone a monopoly on
        > the use of brains.
        >
        > But there also are some really dumb researchers, too! And it seems all
        > of them are on TV these days, being ghost busters or UFO busters. Or
        > maybe on YouTube.
        >
        > Stan, if I may suggest: Don't blow off the Ica stones based on one
        > crappy ill-informed presentation on YouTube/ The Travel Channel or the
        > comments of one Peruvian guy. I agree with the points you make, but I
        > have seen a few somewhat similar stones here in the U.S. and I give them
        > at least some respect for now. Go as close to the source as you can
        > before writing them off. Yeah, that guy was one of the people
        > caretaking the stones, but I don't know that that qualifies him to know
        > enough not to make wrong assertions. He may be a friend of the
        > family...
        >
        > Susan, if I may suggest, be hard headed about new things. Be open, but
        > make them convince you. Look for ways they could be overstating or
        > misrepresenting their case. On this one you may have been a little to
        > easy on them. I agree with Stan that the video segment was more show
        > that substance and vetted assertions.
        >
        >
        > Parallel 2 - The Ica Skulls:
        >
        > Something else in Ica: They have in a museum in Ica the most remarkable
        > dolichocephalic skulls on the planet - extended skulls, REALLY extended
        > skulls. NOT flattened skulls. Flattening with boards does not cause
        > craniums to increase in size. These have cranium volumes up to 80%
        > LARGER than modern man (2500 cc vs 1350 cc). These guys don't have fore
        > heads, or even five heads (as an old joke goes), but maybe nine heads!
        >
        > Fakes? Not on your life.
        >
        > I don't think anyone really has any idea how to classify these.
        >
        > And they are not the only ones in the world. They seem to be found all
        > over, even though they are rare. (and these don't include Lloyd Pye's
        > 'Star child' skull)
        >
        > If anyone is interested, do look these up. They will have you wondering
        > "WTF?"
        >
        > I don't know what they represent, but they are not modern humans. What
        > or who they were is beyond me at this time.
        > Steve
        >
        > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"
        > beldingenglish@ wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > Am trying to catch up on posts from over half a dozen web groups as
        > well
        > > as pressing personal correspondence, so only have time to make a
        > brief
        > > comment here. The PreColumbian Inscriptions group has been active
        > > lately and one post in particula this group might find highly
        > > intriguing is a short U-Tube video sent by linguist Rafael Andrés
        > > Escriban. I'd heard reference to the Ica Stones, but was
        > unknowledgable
        > > of their description, especially those pertaining to medical science,
        > > and the stones' almost unfathomable antiquity:
        > >
        > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXv2Z6dinSA
        > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXv2Z6dinSA>
        > >
        >
      • Rick Osmon
        A possible correction: Dr. Swift s letters may be in theology, not archeology. This is from a strong skeptic, Dr. Stephen Meyers,
        Message 3 of 8 , May 24 9:18 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          A possible correction:  Dr. Swift's "letters" may be in theology, not archeology. This is from a strong skeptic, Dr. Stephen Meyers,  who also claims that all the images show evidence of having had hack saw used on them, that some were faked by Basilio Uschuya using dental drills (both his statements can't be right) and that Dr. Swift knows he is promoting fakes as real.

          Stay tuned....

          --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Osmon" <ozman@...> wrote:
          >
          > There is one degreed archaeologist who has taken an interest in the Ica
          > Stones. He is Dr. Dennis Swift
          > <http://www.creationism.org/swift/Nazca/index.htm> and he also is a
          > creationist and a minister, hence his interest in stones showing humans
          > and dinosaurs togtether. He has conducted tests on some of the stones
          > and concluded that some are indeed genuine while others are indeed
          > recent products. I've invited him to come on the show and describe his
          > testing methods, etc., so we can draw our own conclusions. So far, he
          > hasn't responded.
          >
          > To the best of my ability to search the internet, he is the only person
          > who has conducted any type of laboratory tests on these items. These
          > stones were always controversial. The "death knell" for these things
          > among formal science circles was Erich Von Daniken showing an
          > interest....
          >
          > However, the sheer number of them is one damper on the hoax angle. If
          > the fakes were done with a dentists' drill, there would have to have
          > been a large number of bits worn down in making that many images and a
          > record of the sales of additional bits would exist. Dremel Tools don't
          > necessarily have similar records, however. But, using such rotary tools
          > leaves a distinctive tooling pattern that is easily recognized with a
          > magnifier and no amount of "cooking" with cow manure will erase the
          > tooling marks and still leave the image.
          >
          > Any artist who is capable of rendering that many images in such a
          > difficult medium while maintaining both anatomical accuracy and
          > artistically pleasing form (and some are beautiful art) should consider
          > switching to caricatures at $12 a pop... Dr. Cabrerra was paying pennies
          > for some of these things. What is left out of most of the literature is
          > that he also found several on beach rocks, worn, but still legible.
          > These were not sold or transportable, but they contain equally
          > controversial images and similar style to the more portable ones form
          > the cave.
          >
          > Pick a culture: Egypt, Rome, pre-contact Native American, Peruvian Inca,
          > Mayan, Aztec, Sumerian, Israelite, (the Jesus ostuary box), etc.,
          > somebody has faked and sold "relics" attributed to them. That does not
          > preclude the authenticity of other relics, but ot makes us more careful
          > knowing that some fakes exists and some fakers are very clever.
          >
          > In my view, although there are, admittedly, some fakes, the jury is
          > still out on the majority of these things.
          >
          > Oz
          >
          > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
          > puppet@ wrote:
          > >
          > > Susan and Stan -
          > >
          > > I am fairly close to Stan on this, but there are some parallels that
          > > make me want to keep an open - though doubtful - mind.
          > >
          > > Parallel 1, the Acámbaro Figurines:
          > > The figurines of Acámbaro in the Mexican state of Guanajuato. They
          > > also have a central figure, in this case, a German ex-patriot hardware
          > > store owner, who found the first of the figurines. Before it was all
          > > over, they had uncovered over 22,000 of them according to the curator
          > at
          > > the Julsrud Museum who told me about them (Wikipedia claims 32,000).
          > > The central issue of them is that no one has definitively dated them.
          > > Some tests show them to be a few thousand years old, but those are not
          > > accepted as valid by science. Complicating the issue is a direct
          > > parallel with the Ica stones: Julsrud paid 1 peso for each undamaged
          > > one found. Julsrud, after finding the first few, on Cerro del Toro
          > > (Bull Hill) hovering over the city's eastern flank, showed a local
          > where
          > > they were and dug up some to show him. After that, Julsrud continued
          > to
          > > pay for them, and 22,000 pesos in those days (1944) was a heap of
          > money.
          > > (I tried to find out the average wage in Mexico then, and found no
          > > direct clear numbers, only relative figures which suggest that the
          > > average Mexican earned about 1/7th of what Americans earned in 1937,
          > and
          > > that by 1945 that had declined by 55%.) So 22,000 pesos (nominally
          > > about $3,000US then) was a lot of money. Consider that in the early
          > > 1950s $5,000 a year was considered a very successful salary in the US.
          > > In Mexico at the time a successful wage was about $350US or 2500
          > pesos.
          > > Farmers in Guanajuato were on the low end of the scale, so figure
          > about
          > > 100 pesos a year. For Julsrud to pay 22,000 pesos then is remarkable.
          > > (And BTW, Julsrud was a close friend of Porfirio Diaz, one of Mexico's
          > > most famous presidents, so he was not just some German country
          > bumpkin.)
          > >
          > > Wikipedia has this entered by someone who is obviously a skeptic, some
          > > of which I can tell you is patently false:
          > > Condition of the Figures and the excavation
          > > According to DiPeso, the surface of the figures was practicallybrand
          > new
          > > and they showed no characteristic evidence of having been inthe ground
          > > for at least 1500 years. If they were authentic artifacts,they should
          > be
          > > scratched and marred from the rocky soil, which ischaracteristic of
          > > artifacts found in that area of Mexico.
          > >
          > >
          > > [I saw MANY of the figures with scratches. This statement is
          > completely
          > > made up.]
          > >
          > >
          > > Also, whileinexperienced people were digging up the artifacts, DiPeso
          > > mentionedthat he saw them actually crush through authentic artifacts
          > to
          > > reachthe figures, yet none of the figures themselves displayed any
          > marks
          > > ofdamage. Other evidence includes fresh manure and fingerprints
          > > foundunder the ground, and black fill from other strata which was
          > > discoveredin sterile red earth, all of which critics cite as evidence
          > > oftampering with the site.
          > >
          > > [These arguments are ludicrous. The farmers digging for these were
          > not
          > > archeologists who would take care to see that no surface debris fell
          > > into the trenches they were working in. Manure, if on the surface,
          > > could and would certainly have fallen in. As to fingerprints, the
          > > farmers hands were down there, so of course there would be
          > fingerprints.
          > > If archaeologists were down there one would sooner or later find their
          > > fingerprints there, too.]
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > The Number of Figures and their Condition
          > > The sheer number of perfect figures found is cited as evidence for a
          > > hoax.Over 32,000 figures were found, and all of them in perfect
          > > conditionexcept for a few that were cleanly broken, perhaps to create
          > > theillusion of antiquity. If these were authentic antiquities, they
          > > wouldnot be preserved with such perfection in such an
          > > inhospitableenvironment. Pottery is almost always uncovered as
          > fragments
          > > called sherds;nowhere have 32,000 unblemished ceramics been uncovered
          > > with none ofthem in fragments and all of them in perfect condition
          > > (cleanly brokenin two does not count as fragments).
          > >
          > > [Nowhere in this account does the author mention that Julsrud's offer
          > to
          > > the original farmer was for undamaged figurines, and he had to do this
          > > because the first ones brought to him were broken by the farmer, who
          > > didn't understand that finding intact ones was the object.
          > >
          > > The accounts I have read, by Charles Hapgood (friend and fellow
          > > professor of Albert Einstein at Princeton's Institute for Advanced
          > > Studies - and you don't get in there by being a gullible fool), who
          > > worked with Julsrud, indicate that the figurines were not simply
          > tossed
          > > about in their strata, but seemed to have been very carefully
          > interred.
          > > HAPGOOD HIMSELF FOUND FIGURINES IN UNDISTURBED STRATA.]
          > >
          > > The Wikipedia author did a hatchet job on this, as skeptic hit-men do
          > on
          > > behalf of "science" from time to time. He even makes it a point to
          > > repeatedly bring up creationists, to paint Julsrud guilty by
          > > association. That is a low blow.
          > >
          > >
          > > (Stan, your paean to Carl Sagan on your blog is in honor of one of the
          > > true hatchet men of science. I won't post there how he tried to take
          > > down Immanuel Velikovsky in the 1970s. The scientists assert that the
          > > assassination was successful. I beg to differ, but I won't go into it
          > > here.)
          > >
          > > If the Ica stones have been as ill-treated as the Acámbaro
          > figurines,
          > > then I would assign as little validity to the hatchet men as to the
          > > original evidence. REMEMBER THAT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOOTING
          > THIS
          > > DOWN ARE THE SAME CLASS THAT SHOOTS DOWN THE CARVINGS ALL OVER NORTH
          > > AMERICA. So I would advise one to take their attacks as Swift-boating
          > > and make up one's mind for ones self.
          > >
          > >
          > > All that said, what is MY take on the Acámbaro figurines? I simply
          > > don't know how to take them. I have actually held some in my hands,
          > and
          > > I have seen the crates upon crates of them. Julsrud was not a
          > freaking
          > > idiot and would not have paid a sizable ransom for them. Many of them
          > > DO show humans and some sort of off-the-wall dinosaur creatures
          > > together. If fakes, the uneducated farmers of the 1940s somehow sure
          > > knew a lot about dinosaurs that even the scientists of the 1940s
          > didn't
          > > know. I simply do not know what box to put them in.
          > > But these stones and figurines are brothers and sisters to carvings
          > and
          > > pre-Columbian artifacts we here believe are real. We should not blow
          > > them off casually.
          > >
          > > Stan, your comment is heard, but I don't always give the scientists
          > the
          > > benefit of the doubt. They have axes to grind (and I don't mean the
          > > plural of "axis"). And they discount anything found by ANYBODY that
          > is
          > > not them. To me, they are racists of a sort, with them and their
          > > degrees placing them in the clouds, while the stupids live down in the
          > > dirt. I have met far too many VERY smart independent researchers.
          > > Degrees and jobs with universities does not give anyone a monopoly on
          > > the use of brains.
          > >
          > > But there also are some really dumb researchers, too! And it seems
          > all
          > > of them are on TV these days, being ghost busters or UFO busters. Or
          > > maybe on YouTube.
          > >
          > > Stan, if I may suggest: Don't blow off the Ica stones based on one
          > > crappy ill-informed presentation on YouTube/ The Travel Channel or the
          > > comments of one Peruvian guy. I agree with the points you make, but I
          > > have seen a few somewhat similar stones here in the U.S. and I give
          > them
          > > at least some respect for now. Go as close to the source as you can
          > > before writing them off. Yeah, that guy was one of the people
          > > caretaking the stones, but I don't know that that qualifies him to
          > know
          > > enough not to make wrong assertions. He may be a friend of the
          > > family...
          > >
          > > Susan, if I may suggest, be hard headed about new things. Be open,
          > but
          > > make them convince you. Look for ways they could be overstating or
          > > misrepresenting their case. On this one you may have been a little to
          > > easy on them. I agree with Stan that the video segment was more show
          > > that substance and vetted assertions.
          > >
          > >
          > > Parallel 2 - The Ica Skulls:
          > >
          > > Something else in Ica: They have in a museum in Ica the most
          > remarkable
          > > dolichocephalic skulls on the planet - extended skulls, REALLY
          > extended
          > > skulls. NOT flattened skulls. Flattening with boards does not cause
          > > craniums to increase in size. These have cranium volumes up to 80%
          > > LARGER than modern man (2500 cc vs 1350 cc). These guys don't have
          > fore
          > > heads, or even five heads (as an old joke goes), but maybe nine heads!
          > >
          > > Fakes? Not on your life.
          > >
          > > I don't think anyone really has any idea how to classify these.
          > >
          > > And they are not the only ones in the world. They seem to be found
          > all
          > > over, even though they are rare. (and these don't include Lloyd Pye's
          > > 'Star child' skull)
          > >
          > > If anyone is interested, do look these up. They will have you
          > wondering
          > > "WTF?"
          > >
          > > I don't know what they represent, but they are not modern humans.
          > What
          > > or who they were is beyond me at this time.
          > > Steve
          > >
          > > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"
          > > beldingenglish@ wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Am trying to catch up on posts from over half a dozen web groups as
          > > well
          > > > as pressing personal correspondence, so only have time to make a
          > > brief
          > > > comment here. The PreColumbian Inscriptions group has been active
          > > > lately and one post in particula this group might find highly
          > > > intriguing is a short U-Tube video sent by linguist Rafael
          > Andrés
          > > > Escriban. I'd heard reference to the Ica Stones, but was
          > > unknowledgable
          > > > of their description, especially those pertaining to medical
          > science,
          > > > and the stones' almost unfathomable antiquity:
          > > >
          > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXv2Z6dinSA
          > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXv2Z6dinSA>
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • Vincent Barrows
          Stan; Engraved stones can be looked at under a microscope to determine if they were made with modern tools, the styles of the engravings can be compared, they
          Message 4 of 8 , May 24 8:54 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Stan;
            Engraved stones can be looked at under a microscope to determine if they were made with modern tools, the styles of the engravings can be compared, they can be measured, weighed, composition can be determined. Beyond that, comparison of symbolism can be made with other forms that are known from around the world Tribal customs can be investigated to determine what sort of treatment that engraved stones would have received. Immediate Tabloid-style Opinions have little scientific validity. We need to be aware that just by repeating what he said or what she said is not moving forward in determining scientific evidence.
            Independently verifiable facts about the Ica stones:
            • A shallow engraving style on pebbles and sandstone is common to many forms of ancient tribal art (Schuster, Social Symbolism of Tribal Art)
            • Crosshatching and squared hatching symbols are seen throughout the ancient world including at Cahokia on stones.
            • Engravings of concentric circles are seen in Spiro Mounds shell engravings, as well as other shell gorgets from Moundville..(Hero Hawk and Open Hand)
            • The Bow and arrow motif is seen on Ohio artifacts as well as Iowa catlinite engravings.
            • Appendix 3 on my website located below shows numerous accounts of aboriginal customs with engraved stones, located here: http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound
            • Fossil legends of the First Americans is an excellent study by Adrienne Mayor that relates directly to tribal legends of dinosaurs as well as similar subjects.
            Vince


            minnesotastan <minnesotastan@...> wrote:
            Susan -

            I watched the YouTube video re the Ica stones, and I was
            thoroughly.. .underwhelmed. My doubts started with the
            oft-repeated- in-the-fringe- literature claim that man coexisted with
            the dinosaurs. I gave up after hearing the assertion that the blood
            of a pregnant woman could be transfused into a heart transplant
            recipient to immunosuppress the recipient the way the fetus is
            immunosuppressed against the mother's antigens. Then the program
            cites "proof" of antiquity by saying the stones have been dated to
            99,000 years ago. Stones cannot be dated like that, and no matter
            what date is claimed for a stone, that doesn't establish the date of
            the scratchings on the surface of the stone.

            The problem apparently started when a local doctor started paying
            local people $$$ for carved stones. Not surprisingly the locals
            "discovered" 15,000 of these stones over the next 35 years.

            Here's the Wiki conclusion -

            "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.[citation needed]

            In 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical
            analysis of the stones and the newfound attention to the phenomenon
            prompted the authorities of Peru to arrest Basilio Uschuya, as 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.[citation needed]

            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.[ citation needed]"

            Enough already. Next topic please.

            Glad to hear the U.P. meeting went well. Perhaps some of the
            participants could post abstracts or summaries in the "files" section
            of the AWS. Or a photo or two.

            Best wishes,

            Stan


          • Vincent Barrows
            Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. - Martin Luther King Jr. Hidden
            Message 5 of 8 , May 28 5:37 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              "Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the
              original American, the Indian, was an inferior race."
              - Martin Luther King Jr.
              Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust
              The untold story of the genocide of Aboriginal peoples in Canada
              http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org/
              Sign the petition against Aboriginal genocide in Canada:
              http://www.petitiononline.com/watergod/petition-sign.html

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.