THE CASE OF THE MISSING ELEPHANT

SITCHIN ^ | 2000 FR Post 1-20-03 | ZECHARIA SITCHIN

[Porterville]

Yeah, I was hung over too that day I hung out at the museum in Jalapa. I saw a ton of pink elephants.

[Porterville]

Xalapa

[Swordmaker]

Since you posted it and I was not familiar with the "mud dobber" dating claim, I DID dig for your claimed carbon dating (or any dating at all) of the Ica Stones and found diddly squat from anybody except those "believers" quoting each other. Not ONE scholarly or scientific paper reporting such dating was returned on several searches, including websites that are convinced the stones are genuine.

You made the assertion that these artifacts were ancient and had been scientifically dated by dating an attached "mud-dobber" nest. Now you assert it is "Material imbedded in the carving fissures..." that is the source of the dating. Carbon dating has come a long way in the past 40 years or so, but it still requires more material than could be obtained from the fissures in a scratch in a stone. In addition, I could find NO citations or links to such test.

I assert that they are forgeries. My assertion is backed up by the forgers admitting their forgery, explaining their method AND DEMONSTRATING it to order. The ORIGINAL SOURCE of the very first stone sold to Dr. Javier Cabrera (the "finder") admitted he made it. When the forgers were asked why they forged the stones they said it was easier than farming.

The dating of the French and Basque cave drawings is irrelevant.

The images on the Ica Stones are not "carved" they are scratched, removing the "aged" surface glaze. Then the stones were placed in a chicken yard to be artificially "aged" by "expert" chickens pooping on them.

MHGinTN, I am interested in Cryptoarchaeology and find the arguments that the Olmecs had at least contact with some negroid persons to be compelling, but serious consideration of such claims is DAMAGED by the inclusion of such easily refuted frauds as the Ica Stones. The Olmec controversy is seriously researched by qualified scientists and you can find scholars on both sides as well as peer reviewed articles examining the disputed information. With the Ica Stones, you find, on the stone's are authentic side, gullibility, unscientific claims, spurious reports of non-existant carbon dating, and outlandish theories to explain the anachronistic images... on the other we find the evidence the stones are frauds and all serious scholars and scientists dismiss them as such.

[MHGinTN]

I misled you, Sorry. The mud dauber and cave story relates to the cave paintings in Southern France. The notion of an ancient insect artifact proving the age of the paintings I was trying to relate to the way it is claimed the initial stones were dated ... detritus or coloring imbedded in the crevices that could be dated.

Well, I'm not a serious scholar in the field of your expertise, so I will accept your debunking of these stones and go on. But, darn it, you've shot to heck a fun myth!

[Swordmaker]

No Problem, MGHinTN. You and I have had some fun on other threads... and there is still more fun to be had on others with cryptoarchaeological finds that are not such blatent frauds.

[JackelopeBreeder]

There were still mastodons running around North America 10,000 years ago.