Posted on 12/11/2013 8:10:28 AM PST by fishtank
The Rocks Begin To Speak
The stones give mute testimony to the fact that man walked with dinosaurs. I was certain that in the laboratory, the rocks would break that silence and communicate in the language of scientific assertion, that they are ancient carved canvasses.
I brought three stones to Mason Optical, Inc. for analysis. Mason Optical invented a revolutionary stereoscopic microscope that costs between eighty to one hundred thousand dollars. The three stones included in the study:
A) The fake stone carved by Basilio
B) An Ica stone from Cabrera’s Collection
C) The stone from the tomb in Rio Grande, Nazca
The laboratory results revealed several defining characteristics of the stones:
A) The first stone, under microscopic investigation, showed very shallow incisions with small scratches and chips from the stone. Minute specks of blue metal (steel) were found on the stone. The incisions were clean and angled. There was no patina or film of oxidation on the stone; no microorganisms or salt peter were found on the stone. The laboratory conclusion was that the stone was of recent manufacture. Someone had used a metal blade or tool with short strokes to carve the grooves in the stone. The tool left behind the minute specks of metal that could be seen under the optical microscope. The laboratory’s discovery was consistent with the truth. I had watched Basilio with a four-inch piece of blue steel hacksaw blade making short, hard strokes on the stone.
....
B) The microscopic analysis of the Cabrera rock or Ica Stone revealed that it had a fine patina covering the grooves and incisions of the stone. There was dirt and sand embedded in the crevices of the stone including some of the incisions. The natural oxidation had slightly colored the incisions so that they did not have a bright-white look. No evidence of modern tool usage or minute metal particles were found. The laboratory conclusion was that the engravings on the stone were not recent but of some age. That age could not be determined because patina and natural oxidation cannot be accurately measured. The patina is not an absolute proof of age, but it would be impossible to find patina on a recently engraved stone.
The stone has an outside layer of coloration and weathering. When an incision (cut) is made, it breaks that layer. If the weathering has been scraped away and the stone’s natural color shows at the base of the incision, the cut is probably new. If the incisions have become weathered and the stone’s coloration extends down into the incisions, then the stone’s incisions are at least “old” to some degree.
Any attempt to date the stones is a doomed exercise. The stones themselves are eons old. We can’t date the stones, and we don’t even want to try. We want to date the lines or incisions on the stones. The line we scratch on it today is only as old as—well, today. So the only way to date the scratch is to look for patina, weathering oxidation, microorganisms, lichens or other features indicative of age.
.......
In the American Southwest, archaeologists regularly dig up pottery or other artifacts that show no patina or very little patina. F.G. Hawley, a chemist with years of experience in archaeology wrote, “Many (artifacts) in dry western country show little or no patina after seven or eight hundred years.”
Anyone who has studied Andean archaeology and been involved in excavations in the southern desert of Peru knows that the textiles, pottery, and other artifacts from the tombs are in an astonishing state of preservation. The fact that the Cabrera rock had any patina on it may mean that it is much older than seven or eight hundred years.
C) The third stone from the tomb at Rio Grande, Nazca, was examined under the stereo zoom microscope. This stone had a heavy coat of patination and oxidation. Microorganisms could be seen in the grooves and the incisions. There is a uniformity of coloration and weathering. The incisions and cuts are as dark and weathered as the rest of the stone. There are several thick concentrations of salt peter that are so full of salt buildup that it covers parts of the carving with a white layer obscuring the image below. There are seriations and slight fizzures in the grooves. This could only happen over a considerable period of time with the change of heat and cold through the seasons in the desert. There is a notable irregular wear on the edges of the incisions that leads one to the inescapable conclusion that this stone had undergone considerable wear. Lichen growth was also found on one section of the stone. Dirt and sand were embedded in the grooves, cracks, crevices, and orifices of the stone. There is a dark blackish stain covering the body of one of the dinosaur zoomorph images. The salient conclusion of the laboratory is that the stone is of some age, in fact, of antiquity of hundreds or thousands of years old.
......
The three stones were subjected to a blind test by Richard Sutcliffe who trains others in the use of the ROI video probe. The results were both revealing and conclusive. The fake stone carved by Basilio had grooves that showed up as white under the magnification and lights of the ROI. The surrounding area of the stone was covered with patina. The ROI also picked up the smallest of particles of quartz and pyrite that sparkled when the zoom microscope was at high magnification. The grooves had to be recently cut to break the layer over the quartz and pyrite causing them to shine. The microscope at 25x to 75x caught the telltale signs of cuts made at right angles and minuscule blue metal flakes. There was no evidence of rotary powered tool use.
The second stone from the Cabrera Museum was thoroughly examined. The groove did not appear bright or fresh but dull and slightly gray. This was verification that they were not of recent manufacture. The stone had no pitting or pock marks in the grooves which are the result of saws or rotary powered tools. The stone had an even wear to the grooves except in one area where there was considerable wear. The worn area may have been caused by constant handling before it was buried.
The third stone from the tomb in the Nazca desert had grooves that were dark gray, weathered, cracked, and embedded with salt peter. The salt peter under 75x magnification looked like a growth of algae all over a section of the stone. No doubt this stone had been buried for centuries. There were five patches of lichens growing on the stone. The image of two dinosaurs, a sea creature, and some unknown animal were calculated to be 1/16th of an inch on average above the stone. The figures were done in bas relief. How the stone was carved away to make the figures higher than the stone is a mystery. Richard Sutcliffe, who performed the microscopic probe, is an expert in machine made tools. Richard theorized that the ancient people might have used a tool with a diamond-type bit.
......
By Dr. Dennis Swift – Courtesy of The Dinosaur Institute
http://livingdinos.com/2011/07/are-the-ica-stones-fake-skeptics-under-fire/
full article
If you don’t want to be quoted......shut up!
simple
see post 61
ditto see post 61
We make pictures of dinosaurs, but we do not walk among them.
You left out the part about humans coming from another planet 400 million years ago ...
and we draw what we see, even today
and your proof would be....??
“and your proof would be....??”
The doctor you cited.
errrrrrt wrong again!!
if you want to discredit the guy....
I am waiting.
So where did all the pictures of dinosaurs come from?
So where did all the pictures of dinosaurs come from?
read the articles
I don't need to read the article. I know where those pictures come from. People draw them. People who have never seen a live dinosaur.
yep...the dinosaurs were in existence with early man..and they were not cavemen like the stupid evolutionist brainwash the kids with.
eeeerrrrt, wrong again!!!!!
I bet you see the Emperors clothes.....
I see pictures of dinosaurs. On the net, on the television, in books, magazines, and even newpapers. Pictures of dinosaurs that are drawn by people who have never seen a dinosaur.
drawn by people who have never seen a dinosaur....”
careful, your bias is showing.
You will not accept evidence or truth that falsify your belief system.
I can help you.
What bias? People who have never seen a dinosaur can draw pictures of dinosaurs. Happens all the time. Where is the bias in recognizing that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.