Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did Humans And Dinosaurs Co-exist? (Icca Stones)

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


There are probably actually rhino carvings at that temple but this isn't one of them. I can't find a site with photos of all of the carvings though, apparently there is a ton of them all over.

Also notice how the "plates on the back" of the animal in question are shaped just like the peculiar shape that we find on the stegosaurus fossils? In the same order and fashion and everything. It's a perfect match.

Plus, get this :
Both the American and Asian sites reveal stegosaurus had it's "tail spikes" on it's head, not it's tail.
I find that the most surprising of all, and compelling. It really sets this mystery on fire.
edit on 11-4-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


After looking at a stegosaurus complete fossil, and looking at the carving again I really see a minimal resemblance. The only thing are the "plates" above it but I'm not even sure if that is supposed to be part of the animal or if it is artistic interpretation of something around it, as in the water buffalo picture.




Notice the head, the direction of the next in the above picture. Also the stubby legs in the front.

Even this looks closer.

But I'm not sure either way. I wouldn't want to give a definitive answer on the Cambodian carving besides the fact that I haven't found much information.

Another question comes up tho, if they were carving all these different animals at the temple, why did we end up with just one dinosaur. There are multiple, multiple species of dinosaurs and different animals that were around during their existence. But we get a Stegosaurus, a swan and a water buffalo?





posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 

I think it's interesting how strange looking the Humanoids are and their size compared to the dinosaurs. Are these weird creatures the Giants of old? Are they the builders of the pyramids, working along with man?.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


You'd think if there were Stegosauruses walking around there'd be considerably more depictions (and detailed ones at that) than one stone carving



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Dinosaurs did not die simply from the collision of the asteroid. There was a lot of changes. The climate, the oxygen ration in the atmosphere, flowers became common also it is certain that not all dinosaurs died but some survived that is why we have birds, crocodiles, lizards and turtles...

Being big has costs . There are even animals alive today that predate the dinosaurs the Coelacanth, the Nautilus and probably a very large number of insects...

Note that even before man there was a time that mega-fauna would have predated any surviving population large reptiles...
edit on 12-4-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
If we rode around on the backs of dinosaurs and used them to build things like the pyramid and their potential to use them as prehistoric tanks. Do you think man would have let such valuable animals go extinct?

I hear plenty saying they do not trust modern science but I am beginning to see why we need it so much if even one post here supporting our association with dinosaurs is at all serious.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by boncho
 


You'd think if there were Stegosauruses walking around there'd be considerably more depictions (and detailed ones at that) than one stone carving


Well that's because there was only ever one Stegosaurus. His name was Wally.




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
If you go to Ica, Peru, you can buy these type of "original pre-incan" type of stones EVERYWHERE. They are easily made and pushed on gullible tourists all the time.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
In 1842, Sir Richard Owen, an English paleontologist coined the term Dinosaur, aka "Terrible Lizzard". So the term dinosaur is really not that old. It is intresting to note that before the term dinosaur was used, these "Terrible Lizzards" were known as DRAGONS!!!
Marco Polo reported an account of dragons being used to pull the chariot of the Emperor of China. Intresting.

Marco Polo reported in 1271 that on special occasions the royal chariot was pulled by dragons and in 1611 the emperor appointed the post of a “Royal Dragon Feeder.” Books even tell of Chinese families raising dragons to use their blood for medicines and highly prizing their eggs.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Siberbat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


You see the knife that the men are holding in the stabbing position in those pics? Maybe Dino meat was really good tasting to those giant humanoids.
I'm distantly related to Big Louie. Can you tell?
edit on 12-4-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Do you seriously believe that there is a concerted, organized effort by all Historical Geologists and Archeologists to fabricate a hoax that dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago? Because that's exactly what you're suggesting. If what you say is correct then it would mean that every single Archeologist in the world would have to be in on the BIG secret.


That's the thing, I DON'T BELIEVE anyone.
I want to find out the truth of reality.

But hey, you are entitled to believe in your fantasy of pretending to know what happened 60 million years ago because some people told you it must be true.

However due to the preponderance of controversy and contradictory information, truth seekers such as myself are forced to admit that it is unresolved and that the exact truth eludes us currently.

Anything is possible, the only hard part is determining which possibility actually happened.
I try very hard to make sure I don't start believing in dogmatic doctrines whether they wear the guise of a religion or a scientist.

Don't rush into the fray in an impetuous mistake, temper your zeal. Hold the line, remain steadfast and wait for the pieces to fall in their place but be ready for whatever random eventuality may arise.


Oh Please... you're accusing me of rushing into the fray? That's too damn funny. Some stones were found with pictures of dinosaurs on them... certainly this means that all of those archeologists are shysters. Damn that's too effin funny.

It's not a fantasy... but while we're on the subject. You seem more than overly zealous to allow a few stones with pictures etched into them to over turn literally thousands of Archeologists and hundreds of years of research.

I'm done with you and this ridiculous thread... you don't have the sense God gave a horse... and that ain't much.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
As i see it, we're left with 3 possibilities:
1. a human civilization existed during the age of the dinosaurs
2. dinosaurs survived to coexist with man
3. the stones are an elaborate hoax.


What about the possibility that they had knowledge about the dinosaurs based on their own discovery of fossils, or another civilization's knowledge of them passed down from their discoveries? We certainly aren't the first intelligent sentient culture to walk the earth. But do you really think that after seeing a skeleton of a stegosaurus, it would be hard to imagine what the creature might look like? You aren't giving people enough credit. If we can make depictions on what they look like today, the same could have easily happened prior to that. Surely cutting away all of the granite in Egypt to make pyramids and cutting out deep stone caves in South America, one of these cultures had to have found fossils.

The way I see it, humans could not possibly have existed any where near 65,000,000 BC. Everything we know about biology and geology counters that notion. Not once, EVER has a dinosaur been found in the same fossil layer as a hominid or vice versa. If they actually walked the earth together and coexisted with humans riding them, etc, we'd expect to find those, but not a single one has been found. It may be possible a few species of dinosaur survived over the years, but if so they've been extremely rare and live hidden off from the rest of the world and human society. It's a possibility, but so far there's no evidence. Huge creatures leave huge evidence. Are we supposed to believe everything that's ever carved into a stone as real absolute truth? If so, then tons of hybrid creatures roamed the earth during ancient Egypt. I just don't see any justification in believing this, even if the stones were authentic from 2000+ years ago.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Sorry I just realized where our misunderstanding came from. Yes I was talking about the Acambaro finds in that post a page back somewhere.

It seems that since the OP linked to some montage of mixed pics from different finds (along with the Peru stones).

In relation to the Peru stones I don't know much other than the claim of a varnish and I haven't seen if they separated the fakes from the real ones yet.

But the Acambaro find, the Cambodian temple etchings, and the human over dino footprint in the riverbed appear to be pretty legit as far as I can tell. I have actually been to the river where the footprints were found, and there is a state historical marker there talking about it near the site.

Even without the Icca stones we have many examples to examine. On Google apparently there are all sorts of cave drawings and such that are interpreted along these lines.

Plus the interesting correlation between worldwide legends of "dragons" and "dinosaurs". Before the word "dinosaur" came into existence 150years ago, "dragon" was far more commonplace as the word of choice. And it actually would explain where the legends originated from as well.

The problem here between the two possible hypothesis of dinosaur history, is that both of them appear to be reasonable explanations. The 'recent dino extinction hypothesis' is very attractive because it matches up with many aspects of history very well and there are various minute details that really make you step back and think twice about everything you thought you knew.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

What about the possibility that they had knowledge about the dinosaurs based on their own discovery of fossils, or another civilization's knowledge of them passed down from their discoveries? We certainly aren't the first intelligent sentient culture to walk the earth.


That is a very reasonable possible explanation.

However we do have some issues. It doesn't explain how we have reports/claims of sightings of beasts such as Nessie, Champ, Mokele Mbembe, etc etc.

However the "recent extinction hypothesis" perfectly explains these 'cryptozoological reports' in a very logical manner.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
In 1842, Sir Richard Owen, an English paleontologist coined the term Dinosaur, aka "Terrible Lizzard". So the term dinosaur is really not that old. It is intresting to note that before the term dinosaur was used, these "Terrible Lizzards" were known as DRAGONS!!!
Marco Polo reported an account of dragons being used to pull the chariot of the Emperor of China. Intresting.

Marco Polo reported in 1271 that on special occasions the royal chariot was pulled by dragons and in 1611 the emperor appointed the post of a “Royal Dragon Feeder.” Books even tell of Chinese families raising dragons to use their blood for medicines and highly prizing their eggs.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Siberbat because: (no reason given)


Wow that's really interesting, thanks for the info.
Never heard about the Marco Polo reports.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Why is it that the only source of that paragraph is creationist sites?
edit on 12-4-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I'm leaning towards hoax on this one and I will explain why:

The T-Rex (I assume it is a T rex by the shape of the head) is shown in an anthropomorphic stance; it is standing like a human being on two legs and using the tail for balance on the ground. This posture, when depicted in modern times, was shown to be inaccurate and that the T Rex's body was closer to parallel to the ground rather than nearly perpendicular to it.

Why then, if these stones depict first hand observations of the animals, do they utilize the incorrect anthropomorphic T Rex stance rather than depicting the way the animals actually stood?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by muzzleflash


Oh I conclude it's a hoax but it needs more research to put it to rest?
Why would we bother researching it anymore if it's so obviously a hoax?

It's a contradiction. Either it requires more investigation to fully verify either possibility, or it's concluded. You cannot conclude the investigation yet allude to a need for further investigation.

 


By the evidence provided. The dig site was hidden, having access to it would provide evidence that should be conclusive to all parties interested. However, by not disclosing the information, the Dr. only added weight to argument of a hoax.


And who would go to such trouble, making over 15.000 stones depicting humans and dinosaurs to produce an hoax? Why this gigantic number of stones when the hoax could have been as good as with just a few of them? And how could a simple villager with no craftsmen skills have make all those stones in such a short time?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Why is it that the only source of that paragraph is creationist sites?
edit on 12-4-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


Which one? The Marco Polo story?
I don't know, I'll take some time to look around and see what I find.

But yes I agree, I find it rather difficult to wade through things when the only folks who want to talk about these subjects are mostly religious oriented and deeply invested into a evolution vs creationism debate (which I find distracting and irrelevant).

I just want to know for sure if dinos lived in the last couple of thousand of years, or if things like Nessie and Mokele Mbembe are real. I love subjects like this they are so challenging.

I just wish more people would look into the topic with an open mind so we could get some non-creationists to actually talk about this and take it seriously for a minute. That's all I want, people to entertain the notion for just a few minutes and see where it leads them.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
If you go to Ica, Peru, you can buy these type of "original pre-incan" type of stones EVERYWHERE. They are easily made and pushed on gullible tourists all the time.


It's claims like this that look bunk to me.

You just say "go to Peru" as if anyone can drop everything right this minute, go there, and find out the truth if you are lying or not.

Did you bother to link us to websites pushing these things? No?? Why? Google is so easy to use.

You then use derogatory language to refer to anyone "gullible" enough to buy them (insinuating that anyone who even considers this as possible for a second is a 'gullible' fool).

Very clever comment, sadly some gullible readers bought into your no-content dismissive claim without even requiring the smallest bit of proof, not even a link to a website selling these things.

I am disappointed in you and the folks who starred your post. Next time I ask all of you to please at lift a finger for a moment and put some quality into your claims and help a guy out and post a link or two.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Well, since we're pondering, there is another alternative. If there indeed was another advanced culture in the past, was genetic experimentation and cloning out of the picture? Maybe a jurassic park scenario isn't unrealistic at all.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join