Are the Ica stones fake?
The big controversy with the Ica stones, is that being real, they become a real threat to what science and evolutionist claim. Why? Because some Ica stones have both dinos and man in coexistence. Which defies evolution. But just like with the pics on the previous pages, I will show how pics of the Ica stones are modified to look fake. And even how supposed Christian web sites (fake Christian web sites owned by atheist) use this to discourage believers into not believing this evidence is real. So upon reading what you have so far on this page, do you find yourself saying: These are fake because I've seen it talked about, even on Christian web sites, and Christian people on forums?
In the above pic, you can see the slight changes made to it to put it in question. I made the lettering below it the same color that was applied to the picture to make it look old and questionable. The blurred and in focus part can be done with higher priced image editors programs. You can pick an area of any photograph, blow it up to be bigger, sharpen or enhance it, blurr it (as shown above). Just do what ever you want. Working with graphics for this site, I have an eye for catching this stuff. And I have a program that can blow up a pic to a point of showing each pixel to where I can tell if said pic was tampered with. When I first started building this site, I did not know all these things about modifying pics, and that people would actually do this to make their point. But the closer I looked, I started seeing a pattern.
Want to see the original unmodified pic of the Inca stone from above?
I can almost bet that some evolutionists are looking at this in shock (the pic on the left is the original, the pic on the right is modified to look fake). But the ones who did this are laughing. They frauded evidence to push their agenda. Just like Dawson (peltdown man), and Haeckel (faked embyro drawings) did. In both pics, notice the crack in the Ica stone is in the same exact place. The drawn circles, and all the other designs are the same also. I wonder which photo editor the evolutionist used to fake the photo on the right? I wonder what the excuse will be about this, and other photos found that have been made to look fake. Are evolutionists this desperate?
This is a picture of petrified dino skin. Notice the part at the top of pic that has a lot of bumps on it. This is natural armor right on the skin. Now notice the Ica stone below. Now how would the Ica carver know to draw circles on the dinos, that represent this armor unless they saw it? You see, according to evolution, no human has never ever seen a dino.
Now here's a picture of a Ica stone I took myself. Does it have a brownish over lay? Nope. Are there areas of blurring? Nope. It is just how it was taken. It's not even compressed for fast loading. But notice the same circles drawn on the skin of this dino as well.
Now this is that very same pic. I put a brownish over lay to make it look old. And I blurred three of the legs, and part of the stomach of the dino. Now which pic could be passed off as more fake than the other? Also, the evolutionists were so into debunking this they even came up with an excuse as to why the ica stones had a brownish look (covering their defraud tracks). They claimed that the people who craved the recent stones (the fake ones) rubbed animal dung on them. The rpoblem with this excuse is the smell. How do you sell stones that literally smell like crap? The web sites that choose to display them do this. What's even worse, some Christian web sites don't know the pics they have are modified. So they display them as evidence. But some Christian sites are fake, and I'm fixing to do a page on what to look for in a fake site.
What does AIG have to say about this?
| Unfortunately, some initially plausible evidences for man's contemporaneity with dinosaurs have later turned out to be mistaken. The controversial Ica stones allegedly genuine pre-Inca engravings of dinosaurs from Peru have since been shown to be a fraud. Creation 24(2) featured these with the cautionary label, Too good to be true? In fact, it turns out that an unscrupulous Peruvian surgeon had purchased the stones from a local artist and installed them in his museum, claiming them to be ancient artifacts; the artist himself makes these stones for tourists and never claims them to be ancient. The Institute of Geological Sciences in London has since examined one of the stones and confirmed its modern origin. The fraud was exposed on a Nova television documentary in 2002, entitled The Case of the Ancient Astronauts. |
