>>Well I just finished reading about this stuff and if it is "Bullshit", then it sure is interesting bullshit.<<

What bothers me most about the Ica stones--while they seem too good to be true--is the sheer number of them. If it was just a handful or even a couple of hundred, I could dismiss it as so much BS. But 15,000?? And one guy claims to have faked them?? One guy can't make 15,000 stones. If he made one stone a day (which is not really possible unless it was a simple image), it would take him 40 years. Do the math.

He had to have help and it had to be a lot of people. A LOT of people. While the skeptics attack the depictions and the microscopic bits of this or that they insist should not be there (and most people who buy into this have no idea themselves if that stuff should be there or not or if the tests were properly conducted by qualified people), they conveniently forget to explain how 15,000 of these things got made and by whom.

As for von daniken, it's funny how no skeptic would buy any of his assertions about ancient astronauts (and for good reason) but suddenly when he disavows something, it's now acceptable as evidence. Von Daniken is not and never has been an archaeologist. He isn't qualified to make ANY statements--pro or con--that make him worth citing as evidence, which is why I didn;t bother to bring him up. But it's funny that so-called hard-headed skeptics didn't hesitate.

Don't tell me what so and so said--show me how the stones were faked. They might have been--I'm not insisting they're real. I want someone to explain HOW they were faked. If they were faked then this should not be hard to figure out. If some poor native in Peru could do it then how did he do it--that's all I want to know.