Talk:Acámbaro figures

Radiocarbon Dating of Inorganic Material?

How come nothing is said questioning the radiocarbon dating of the clay as a supposedly supportive piece of evidence? Radiocarbon dating can only be validly used on dead material, that is, what was once alive, not inorganic material. Dating the carbon found in the clay does not tell how old the making of the figure is. It only tells when the living source of the carbon (tree, grass, field mouse, insect, etc.) died and subsequently became part of the soil or clay. Jeez Louise!

I Agree, the conspiracy theory about how the lab refused to test should be replaced by something explaining how "... but this isn't the correct test for pottery which would be ..." 24.82.203.201 00:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, you came up with a really important fact. If the radiocarbon test cannot be made at innorganic material, then it is all false information. --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Clay objects can be dated using thermoluminescence dating, with an accuracy of about 7 - 10%... if they've been fired, that is. Salmanazar (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Accepted Theory

Does anyone else see that section as a bit at-the-throat and emotionally driven? The facts and arguments are very nicely present, however, so I don't think the section needs deletion altogether. If the move is made to allow it to remain emotionally driven and opinionated, then I have drafted a more appropriate ending to kind of wrap up the section:

To sum up this section, it clearly required a great deal of testicular mass to conjure up a hoax this blatant and unintelligent, causing the corpse of Charles Fort to weep tears made of extraterrestrial fossils. All your base are belong to science, kids. Never forget it. The demise of this ridiculous theory will forever silence anything that dares question the godly omniscience of the Scientific Method. 64.90.198.6 22:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just took out the accepted theory section entirely. That's ridiculous, even if it is a hoax. Try and remain professional, people.

Archaeological forgery?

I think not, there is no conclusive evdience that disproves the figures other than what certain archaeologists or scientists have said according to "their examinations". Piecraft 11:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You know that's how archaeology works right? Professionals examine the evidence and try to come to a conclusion, It seems you're the one making the horrifying leap of faith here. You apparently automatically discount the perfect condition of the figures left in an environment known to scratch mar and fragment such artifacts. As well as the "manure, fingerprints, an black fill" where there should be plain red earth. I'm not saying they can be proven in certainty to be a hoax, but given the evidence provided, assuming the figures to be authentic is equivalent to believing in the tooth fairy Viper168 20:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Compared with modern restorations

"The most widely used line of support for the Acámbaro Figures is their resemblance to the dinosaurs featured in Robert Bakker’s book Dinosaur Heresies.[citation needed] It is claimed that the resemblance of the figures to these drawings is evidence that the figures were made from first hand experience."

-- This is certainly IMHO an odd and confusing way to say this. From the article: "The Acámbaro Figures are small, ceramic figurines found in July 1944 in Acámbaro, Guanajuato, Mexico by Waldemar Julsrud." The Dinosaur Heresies was published in 1986. Why is this book mentioned especially as corroboration?

If you look at photos of the Acambaro figurines (for example http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro-dinos.htm ), you can see that most of them resemble critters depicted on the Flintstones more than they do accurate scientific restorations, though with 32,000 figurines to select from, it would be surprising indeed if we could not find some that sort of resemble modern restorations.

Various restorations of dinosaurs - see for example Charles R. Knight or http://www.copyrightexpired.com/earlyimage/prehistoriclifebeforekt/index.html - had been widely published by the mid 20th century, and could easily have inspired Acambaro artists.

From Acámbaro: "Acámbaro is noted as a major railway junction, [and] a local transport hub .... Because of its strategic location, Acámbaro was the key to the development of the railway in Mexico, and had a major junction, yard and shop facility for the National Railways of Mexico .... Acámbaro was the home of the only full scale locomotive repair facility in Latin America that was capable of constructing steam locomotives. During 1944 Acámbaro's mechanical workshop built La Fidelita 296, a steam engine that is a symbol of a time in history of the Acambarense society."

- In other words, Acambaro was hardly "the back of nowhere", but was a place where any book, magazine, encyclopedia could quite likely have been available in 1944, or where someone could have arrived who had seen such depictions elsewhere.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph doesn't seem to make sense

It is my understanding that you can't perform radiocarbon tests on non carbon-based objects such as pottery because they have no carbon. In addition, it is POV. Therefore, I think the last paragraph should be removed or sourced. Until someone finds a source, I will remove it.

201.242.100.181 (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, I will reinstate it (while removing the POV sections and adding a disclaimer about carbon dating).

201.242.100.181 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Using Bible.ca as a source

This site is in no way a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It seems to think that Neil Steede and someone it calls 'Neal Steedy' are different people, it virtually accuses him of lying, and ignores the fact that Steede himself is 'fringe'. It fails to point out that Dr Dennis Swift's doctorate is in theology and uses the title PhD to give him some spurious claim to being an authority. It accuses various scientists of lying, and gives no references for 'better' thermoluminescent dates. Doug Weller (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The talkorigns.org references should be removed as well. ClovisPt (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkorigins.org is considered a RS. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's correct.

And who get's to decide what's a reliable site? Talkorigine, because it supports evolution theory?! You must be kidding, this is getting as ridiculous as in the Holocaust section. --41.14.38.115 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources that are written and reviewed by relevant experts in a field are considered reliable, and the award winning talkorigins archive certainly qualifies. Auntie E. 23:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

The current evidence of hoax section, while the arguments have merit, appears to be original research. Is there a source to cite for these arguments? Cadwallader (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Both sections include cited evidence that this is a hoax. I don't understand your question. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Do Talk Origins posts rise to the Wikipedia standard for citation quality? It's no better than quoting a discussion board or email list. Why don't you cite the original article by DiPeso instead of an anonymous Talk Origins entry?

Some of the arguments you are making don't seem to be arguments that DiPeso made himself in the article that you are indirectly citing. For example, saying that 32,000 unbroken artifacts have never been found anywhere ( an impossible statement to prove anyway ), ignores the fact that Jusulrud was paying the peasants for unbroken artifacts. That would encourage them to discard the broken ones - of course bad archaeology - but given the circumstances not necessarily evidence of a hoax.

The other part of your argument is that pottery is normally found broken. This is true. Pottery, as oppose to votive offerings and burials, is used domestically until it breaks, which is still the fact today. In burials or offerings, one would expect to find unbroken objects if the ground has not been disturbed since the original burial - such as Viking caches found in Europe, and the unspoiled tomb of Tutankamen. The only exception to this would be cultures which deliberately destroyed the offering or burial objects.

You also take both broken and unbroken artifacts as evidence of hoax, "Over 32,000 figures were found, and all of them in perfect condition except for a few that were cleanly broken, perhaps to create the illusion of antiquity." So, unbroken artifacts show it was a hoax. But the broken artifacts are also proof of hoax. Using those criteria, all archaeological finds must be hoaxes.

Creating 30,000 artifacts in varying mediums (stone, ceramic) with no repeated forms in a few years would require an army of artisans. So the quantity of artifacts could be cited as evidence for, or against, a hoax. While many of the artifacts are low quality ceramics, the stone artifacts are amazing works of art - hoax or not. These took time and skill to create. The question is whether the local population had such gifted stone carvers in sufficient quantity to create such objects in a short period of time, and whether they would sell such works for a mere peso.

The hoax section should cite DiPeso's original paper, and limit itself to arguments made by DiPeso in that paper, unless you can find another peer-reviewed article debunking the Acambaro figurines. Cadwallader (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acámbaro figures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214154559/http://www.acambaro.gob.mx:80/cultura/julsrud.htm to http://www.acambaro.gob.mx/cultura/julsrud.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)