Talk:Baigong pipes

message: This whole article is full of ****. It confuses the location of the pipes, talks about a non existent pyramid, talks about multiple caves, doesn't even give the scientifically proven explanation that the pipes are fossil tree casts. I see all these comments "where are the pictures, looking for this non existent pyramid. 12.168.6.143 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dont Know where to start 

message: The original description of "40 km southeast of Delingha City" had no sources, and conflicted with this source:
Chinese Scientists to Head for Suspected ET Relics
That article states it's "40 kilometers to the southwest of Delingha City".  That's why I changed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.177.62 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location Description 

message: I'm not sure this article needs that link in it; I see no reason for crying pseudoarchaeology given the content of this page. I'm sure there may have been or might be outrageous claims as to the nature and origin and use of these pipes, but this article states absolutely nothing in that direction. I am half tempted myself to make up some supernatural theory about them and insert it into the article merely to justify its being placed among such apocryphal theories.
:The article is indeed a bit boring as it is now, isn't it? Anything to improve its entertainment value would be greatly appreciated. Wikipeditor 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea which pseudo-archaeology you are referring to, although it may have already been removed. I find it perplexing a UFO explanation is offered, but the more likely 'an unknown civilization, possibly in a period pre-historic, built them'. Or even an already known civilization built them and didn't leave records for some reason. 81.79.210.120 (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoarchaeology

message: Maybe we've gone a bit overboard on the "'s in the article.  It's a bit "distracting" when every "other" word is "quoted".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.149.81 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive fingerquotes

message: The Investigation section was written in past tense but doesn't seem to have any facts other than was was supposed to happen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.4.245 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the mystery was already solved. The article should be updated to reflect this. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How's that investigation going? 

message: I think there should be at least 2 pictures, one old known picture of the pipe in stone from top and other one from CCTV picture where one clearly can see its a pipe not "pipe" does not matter if its natural or man or "alien" made imho(  the original link http://www.chinaexpat.com/blog/ernie/2008/12/16/baigong-pipes-nature-or-oopart.html ).
I just wonder.. is there better quality pictures, anywhere or is it really a only known picture and thats why there is no pictures here? 
Waffa 14:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a picture.--Auric 18:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no pictures? 

message: I've removed the following section:
:::Similar phenomena
::::Navajo "Pipes"
:Natural pipe-like features, which appear to be similar to the Baigong Pipes, occur in the Navajo Sandstone and other sandstones of Southwestern United States. The bleached sandstone seen in the cave entrance is typical of sandstones in which natural pipe-like features have been found.(ref1(ref2) Beitler (ref3) describes them as hollow "subhorizontal planar strata-bound pipes" and "vertical pipes." They range in size from less than 1 cm to greater than 50 cm in diameter and their walls are as much as 1 cm thick. They extend through the Navajo Sandstone for more than several meters. They are regarded as having formed as the result of the dissolution of siderite cements and the redistribution and oxidization of the released iron by groundwater flow.(ref4)
:Hematite also occurs as other masses of diagenetic "ironstone" that exhibit a wide and amazing range of bizarre shapes, which can be described as both "strangely shaped stones" and "rusty scraps". Strangely shaped stones, pipe-like features, and other concretionary masses have been observed and described from the Navajo and other Jurassic sandstones in Utah and adjacent American states.(ref5)''
:The reported composition of the rusty scraps, 30 percent ferric oxide and large amounts of silicon dioxide and calcium oxide, is consistent with the hematite masses found in the Navajo and other Jurassic sandstones in Utah and elsewhere in the Southwestern United States. The ferric oxide and large amounts of silicon dioxide is what a person would expect iron oxide cemented sandstone to consist of.  Calcite and other carbonate cements and concretions are typically associated with the hematite masses in the Navajo and other sandstones and sedimentary rocks.(ref6)
::::Louisiana "Cylinders"
:Cylindrical structures very similar to the Baigong Pipes have also been found protruding from outcrops of Pliocene Citronelle Formation in the Florida parishes of Louisiana and in older Pleistocene fluvial sediments within South-central Louisiana. These structures are as much as 70 cm in diameter and 100 cm in depth. Detailed studies of these cylindrical structures found that they were created by the formation of ironstone rims around tap roots of pine trees by soil forming processes.(ref7)
While these instances are cited appropriately, there is no reference connecting either each of these to each other or (more importantly) to the Baigong Pipes. We need a reliable, non-fringe source that connects these, or we can't list them in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: A mobile web edit added text on June 14, 2020] about "popular misrepresentation of the Baigong pipes with photos of an unrelated phenomenon known as columnar basalts." I have also seen pictures of columnar basalts misidentified as Baigong pipes. Unfortunately, this edit is based entirely on original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia and was appropriately and correctly reverted in the next edit. For this observation, which reveals much about the reliability of various online blogs and articles about the Baigong pipes, to be considered for inclusion in this article a reliable source documenting it needs to be cited. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to reflect an editor's own understanding or knowledge of the subject, but what reliable sources say about the subject. If you read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOR you'll get a better idea of what is needed. Paul H. (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basalt columns misidentified as Baigong pipes - June 14, 2020 edits 

message: The reference in the article is to  popular magazine that has no credentials whatsoever. The article furthermore does not even discuss the chemical makeup of the pipes. It is not even mentioned. This section is just a fabrication as there is nothing to back it up at all. It should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.124.206 (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  White mountain section.