Talk:Acámbaro figures

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Radiocarbon Dating of Inorganic Material?

message: 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)
thread_title: Accepted Theory

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Archaeological forgery? 

message: "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)
thread_title: Compared with modern restorations

message: 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)
thread_title: The last paragraph doesn't seem to make sense

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified