Search This Blog

Friday, April 21, 2006

I wanna know if Acambaro the dinosaur tonight, Dad?

Earlier I presented a few historical references to dinosaur's interaction with mankind, all from the region around Scandinavia and the British Isles. Skeptics like to scoff at the reports, but then there are hundreds of reports and scattered all about the region. It is hard to imagine a conspiracy of our ancestors in which they would try to fool us into believing in dinosaurs. It is also hard to imagine how they would often draw anatomically correct (by modern standards) representations of dinosaurs along with their writings or in the works of ancient artists.

As it happens, I could make a dozen posts on the subject. In South America, North America, Asia, Europe, Australia, Africa....in every kind of culture and on every inhabited continent there are records and artistic representations of dinosaurs. In some cases, there are natives who claim that there are still living dinosaurs to be found. "Mokele-Mbembe" was still claimed to be living in the 1980's, for instance. 'Nessie' was faked, no doubt, and no one has presented a living dinosaur or a fresh dinosaur corpse in recent days. Perhaps they really are all gone? (Although Coelacanth was thought to be extinct for eighty million years until one was caught in 1938. The Gladiator Fly was supposed to have been gone much longer still, until they were found on a mountaintop in Namibia in 2002.)

But I digress. The tales of the Thunderbird in virtually every American Indian tribe echo the sightings of flying reptiles in Europe. The dragons of China and England are also depicted on walls in South America. In fact, pictorial representations of dinosaurs done 500, 1,000, 1,500 years ago and before have been documented all over the globe. You have to wonder why the Chinese calendar would include eleven extant animals....and a dragon. But if the dragon was once living amongst the Chinese, then it is understandable.

The occasional fake (The Ica stones, for instance) will show up. But for every Ica stone, there are probably 3 Acambaro figurines that have withstood various tests as genuine ancient artifacts.

Acambaro

The finds in this small Mexican town are among the most astounding ever. Although the first figurines were found in 1945, many of the figurines were prophetic in nature in that:

1) They displayed dinosaurs not yet found and identified by paleontologists but now known to have existed.

2) They displayed features such as dermal spines, not known to be found on such dinosaurs at that time, but now (as of 1992) understood to be a feature of many dinosaurs once pictured as smooth-backed.

Dating methods in general are not totally reliable, but within 4,000 years or so have been proven to be worthwhile for demonstrating an age range for an object. The Acambaro figurines consistently test out as 1,500-4,500 years old when tested by impartial testing agents, although they often withdraw their findings when they realize the implications of the results.

The Mystery of Acambaro

"In 1945 Waldemar Julsrud, a German immigrant and knowledgeable archeologist, discovered clay figurines buried at the foot of El Toro Mountain on the outskirts of Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico. Eventually over 33,000 ceramic figurines were found near El Toro as well as Chivo Mountain on the other side of town. Similar artifacts found in the area are identified with the Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (800 BC to 200 AD).

The authenticity of Julsrud find was challenged because the huge collection included dinosaurs. Many archeologists believe dinosaurs have been extinct for the past 65 million years and man knowledge of them has been limited to the past 200 years. If this is true, man could not possibly have seen and modeled them 2,500 years ago.

During the years 1945 to 1946,Carlos Perea was Director of Archeology, Acambaro zone, for the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. In a recorded interview he described Julsrud excavations as unauthorized, as were many similar discoveries made by local farmers, but he had no doubt that the finds were authentic. He acknowledged that he examined the figurines, including dinosaurs, from many different sites. He was present when official excavations were conducted by the National Museum and the American Museum of Natural History. They found many figurines, including dinosaurs, which he described in detail.

In 1954 the Mexican government sent four well known archeologists to investigate. A different but nearby site was selected and a meticulous excavation was begun. Six feet down they found numerous examples of similar figurines and concluded that Julsrud find was authentic. However, three weeks later their report declared the collection to be a fraud because of the fantastic representation of man and dinosaur together.

In 1955 Charles Hapgood, respected1 Professor of Anthropology at the University of New Hampshire, conducted an elaborate investigation including extensive radiometric dating. He was accompanied by Earl Stanley Gardner, former District Attorney of the city of Los Angeles, California and the creator of Perry Mason. They falsified the claim that Julsrud manufactured the figurines, by excavating under the house of the Chief of Police, which was built 25 years before the Julsrud arrived in Mexico. Forty three more examples of the same type were found. Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermoluminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania, all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 BC. These results were subsequently withdrawn when it was learned that some of the samples were from dinosaurs.

In 1990 an investigation was conducted by Neal Steedy, an independent archeologist who's livelihood depends on contract work from the Mexican government. He arbitrarily selected an excavation site considerably removed from the Julsrud site. Chards were found but no figurines. He commissioned radiocarbon tests for samples from the Julsrud Collection which produced a range of dates from 4000 to 1500 years ago. Then he decided to ignore the results because he claimed the figurines were too soft to last more than 20 years in the ground. He also ignored the fact that many of the acknowledged Chupicuaro pieces are of the same consistency and they survived just fine. Of course, some pieces in the Julsrud collection are beautifully fired. Steedy's effort does more to support Julsrud collection than to refute it. He effectively demonstrates the determination of the establishment to defend evolutionary dogma in the face of the devastating implications of this truly significant find."


A bit of detail on testing and investigation

"Hapgood excavated a number of sites that were on previously undisturbed ground and found many pieces of ceramic figurines of the "Julsrud" type. To eliminate any possibility of fraud that Tinajero or anyone else had manufactured the ceramics, Hapgood decided to excavate beneath a house that had been built in 1930, long before any artifacts were found on El Toro Hill. They found a house directly over the site owned by the chief of police, asked permission to dig beneath the floor of his house. Permission was granted, and they dug a six-foot deep pit beneath the hard concrete floor of the living room, unearthing dozens of the controversial objects. Since the house had been built twenty five years before Julsrud arrived in Mexico, it exonerated Julsrud, eliminated the hoax theory and negated Dipeso's as well as Noquera's reports at all the important points.

In 1968 Charles Hapgood returned to Acambaro accompanied by Earle Stanley Gardner of Perry Mason fame. Mr. Gardner was not only trained in criminology but was also an investigator of archaeological problems. He was supremely impressed with the vastness and the variety of the collection. It was quite clear that Mr. Gardner considered the fake theory completely false, outrageous and deceptive!

The radiocarbon 14 method of dating was still in its infancy, but Hapgood acquired specimens for C14 testing.6 Gardner and Andrew Young (inventor of the Bell Helicopter) financed the testing.

Hapgood submitted the samples to the Laboratory of Isotopes Inc. in New Jersey. The results were as follows:

Sample No. 1


(I-3842) 3590 + - 100 (C.1640 BC)

Sample No. 2


(I-4015) 6480 + - 170 (C. 4530 BC)

Sample No. 3


(I-4031)3060 + - 120 (C. 1110 BC)



The radiocarbon dates of up to 4,500 B.C for Carbon on the ceramics would make the collection the oldest in the Western Hemisphere.

In 1972, Arthur Young submitted two of the figurines to Dr. Froelich Rainey, the director of the Pennsylvania Museum for Thermoluminescent Dating. The Masca lab had obtained thermoluminescent dates of up to 2,700 B.C. In a letter dated September 13, 1972, addressed to Mr. Young, Dr Rainey said:

"...Now after we have had years of experimentation both here and at the lab at Oxford, we have no doubt about the dependability of the thermoluminescent method. We may have errors of up to 5-10% in absolute dating, but we are no longer concerned about unexpected bugs that might put the whole system in doubt. I should also point out, that we were so concerned about the extraordinarily ancient dates of these figures, that Mark Han in our lab made an average of 18 runs on each one of the four samples. Hence, there is a very substantial bit of research in these particular pieces... All in all the lab stands on these dates for the Julsrud material, whatever that means in terms of archeological dating in Mexico, or in terms of 'fakes verse's authentic' pieces."

But when the lab at the University of Pennsylvania found out that dinosaurs were part of the collection, they retracted their thermoluminescent. They asserted that the ceramics gave off regenerated light signals and could be no more than 30 years old.

A thermoluminescent technician admitted that no other ceramics existed, in his experience, that produced regenerated light signals, and no other thermoluminescent dating of ceramics had ever been done by utilization of a regenerated light signal. In short, the testing was a hocus pocus, laboratory trick to avoid the obvious conclusion that dinosaurs and man lived together."


Even skeptics admit that the Acambaro collection is a powerful case for coexistence of dinosaur and man. But part of the story of Acambaro is the laboratory results that consistently reveal ages of more than 2,000 years for these figurines...until the technicians realize the implications of the findings and then fall over themselves trying to reverse their fields.

Subterfuge and lies have been part of the creation versus macroevolution argument. The Ica stones appear to be a hoax, recent works passed off as ancient. There are doubts about some human prints found in stone such as the "Meister print" and the "Zapata track". The Paluxy River area is a rich source of possible dinosaur-with-man prints even though tourists in the first part of the 20th century made away with some of the tracks. One of the best human tracks was destroyed in 1992, according to the bible.ca site. But Glen Kuban of Talkorigins denies strongly that he was involved and hints that no vandalism took place (I believe he is telling the truth that he did not go to the site and damage anything, although his rebuttal includes some incorrect information). Now I personally view Kuban's site, just as I view Dr.Dino's site, as propagandists willing to stretch the truth or at least unwilling to include all the truth when they make their posts. You won't see me blogrolling Dr. Dino and you won't see me pay any attention when a macroevolutionist links to talkorigins, either. I also freely admit that sometimes a site like bible.ca misses the boat as well. It is a subject that transcends science and segues into the worldview where often facts get twisted like pretzels to make them fit.

In the case of Acambaro, however, no reasonable macroevolutionist has come up with an honest rebuttal or explanation as to how ancient peoples could have molded dinosaur statues with more accuracy than the scientists of the time they were discovered. No reasonable explanation has been given by macroevolutionists for the hundreds of drawings, carvings and figurines of dinosaurs done by people long before paleontologists began finding dinosaur fossils and providing representations of what their appearance might have been. No good explanation has been given for the multitudes of stories about dinosaurs, not just as stories but as historical narratives in records kept by government and other officials.

For Bible-believers, attempts to characterize Leviathan and Behemoth as a crocodile and hippopatumus, respectively, have received the scorn they deserve. Even the Bible records dinosaurs, often with the word being translated as dragon. The record of human history, both written and described graphically as paintings, drawings, carvings and figurines, is that of co-existence with dinosaurs for many hundreds of years.

(PS- No, I did not have to go on a long trip, hurray!)

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

""I wanna know if Acambaro the dinosaur tonight, Dad?" "

Sure, son, just be sure to bring it back before 65 million BP. And don't forget to fill it up with vegetation this time!"

"It is hard to imagine a conspiracy of our ancestors in which they would try to fool us into believing in dinosaurs"

You mean, try to fool us into believing in dragons. And why would they try to fool us into believing in unicorns? And giants? And witches? And vampires? And . . .

The Acambaro account here leaves out De Peso's 1953 article in American Antiquity, a respected, professional, peer-reviewed archaeology journal, which concluded that the figurines appeared to be fakes (a link you won't pay any attention to, because it's from TalkOrigins, and is therefore just as bad as Kent Hovind, aka Dr "I purchased my degrees from a diploma mill" Dino).

But Hapgood conducted his investigation two years later . . . Hapgood, Hapgood, where have I heard that name before? Ah, I got it!

"After World War II, Hapgood taught history at Springfield College in New Hampshire. A student question one day about the Lost Continent of Mu led to a class project to investigate Atlantis. This led to an investigation of possible ways that massive earth changes could occur, including the sensationalistic theories of Hugh Auchincloss Brown.

In 1958 Hapgood published his first book, The Earth's Shifting Crust. . . . In this book, and two successive books, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (1966) and The Path of the Pole (1970), Hapgood proposed the radical theory that the Earth's axis has shifted numerous times during geological history. This theory is not widely accepted by orthodox geologists [to say the least! - and note that he's not talking about magnetic pole reversal - which is widely accepted - but the Earth's axis itself shifting].

Hapgood's Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings used numerous archival maps, including the Piri Reis Map, which he claims show a vast southern continent roughly similar to Antarctica in shape, to propose that a 15 degree pole shift occurred 9,500 years ago, and that a part of the Antarctic was ice-free at that time. By implication an ice-age civilization could have mapped the coast at that point in time.
"

Which in and of itself proves nothing - although certainly quackness tends to be an overall phenomena, rather than someone being generally reliable and adequately skeptical in all but one specific area.

"Dating methods in general are not totally reliable, but within 4,000 years or so have been proven to be worthwhile for demonstrating an age range for an object."

Bravo! 5 points for wriggling out of the obvious 'so dating methods are worthwhile whenever they support your claims, just never when they contradict them, I see' response. So, what makes dating methods worthwhile (only?) within 4,000 years, but not, say, 5 million? ('Because I know the earth is only a few thousand years old' is not an adequate response!)

"The radiocarbon 14 method of dating was still in its infancy, but Hapgood acquired specimens for C14 testing [and Young's name crops up - more in a bit]"

"While not so accurate as radiocarbon dating, which cannot date pottery (except from soot deposits on cooking pots), TL has found considerable usefulness in the authenticity of ceramic art objects where high precision is not necessary." [source - new methods have been recently developed (including very nifty radiocarbon dating of fat residue on, for example, cooking bowls) but they are not relevent to this account.]

"Hapgood decided to excavate beneath a house that had been built in 1930, long before any artifacts were found on El Toro Hill . . Permission was granted, and they dug a six-foot deep pit beneath the hard concrete floor of the living room, unearthing dozens of the controversial objects. Since the house had been built twenty five years before Julsrud arrived in Mexico . .

What luck! It's not everyday in archaeology that you can pick a random point in the vincinity of the site, start digging, and find dozens of exactly the class of artifact that you were looking for! (unless it's a midden, etc., and you're looking for trash, etc.) I wonder if anyone suggested that house? More imporantly, this account claims the house was constructed in 1930 (or 1920, or perhaps earlier, since it also places Julsrud in Mexico by '45). When was the concrete floor done?

"In 1972, Arthur Young submitted two of the figurines . . "

There he is again! That would seem to be this Arthur Young:

"By 1947 the job was essentially done and he decided to leave Bell. The time had come to renew his pact with himself to return to philosophy. "I am interested now in the Psychopter -- because it won't work. What is the Psychopter? It is the winged self. It is that which the helicopter usurped -- and what the helicopter was finally revealed not to be."

While in Washington in 1946 he had stumbled on Blavatsky, and was becoming interested in Zen Buddhism and Hindu philosophy. Impressed by J.W. Dunne's work on precognitive dreams, An Experiment with Time, Young realized that there was an enormous frontier that had not been covered by science . . . In order to reconcile ESP phenomena with accepted scientific knowledge, and complete his original plan, Young worked to put together his theory. . .

. . . He explored the four essential aspects of the relationship of knower to known through the agency of the calculus, and in the process discovered a correlation between control and force that he felt was important for philosophy. While classical mechanics employed position and two derivatives, velocity and acceleration, there was a logical third derivative: control, or change of acceleration, which is recognized in engineering though not by physics. Young pointed out that force and control correlate to body and mind. One is physical and the other non-physical. He felt he thus had a scientific basis for dealing with the difficult problem of will.

Young tried to tell philosophers about the good news available from science and from quantum theory in particular but many felt they could not venture into the complexities of Quantum Physics, with its formidable mathematics
[yes, that's the reason, of course!]"

[sound effect: cuckoo clock chirping]

(although he does seem to have done some important work with helicopter design in the 1930s and '40s)

Again, in and of itself, this doesn't prove anything, but it is remarkable how many people supporting the Acambaro figurines are such . . . ah, interesting characters. I'm sure the author(s) of this account contacted Rainey (if possible) and the UPenn lab to hear their side of the story, right?

"Subterfuge and lies have been part of the creation versus macroevolution argument. "

Unfortunately true. It's one reason why most pro-science advocates have little respect for creationists - all the fradulent (or purchased) degrees, the unquestionable misrepresentations of scholarship, the general unprofessionalism, in almost all areas - after a while, it adds up. Which isn't to say that all creationists are equally unreliable or dishonest, but it does demonstrate something of a trend.

"The Ica stones appear to be a hoax"

Yes.

"You won't see me blogrolling Dr. Dino and you won't see me pay any attention when a macroevolutionist links to talkorigins, either."

Certainly TalkOrigins is not flawless. It is a volunteer site, and there are portions that have not been updated in some time. In fact, when talking about hardcore fringy claims (Behemoth was a dinosaur! This or that obscure or probably faked artifact shows dinosaurs!) rather than accepted science (How does radiometric dating work? Why is it reliable?), the possibilty of error is probably greater, mostly because of this obscurity. But to compare it to Hovind, when even AIG basically says he's full of crap (phrased in a much more polite way, of course) . . . well, that's just silly.

" I also freely admit that sometimes a site like bible.ca misses the boat as well."

See, you have a working baloney detector! You just have to make sure it stays on! (Well, you don't have to, there's no law or nuthin' . . )

" . . . no reasonable macroevolutionist . . ."

Yeah, because they're all hanging out eating unsugared porridge with a true Scotsman . . . .(technically, not quite the same claim, but same idea).

"No good explanation has been given for the multitudes of stories about dinosaurs, not just as stories but as historical narratives in records kept by government and other officials."

Please see my question at the top of this comment.

" The record of human history, both written and described graphically as paintings, drawings, carvings and figurines, is that of co-existence with dinosaurs for many hundreds of years."

Many of the pictures in these links are dubious at best (or faked - the Ica stones). Most just look like standard mythological beasts, built on a standard animal body plan. The best examples are simply depictions of creatures that are a general quadraped body with a very elongated neck and tail. This cound be taken as a representation of a sauropod, or it could be considered as a pretty obvious human invention (imagine an animal with a giant neck and tail). Given the complete absence, so far, of any evidence for non-avian dinos post-65 million years ago, that second option seems rather more likely.

In a bit I'll try to dig up on online edition of T.H. White's bestiary translation, which has some marvelous illustrations showing what kind of crazy depictions people have come up with, for both legendary and entirely mundane animals.

"(PS- No, I did not have to go on a long trip, hurray!)"

Well, that's good.

Dan S., dino-soured.

Anonymous said...

(as opposed to the great dinosaur riders of antiquity, who would, I suppose, be dino-sore.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

-Dan S., less fun than a barrel of monkeys.

radar said...

Dating methods - I am not wiggling, in fact I have stated before that methods such as radiometric dating are pretty accurate within 4,000 years or so. Dating methods with short half-lives that have been calibrated against items with a known age work pretty well. You always have to take them with a grain of salt even so....

"Subterfuge and lies have been part of the creation versus macroevolution argument. "

Unfortunately true. It's one reason why most pro-science advocates have little respect for creationists - all the fradulent (or purchased) degrees, the unquestionable misrepresentations of scholarship, the general unprofessionalism, in almost all areas - after a while, it adds up. Which isn't to say that all creationists are equally unreliable or dishonest, but it does demonstrate something of a trend.


Oh, baloney! Go to the ICR website, or IDtheFuture, or AIG or Creation Online and tell me again about all the phony degrees. There are plenty of brilliant and accredited scientists who are creationists whether you prefer to admit it or not.

In fact, the macroevolutionists played dirty in that Dover case by lying to the rather ignorant judge and getting away with it. Macroevolutionists play games, too. I shy away from those who don't want to play straight and/or don't want to not only do the initial research, but be willing to review. As I said, that is why I don't promote Hovind and scrupulously ignore Kuban. Two sides, same coin IMO.

As to Acambaro I mentioned other sources who backed up the information presented, and I addressed DePeso's rather ludicrous investigative conclusion. Carlos Perea, in charge of Archaelogy for the region under the auspices of the National Museum of Anthropology concluded that the figurines were authentic. So did investigative journalists who came to check it out, and so did Earl Stanley Gardner. For that matter, neutral dating sources authenticated the pieces. That they withdrew their findings after discovering the pieces represented dinosaurs shows you that your so-called "pro-science advocates" are often willing to put their world view above the truth.

"when talking about hardcore fringy claims (Behemoth was a dinosaur! This or that obscure or probably faked artifact shows dinosaurs!) rather than accepted science"

Yeah, "accepted science" considered Galileo to be "fringy" back in the day.

No one has presented any good evidence to disprove the claim that behemoth represents a dinosaur. This is still the best possibility and in fact there are no other logical conclusions based on the facts. Furthermore, the macro crowd is now preferring to ignore the Acambaro artifacts since they have given up trying to disprove their authenticity.

In fact, the idea that man just happened to draw representations of dinosaurs, often remarkably similar to the representations modern paleontologists make based on fossil evidence, and not just once and not just on one continent, but on all continents and numerous times, well, that is coincidence bordering on the miraculous! That includes drawings and descriptions of flying dinosaurs now known to have existed.

Giants? Known to have existed. In fact, watch a pro basketball game these days...Robert Pershing Wadlow was nine feet tall and it is not a stretch to believe that there may have been ten-foot men in the past.

Witches? Talked to one in a chatroom just a few weeks ago. Heck, I had a long email conversation with one that went on for a few weeks.

Unicorns? Man may have had experiences with perhaps a Styrachosaurus...

Vampires? Not sure about that one. There are vampire bats, of course. I am not denying the existence of mythology. Mythology often has one foot in a memory and one foot in fancy.

But will you throw away history? Is Aristotle a myth? How about Colossus? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Eric the Red? To the people of the first millenium after Christ, the existence of dinosaurs seems to have been an unfortunate norm. Dinosaurs were there, they were often harmful to domesticated animals and in some cases a great danger to humans. The flying kind were considered a kind of weather barometer. Often they were such an impressive sight that men worshipped them or incorporated them in worship, just as man has done with bulls or snakes as a for instance.

Was there ever a unicorn? We have no good evidence that there was. But as for dinosaurs, we have a lot of evidence. Ignore it, make fun of it, whatever, but it isn't going away.

creeper said...

"I am not wiggling, in fact I have stated before that methods such as radiometric dating are pretty accurate within 4,000 years or so. Dating methods with short half-lives that have been calibrated against items with a known age work pretty well."

How do you determine at which age they no longer work well?

IAMB said...

Yeah, "accepted science" considered Galileo to be "fringy" back in the day.

Were those, by chance, the "scientists" wearing robes and funny hats?

In fact, the macroevolutionists played dirty in that Dover case by lying to the rather ignorant judge and getting away with it.

I'm curious, as well, to see an example of this. Not to be political or anything, but this "ignorant judge" was appointed by your boy in the White House. He didn't become "ignorant" or "activist" among the creation/ID crowd until after ruling against DASD.

Anonymous said...

"Were those, by chance, the "scientists" wearing robes and funny hats? "... Perhaps they looked eerily like their modern counterparts in lab coats and nerdy glasses who enforce Brother Charles Darwin's Gospel According to Piltdown, the Book of Nebraska Man, or other "truths' of your faith against all imagined heresies. Maybe you conveniently missed the amazing sililarity.

radar said...

Been a long time. Actually the ruling paradigm in the days of Copernicus and Galileo consisted of the rulers, the clerics and philosophers. In other words, it was not a matter of religious priests trying to defend Geocentricism. It was priests who were the scientists usually because they got the education. Galileo was a member of the clerics himself.

So it was priest-scientists trying to get the mainstream block of rulers, elites and other priests to accept Heliocentricism.

By the way, mankind knew the world was a globe centuries before Christ. Any idea that there was a belief in a flat Earth in the middle ages is a deliberate lie perpetrated by Washington Irving to try to advance Darwinism. Plus the Bible teaches a round Earth that seems to hang in space. All you have to do is read the Old Testament and you would know that God created the Universe and stretched it out and apparently is still stretching it out. You would know the Earth was round and seems to be hanging in space.

Anonymous said...

Hello friend out there my name is Andrew Mark am a vampire i was bone in califonia am 50years old i love beeing a vampire becaose i alwayse get what i want i have initiate allote of friends family member young and old ,if you have interest you want to be a vampire you are free i can initiate you and you will be one of us fame money any thing you want will definatly be yours contact vampirestemple@yahoo.com to day and be initiated thanks