Search This Blog

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Acambaro look!

Acambaro photogallery

You see here representations of Iguanadon made in 1825 (the bluish picture), again in 1895 (greenish), and another made in just the last decade. Compare them to one of the Acambaro statues made 2-3 thousand years ago or so. The Acambaro artist sculpted Iguanodon to look like he is now pictured by modern paleontologists yet it was done long before there were paleontologists!

"There was an absolutely astonishing breathless moment as one object was unwrapped and there before us a virtually perfect representation of an Iguanodon. This was one of the first dinosaur skeletons discovered. The early concept of it's appearance was almost comical in the mid 1800's. By the turn of the century it had improved considerably but fell far short of what we now know. The figurine exhibits knowledge we have gained only in the last few years. No hoaxer could have made this model in the 1940's." - Dr Dennis Swift Ph.D

TV program

"The Japanese company, Nissi, sponsored a television crew to go to Acambaro and produce a program for Japanese T.V regarding the Acambaro figurines. The program entitled "Did the Ancients See Dinosaurs" was aired on February 2, 1997 in Japan. There is a stunning moment in the program as the Japanese narrator is looking over an animal figurine, and he holds it up next to his Japanese book on dinosaurs. Amazingly, the Julsiud dinosaur figurine matches the color drawing of an Amargasaurus cazaai in the Japanese dinosaur book. The narrator quickly picks up another dinosaur figure and thumbs through the dinosaur book. This figure is very similar to the Sauraloplus osborni as drawn in the Japanese dinosaur book. The narrator ponders the perplexing problem that ancient people about 4,500 years ago must have seen dinosaurs because they could not have known what they looked like by merely seeing their skeletons in the ground. The narrator points out that when modern man found dinosaur skeletons such as Sir Richard Owen, that the life-sized models of Megalosaurus, Iquanodon and Hylaeosaurus were ridiculously inaccurate." - from the Swift report.

Dermal Spines

"The figurines he saw in the late 1940's and early 1950's were simply curious looking creatures that many years later were correctly identified as particular dinosaur species. Dr. Herrejon said that even most of the Brontosaurs looking dinosaurs did not look like a "typical" saurian dinosaur. We pressed him as to what he meant by "typical?" He replied, "they had spines all down their backs, little spines." We drew dinosaurs with conical dermal spines and Antonio pointed vigorously stating in Spanish, "That's it, That's it".

Dr. Herrejon unwittingly had helped to verify the authenticity of the Julsrud dinosaur figurines. No one knew in the 1940s, 50's, that some species of Saurian dinosaurs had dermal spines. They were perceived as represented on the Sinclair gasoline filling station signs. It was the work of Stephen Czerkas in a 1992 article that brought to light this aspect of dinosaur anatomy
(Geology, V.20, No.12, 1992, p.1068-1070)." - Second Acambaro report.


Jeffahn said...

Creationist cranks 'confirming' the findings of other creationist cranks?

Stop the presses!!!

This is truly unprecedented.

Not to suggest that there was anything suspect about the initial findings.

radar said...

Jeff....when devoid of evidences in an names!

Jeffahn said...


I regret to inform you that all of the evidence indicates that the statues in question are nothing more than modern folk art. This evidence was presented to you in your most recent posting on this subject. That people with a predetermined belief seek to confirm each other's supporting findings is not surprising at all.

radar said...


The 'evidence' that talkorigins presented, as I answered you in the comments on the above post, was at best lame and at worst criminal. De Peso was uncorroborated and may have been a charlatan. Several witnesses from different areas of expertise, life, and parts of the world have confirmed the authenticity of the acambaro finds. That you cling to De Peso's claims smacks of desperation.

Jeffahn said...


Would it help if the arguments against your evidence were from a fellow evangelical?

"Defenders of the truth, or rather people who are defending what they think to be the truth, may appeal to doubtful evidences which are not effective as a defense of their beliefs and opinions. Potentially fraudulent evidence cannot sustain a controversial belief because opponents must question the interpretation and the validity of the evidence. A suspicion of fraud is sufficient reason to dismiss an argument no matter how sincerely and eloquently the evidence is presented. The presence of fraudulent evidence will cast doubt upon all of the evidence presented and may lead to the conclusion that those responsible for presenting the fraudulent evidence are untrustworthy, unreliable, deceptive or incompetent."

A neat summary of YECism, IMO.

"Remarkably enough, archaeological evidence which such profound implications for the Age of the Universe and other aspects of evolutionary chronology is rejected by archaeologists. The Christians proponents of the artifacts will not abide by the judgment of the archaeologists, instead they accuse scientists of a conspiracy to hide evidence contrary to evolution. For that last five decades, supposedly, all archaeologists -- even those obscure ones who have not yet made a discovery worthy of worldwide attention -- have avoided and obscured evidence so that they would not disturb the work of their fellow-scientists, the paleontologists. Does anyone really imagine that archaeologists are so enamored with paleontologists that they would compromise their integrity and sacrifice international fame for the sake of not discovering that dinosaurs existed in Central and South America?"

It's like looking into a mirror, isn't it radar?

The conclusion:

"2. Evidence from Mexico [] : Reject completely because of suspicion of hoax and questionable character of the discoverer of the alleged artifacts. (NOTE: Evidence of Mexico is presented by Dr. Dennis Swift)"

Of course, what you don't like about De Peso's work is that it passed peer review -something all creationists avoid like the plague.

Also from TO:

"...the figurines are nothing more than modern folk art made by people, who pretended to find them, as a means of earning a living by selling them to Mr. Waldemar Julsrud, a local and wealthy merchant, as actual ancient artifacts. The 12 pesos a figurine that Waldemar Julsrud paid for these objects was a substantial amount of money to the poverty stricken subsistence famers at the time the artifacts were purchased. Given that Mr. Julsrud reportively bought 33,000 of them, the farmers who sold them to him made many times over what they could have earned by simply farming the land. Dr. Hapood, who in the eyes of the local farmers was a wealthy American, would have also been regarded as a potential meal ticket like Mr. Julsrud. Thus, they would have obliged Dr. Hapgood, who lack the experience and the critical eyes of an archaeologist like De Peso, interest in the Acambaro figurines with similar merchandise.

De Peso, as described above, established that the figures came from within the rooms of a single component Tarascan ruin. The Tarascan are, in fact a Post-Classic and historic tribe as noted at: Tarascan

Their state and society emerged during the Postclassic (A.D. 900 - A.D. 1522) as noted at: The Tarascan state emerged in the Lake P√°tzcuaro basin (LPB) during the Postclassic period

Thus, a person is left with the big problem of where there is evidence of dinosaurs within that part of Mexico at anytime during the last 1100 years, which was the time that the site was occupied and archaeological deposits alleged to contain the Acambaro figurines accumulated. The deposits from which Acambaro figurines are suppose to have come are thousands of years younger than the dates reported by Don Patten and other Young Earth creationists, who are promoting the authenticity of the Acambaro figurines.

As far as thermoluminescence (TL) dates are concerned, Don Patten and "Dr." Dennis Swift, at their web site actually admit that the people who conducted the TL dating "...asserted that the ceramics gave off regenerated light signals and could be no more than 30 years old." Then they dismiss this unpleasant fact by using a standard assertion of alternative archaeologists and Young Earth creationists that the people at University of Pennsylvania are just lying thought their teeth in order to suppress the "true" age of the Acambaro figurines. Don Patton and Dennis Swift similarly respond to the observations of De Peso by attacking his character.

[NOTE: Don Patton, who together with Dennis Swift strongly supports the authenticity of the Acambaro figurines, is also a strong advocate for the validity of the Malachite Man, a Japanese plesiosaur, Paluxy "Man Tracks", and many other alleged anomalous evidence.]"

I'm not sure, but haven't you rejected the Jap plesiosaur & Paluxy footprint claims? You did say something about rejecting some of Hovind's junk, so I suggest you do the same with these nutters.

Jeffahn said...

Sorry the geocities link was cutoff:

Can anyone tell me tags to use to make links clickable, plz.


creeper said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
creeper said...


Unfortunately I can't think of an elegant way to explain this, but I'll give it a try anyway:

the hotlinked text

is this:

BRACKETAa href="">the hotlinked textBRACKETA/aBRACKETB

Where BRACKETA is the 'smaller than' sign ("<") (on my Mac it's to the right of the 'M'-key) and BRACKETB is the 'greater than' sign (">"). Replace those in the above and it's a hotlink.

Note that there's a space between 'a' and 'href'.

Hope that's not too confusing.

A Hermit said...

Even if we were to reject the hoax explanation (and I think one can only do that by suspending the tools of reason and logic) the carvings would prove nothing.

As we have seen before modern illustrators frequently create drawings of dinosaurs (much more detailed, accurate and lifelike than these carvings) based on fossil evidence. At most the carvings would prove that the people who created them had found fossils, even if they were real.

I think it's telling that Radar is willing to acept a crappy clay sculpture as conclusive evidence of dinosaur/human co-existence yet he is prepared to reject modern illustrations based on actual fossil finds as evidence of anything.

Double standard? Prejudgeing the issues? Sure looks like it to me.

A Skeptical Hermit

Jeffahn said...


radar's favourite link

creeper said...

I'll throw another possible explanation into the mix: monitor lizards. Hey, perhaps some unknown species along these lines roamed Europe and the Americas not so long ago.

I look at those pictures Radar puts up, and that figurine is about as close to Iguanadon as it is to Megalania.

If I were playing by your rules, Radar, I'd now ask you to disprove this. But I won't. It's just another possibility that's out there.

radar said...

That talkorigins uses De Peso as their only answer to acambaro tells us a lot about talkorigins. They know he has been refuted and as I said they apparently have nothing else to say.

Jeffahn wants to depend upon that because otherwise he is faced with very strong evidence that man lived with dinosaurs.

That De Peso was peer-reviewed tells us a lot about peer review. It tends to be a slam dunk and most of what is presented is given little actual scrutiny.....the old-boys network kind of thing. Now, when you are presenting the findings of experimentation, and another cannot duplicate those results, then you look pretty stupid. Usually, of course, the scientists are sincere and the findings are valid and everyone is benefitted.

However, a De Peso comes along and makes assertions with no backup and it is accepted at face value. Later on his findings are refuted by multiple witnesses and yet no one takes him to task and worse, many still rely on his testimony. In the case of De Peso, peer review meant nothing.

Acambaro is just one example of multitudes of drawings and carvings and sculptures that resemble dinosaurs, sometimes uncannily, and when added to multitudes of historical records gives us strong evidence that man lived with dinosaurs.

To some of you, this is distressing not because of any other reason but that dinosaurs were supposed to be part of a progression of macroevolution and to have been extinct for millions of years. Take away that plank in the macroevolution platform and it sags dangerously.

Anonymous said...

Dan S. said

Radar:" They know [De Peso] has been refuted . . ."

But has he? The whole thing's a really shady he said-she said affair. Now, if whoever(s) has the figurines would be willing to have them dated using modern methods and careful scrutiny (if I remember right, they were tested when TL dating was still relatively new), then we would be getting somewhere at least re: modern fakes, ancient art, or whatever. Otherwise, it all seems way too iffy. Smells like bigfoot and crop circles, if you know what I mean*. (It would have been pretty funny, though, if it turned out that yeah, the crop circles were a hoax, but a hoax perpetrated by bigfoots. With help from a chupacabra. (Incidentally, the chupacabra "has been described as similar to gargoyles, so it has been theorized that the creatures were seen in Medieval Europe. According to this theory, gargoyles were carved to resemble chupacabras, to keep the public afraid of any place with gargoyles."
This sound a little familiar?

Anyway - I'm not especially familiar with Mesoamerican archaeology, let alone the specific area - I just have some coursework, reading, and musuem visits to go on - but I went and looked at some of the pictures of the figurines, and the way the creatures are depicted doesn't look like anything I've seen before, in terms of artistic traditions. Maybe someone more familiar with the region could set me straight, but they really, really look like fakes to me.

Just my 2¢.

* Which, I guess, would mean it smells kinda musky and animal-like but also like crushed corn or wheat plants. Hmm. Definitely not good.

-Dan S.

Jeffahn said...


I'm so've convinced me -ancient people DID live alongside dinosaurs (some dinos may even be alive today!) and, after further research, I have concluded that they flew through the galaxy in UFOs, traversed the earth and other planets in giant bio-mechs and drank afternoon tea in the shade of willow trees.

Don't believe all that? Just google 'vedic creationism'.

...and you thought of yourself as the nuttiest, LOL.


Too tired right now actually, proper response pending...maybe...

creeper said...

"Jeffahn wants to depend upon that because otherwise he is faced with very strong evidence that man lived with dinosaurs."

All you've demonstrated so far is that man may have lived alongside large lizard-like creatures. And nobody disputes that there are large lizard-like creatures alive even today.

In order to dismantle all the evidence for dinosaurs having lived (and gone extinct) millions of years ago, you (or some of those "creation scientists") are going to have to indulge in considerably more convincing scientific research.

creeper said...

"Now, if whoever(s) has the figurines would be willing to have them dated using modern methods and careful scrutiny (if I remember right, they were tested when TL dating was still relatively new), then we would be getting somewhere at least re: modern fakes, ancient art, or whatever. Otherwise, it all seems way too iffy."

Second that.

xiangtao said...

Radar, could you explain what you mean by something having been refuted (in this case, De Peso's work, although you have used these kind of arguments before)? It seems to me that you think anyone speaking out against a particular body of evidence refutes it, no matter the counter arguments, successive clarifications, etc. Somone coming out and saying "I disagree with De Peso's findings!" hardly refutes what he has said, espescially when such person has a vested interest in De Peso being wrong. Not saying that this is the case, only asking once again that if you are going to claim that something has been refuted and is still presented as fact, please back that claim up!