Talk:Baigong pipes

Dont Know where to start

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)

I just reverted a "citation added" note that was added to the above comments. I did it because one editor does not edit the comments of another editor in the talk section. Instead they need add their own comments to the discussion. Having said that, I do agree that someone needs to find where the alleged "scientific explanation that the pipes are fossil tree casts" has been published in the scientific literature and add a summary of this explanation to the article. I seen reference made to this theory about the origin of the Baigong Pipes in the newspapers. I have not yet found where it has been published in a reliable, hopefully peer-reviewed, source that is acceptable as a Wikipedia source. Paul H. (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Location Description

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)

Old talk

If anyone has any further info on this I would love to hear it. I have searched as best I can but can find nothing - positive or negative viewpoints welcome - plesase come forward. Davkal 00:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That "Anonymous" guy seems pretty knowledgeable... ^_^ 64.90.198.6 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a bit available in Chinese. Just Google for 白公山 外星人 (Chinese for Baigon Mountain alien) and hit the translate button.

Be aware that, when citing names, the the first word in a name will be the family name, and the second-third words will be that person's first name.

perfectblue 10:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is citing: "Chinese Scientists Head for Suspected ET Relics" as factual support??? Seriously? So we can go to conspiracy, etc sites and use them as source???

Pseudoarchaeology

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)

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)

Excessive fingerquotes

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)

Aggreed, they don't serve an obvious purpose. You want to say something, say it. Stop using quotes to try and imply something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.236.100 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what they are!

Obviously an ancient Chinese form of Internet. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 27.12.08 1738 (UTC)

How's that investigation going?

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)

Seems like the mystery was already solved. The article should be updated to reflect this. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Why no pictures?

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 ). 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)

References

There is now a picture.--Auric 18:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed section

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)

Needs to mention the supposed age of the damn things.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.157.233 (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Their supposed age is not mentioned because there is lack of any reliable sources that discuss their age. If someone wants to mention their age, they need to find a reliable source that reports on their age based upon reliable dating techniques. Paul H. (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Basalt columns misidentified as Baigong pipes - June 14, 2020 edits

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)

White mountain section.

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)

According to a 2003 article in the Xinmin Weekly, Chinese scientists using atomic emission spectroscopy found the Baigong Pipes to contain organic matter of plant origin. In addition, the news article also stated that tTree rings were found in sections of these rock formations and, as a result, they were judged to be fossil trees or tree roots

According to a 2003 article in the Xinmin Weekly, Chinese scientists using atomic emission spectroscopy found the Baigong Pipes to contain organic matter of plant origin. In addition, the news article also stated that tree rings were found in sections of these rock formations and, as a result, they were judged to be fossil trees or tree roots.

This article referenced does not even exist. The Xinmin Weekly is just a private News Magazine and has no authority at all. It can publish anything it wants to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.124.206 (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You're saying newspapers aren't reliable soruces? It's owned by the Shanghai United Media Group by the way. The Encyclopedia Britannica is happy with using it as a source.[1]

Their article amplifies this, saying "However, the theory that the scientists found most likely (according to a 2003 article in Xinmin Weekly) was that the pipes were fossilized casts of tree roots. Two American researchers, Joann Mossa and B.A. Schumacher, had studied similar cylindrical structures found in soils in southern Louisiana and concluded, in an article published in 1993 in the Journal of Sedimentary Research, that processes of pedogenesis and diagenesis had resulted in mineral elements forming around tree roots, the interiors of which rotted away, leaving the hollow pipelike cylinders. The Qaidam Basin had been a subtropical area with plentiful vegetation in an earlier age, and atomic emission spectroscopy revealed organic plant matter within the material making up the pipes. Therefore, Chinese scientists accepted this as the most probable theory to account for the Baigong pipes. However, not all investigators, in China or elsewhere, agreed with that explanation.

" Doug Weller talk 17:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)