Nampa figurine - 2 million years old?

I just came across this vid on YT and was like whaaaat?



So I did a little research and sites that I have never heard of have also picked up on it, one such article below

A tiny artifact depicting a human figure was found in 1889, when workers were drilling water well near Nampa, in southwest Idaho.
The artifact skillfully formed in clay, is a true mystery that has baffled scientists for many years.
“The record of the well shows that… they had penetrated first about fifty feet of soil, then about fifteen feet of basalt, and afterwards passed through alternate beds of clay and quicksand…down to a depth of about three hundred feet when the sand pump began to bring up numerous clay balls, some of them more than two inches in diameter, densely coated with iron oxide,” geologist of Boston Society of Natural History, George Frederick Wright (1838-1921) reported in his book “Origin and Antiquity of Man” (1912)

Source here

I've seen enough OOPARTS (out of place artifacts for any noobs) lately to start to buy into this whole humanity is a lot older than we recognise theory.

So, if this is indeed a genuine artifact that is as old as they say, how advanced did society get? Was battlestar galactica right when they famously said "All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again?"

Wow, Looking forward to hearing what others think. It's adorable, I want it! Cool story!!!!!

a reply to: markosity1973

It must have been in the topsoil and at some point towards the end of drilling, it simply fell in while the bit was being changed. Drilling through Basalt the bit would likely have been brought up and changed at some point.

Why would anyone think a fairly modern clay figurine is two million years old? Tis illogical.

ETA: There is no such thing as "quicksand", which makes it all suspicious?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: markosity1973

It must have been in the topsoil and at some point towards the end of drilling, it simply fell in while the bit was being changed. Drilling through Basalt the bit would likely have been brought up and changed at some point.

Why would anyone think a fairly modern clay figurine is two million years old? Tis illogical.

ETA: There is no such thing as "quicksand", which makes it all suspicious?

I would agree with you if it were not for a couple of details in the video;

The figurine is coated in a heavy layer of iron oxide as is consistent with the depth it was found at (deposited over time) and it has quartz crystals forming in the gap between the arms and the body. Both of these processes take a lot of time to occur.

The devil is in the detail on this one. Otherwise, yeah it looks like something much newer, I completely agree.

a reply to: markosity1973

I'm not buying it. Secure Team is well known for its hoax style video's full of crap.

I doubt any "scientists" are shaken by this. Click bait.

I have a strong suspicion that the figure is fairly modern, but even if it's not, it would have fallen to that depth from somewhere up higher at some point during the drilling. But hey, YouTube said it's 2 million years old, so I must be wrong...


Aaaaaand I just realized that it's from SecureTeam. Pure garbage.

Who the hell is starring and flagging this?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Attacking the source is a pretty lazy way to debunk something.

The video talks of a book published in 1912.

How's about we prove or disprove it's existence and see if the location of the object is known today before jumping to conclusions.

**Edit** Yep, the book exists

www.worldcat.org...

I'm about to start work, so won't be around for a few hours, but I'm going to research and update this thread with more evidence later today.

a reply to: markosity1973

But where are the other evidence that placed ppl in the western hemisphere 2mil yrs ago, we can track the remains of Dinos going back millions of yrs even compiling different eras for them, but failed miserably to do so for humans living in complex societies but for a single find ,humans like to alter their environment and leave their remains behind so out side of this stand alone find where is the rest.

a reply to: markosity1973

There are several glaring issues with this figurine. I'll skip over the credibility of the source you use and get to it.

My first issue is Michael Cremo's involvement. My second issue is that when actual experts mention that the figurine would have been destroyed by the drill bit if that was how they brought it up, Cremo quickly changes the story to explain this inconsistency and claims that after drilling was completed a tube was then dropped down to pump out sand. While bringing forth this explanation, Cremo forgets that his initial claim (prior to being brought up w/ a drill bit and the sand pumping scenarios) was that it was brought up in a core sample. Were it brought up as a core sample, I could believe that the figurine was retrieved fairly intact. Were it brought to the surface when pumping sand, there would have been nothing left to view.

My next issue is that there is no disclosure of the methodology used in dating the artifact. If they are going solely by stratigraphy alone, then the dating is highly questionable. As the figure is made of clay, thermoluminescence could be used to obtain a good date for the object but no mention of legitimate tests or links to papers or lab reports.

This type of figure was common for native Americans from the area in which it was found in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Specifically, the Pocatella.

The figurine is barely a half inch in length and very fragile, baked clay. It was found in an alleged artesian well. This means that 2 MA, the figure would have had to be dropped or purposely left in a stream with water erosion and contact with moving rocks. Then it had to be buried under the alleged 320 feet of soil and volcanic lava.

No... this is not just implausible it is absolutely impossible.

Just wanted to edit this for additional information I just came across. For the sake of clarity, I find it not just important, but critical, to add the full quote attributed to Wright's book as opposed to the quote mined version...

In the fall of 1889 the writer visited Boise City, in Idaho. While stopping at a hotel some gentlemen called on him to show him a figurine which they said they had found in sinking an artesian well in the neighborhood at a depth, if I remember rightly, of more than three hundred feet. The figurine is a little image of a man or woman done in clay and baked. It is not more than an inch and a half in length, and is slender and delicate, more delicate than an ordinary clay pipestem, and altogether exceedingly fragile.

Hold the figurine at the height of your eye and let it fall on the hearth at your feet, and it would be shivered into fragments. It was claimed that this figurine had been brought up from the bottom of an artesian well while the men were working, or about the time that they were working at the well, and that as it came out it was discovered.

When this story was told the writer [Powell], he simply jested with those who claimed to have found it. He had known the Indians that live in the neighborhood, had seen their children play with just such figurines, and had no doubt that the little image had lately belonged to some Indian child, and said the same. While stopping at the hotel different persons spoke about it, and it was always passed off as a jest; and various comments were made about it by various people, some of them claiming that it had given them much sport, and that a good many " tenderfeet" had looked at it and believed it to be genuine; and they seemed rather pleased that I had detected the hoax. When I returned to Washington I related the jest at a dinner table, and afterward it passed out of my mind. In reading Prof. Wright's second book I had many surprises, but none of them greater than when I discovered that this figurine had fallen into his hands, and that he had actually published it as evidence of the great antiquity of man in the valley of the Snake River.

Consider the circumstances. A fragile toy is buried in the sands and gravels and boulders of a torrential stream. Three hundred feet of materials are accumulated over it from the floods of thousands of years. Then volcanoes burst forth and pour floods of lava over all; and under more than three hundred feet of sands, gravels, clays, and volcanic rocks the fragile figurine remains for centuries, under such magical conditions that the very color of the burning is preserved. Then well-diggers, with a pump drill, hammer and abrade the rocks, and bore a six-inch hole down to this figurine without destroying it, and with a sand-pump bring it to the surface, to be caught by the well-digger; and Prof. Wright believes the story of the figurine, and places it on record in his book!

and here is the quote mined version from your source...

“The record of the well shows that… they had penetrated first about fifty feet of soil, then about fifteen feet of basalt, and afterwards passed through alternate beds of clay and quicksand…down to a depth of about three hundred feet when the sand pump began to bring up numerous clay balls, some of them more than two inches in diameter, densely coated with iron oxide,” geologist of Boston Society of Natural History, George Frederick Wright (1838-1921) reported in his book “Origin and Antiquity of Man” (1912).

It is quite fascinating that Michael Cremo, who believes in a Vedic, ancient man paradigm, is using Wright, a Young Earth Creationist to prop up a mountain of poo.

Nm.

Still though. I dont see the reasoning......

Just to be clear I believed this, and still kind of do.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Blaine91555

Attacking the source is a pretty lazy way to debunk something.

SecureTeam is a known hoaxer. No reason to trust them as a source in any way.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

But providing evidence of why it's a hoax is the best way of debunking it.

I've since read that the original discoverer admitted to hoaxing it back in the day.

That's the kinda info that squashes something.

en.wikipedia.org...

You will notice a couple paragraphs down that the accuracy diminishes after about 50,000 years....... so that leaves the question of these extreme time measurements. Are they accurate ?

a reply to: Plotus

The 50KA limitation only applies to this one specific dating method which is 14c dating. It wouldn't be used on fired clay. The entire determinate for this alleged find was based solely on stratigraphy. It was allegedly uncovered in the 1890's, a full 50 years prior to the advent of any radiological dating techniques. For fired clay objects you would use thermoluminesence which can achieve absolute dates.

a reply to: markosity1973

I suspect in the next 12 months half the stories tossed into the Hoax been will be removed, dusted off, and gently placed back into their rightful forums.

This is no hoax.

a reply to: NewzNose

Do you have anything to support the contention that this alleged "artifact" is 2MA or should we just take your word for it and accept it as absolute fact?

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: markosity1973

I suspect in the next 12 months half the stories tossed into the Hoax been will be removed, dusted off, and gently placed back into their rightful forums.

This is no hoax.

I would like to see a more modern photo and reinvestigation of the object before that.

The claims that made me fall on the side of belief are the iron oxide layer and the quartz crystal formations. But the object needs to resurface and be inspected properly to see if those two characteristics are genuine or not.

Otherwise it's just a local native Indian's kids toy someone pranked the world with in the 1800's.

There are of course plenty of other OOPARTS that are still bonafide unexplainable. I won't post any more though, I've had enough hoax bin threads for today

Edit, just to add, the figurine is still around and can even be viewed by the public. I found this news article on it.

a reply to: NewzNose

This is no hoax.

And within those twelve months those stories tossed in the hoax bin will stay right where they belong...the Hoax Bin.

The only bigger hoaxer on YT is thirdphaseofmoon, but secureteam 10 is really nipping at the heels for the hoax king of YT.

a reply to: markosity1973

Edit, just to add, the figurine is still around and can even be viewed by the public. I found this news article on it.

Just because the local morning news show picked it up doesn't make it any more credible...sorry.