• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Released For Earth Day: Sirius (UFO Flick)

It's obviously a Nac Mac Feegle. They're usually more careful about not letting humans find the remains when one of them returns to the land of the living.
 
It's related to this documentary

siriusdisclosure . com

Sorry..unable to post links yet.
 
Elizabeth I said:
Thoughts, comments, any additional information gratefully accepted.
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the preliminary report by the two scientists who did the analysis (complete with an ungrammatical intro paragraph by Greer, the guy who thinks it's an alien):

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Chile-Specimen_GPN-Summary.pdf


Here's the conclusion: "The specimen was concluded by the medical specialist to be a human child with an apparently severe form of dwarfism and other anomalies."
 
Last edited:
That thing doesn't even have a sternum. The clavicle is ridiculously thick (and improperly shaped) and the ribs don't even bend the right way. If I had turned in a drawing like that to my anatomy instructor in college he would have given me a failing grade.

Even if I accept the idea of extreme dwarfism and bone malformation it does not look like any mummified corpse I have ever seen. Where is the skin? Why the heck are the finger and toe bones still connected and not lost long ago? Why does it look so polished?

I'm going to say fake and wonder about the rest of this online magazine. They're reporting this as if it was real but nothing about that image looks real.
 
Hmm, I'd have to see how exactly they decided it was that old. If it was human I'd assume it was a fetus. If its joints are human, they look like very immature joints to me. If it's human, I'd assume the weird proportions are mostly the result of unusual mummification conditions. This is all armchair forensics though of course.
 
Weak Kitten said:
That thing doesn't even have a sternum. The clavicle is ridiculously thick (and improperly shaped) and the ribs don't even bend the right way. If I had turned in a drawing like that to my anatomy instructor in college he would have given me a failing grade.

Even if I accept the idea of extreme dwarfism and bone malformation it does not look like any mummified corpse I have ever seen. Where is the skin? Why the heck are the finger and toe bones still connected and not lost long ago? Why does it look so polished?

I'm going to say fake and wonder about the rest of this online magazine. They're reporting this as if it was real but nothing about that image looks real.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It looks like cast brass to me--the bones are all raised areas, while the inner areas are dark, just like if a piece of brass had a petina that was worn away. Also, the long bones simply do not look like long bones. They're missing the knobs and bits that are always there (formally known as processes).
 
Kitten, I don't think it's outrageous for a mummified fetus to end up looking like that in the right conditions (as far as flesh and bone, no idea as far as structure). I've seen many a desert frog that ended up with a look like that.

Guys, yeah it looks a bit like an art piece, but ffs there are x-rays. If it's made out of something it's made out of monkey bones and gelatin.
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
Agreed. It looks like cast brass to me--the bones are all raised areas, while the inner areas are dark, just like if a piece of brass had a petina that was worn away. Also, the long bones simply do not look like long bones. They're missing the knobs and bits that are always there (formally known as processes).
Click to expand...

I thought it looked like a rubber toy. But best I can tell Garry Nolan of Stanford is what he's held out to be. Unless someone's using his name and he hasn't noticed it yet, . . .
 
I wonder if maybe there really is a small human mummy, but the photo isn't it.

Weird too that in the photo there are two rulers for scale, but neither one is aligned with the skeleton (starting at either top or bottom).

ETA: Nevermind, I just realized there are a bunch of other photos, including x-rays.

I guess the thing I find hardest to believe is that this wasn't a fetus or small newborn but a child of some years of age.
 
Last edited:
Greer has been shooting blanks for years but his inability to qualify his hokum seems lost on some. Regarding this "curiosity" I came across it from another angle and it doesn't seem the Stanford connection is touting this as The Smoking Gun.

Rumor: Tiny 'alien' skeleton is human

Maybe I'm missing something...like seeing things through "Greer-colored glasses."
 
Lithrael said:
Hmm, I'd have to see how exactly they decided it was that old. If it was human I'd assume it was a fetus.
Click to expand...

The preliminary report noted that at first they assumed it was a pre-term fetus or neonate, but their preliminary conclusion is 6-8 years old at time of death "based on epiphyseal plate X-Ray density standards".

If they're dealing with a previously unknown abnormality (or several of them), might that not affect the growth plates and cause a mis-estimate of age? (Ironically, it's a similar issue with UFOs--if you don't know what it is, by definition you don't know just from looking at it how far away it is or how big it is. If we don't know what the epiphyseal plates should look like in a baby with whatever this abnormality is, how can we rely on their appearance for estimating age?)
 
Childlike Empress said:
FTR, as linked above but for those who might have missed it, the statements of Dr. Ralph Lachman, Stanford, and Dr. Garry Nolan, Stanford.

As published by Dr. Greer, of course. If he "edited together" their statements like you suggest they should be aware of that now.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that Greer has not misrepresented what the Stanford guys have reported?

He has selectively quote mined their words to support his "here we have a little alien" narrative... None of the scientists have mentioned an alien nor even implied that the object is anything other than mystery human remains.
 
Stray Cat said:
Are you suggesting that Greer has not misrepresented what the Stanford guys have reported?

He has selectively quote mined their words to support his "here we have a little alien" narrative... None of the scientists have mentioned an alien nor even implied that the object is anything other than mystery human remains.
Click to expand...


That's not how it works. The sources are there - Greer's "narrative" - at least the written one as I don't think any of us saw the actual movie - and the statements by the two scientists. You can make the case for your assertions based on those sources if you like, but i'm far from being interested enough to play games like "are you suggesting that my suggestion is untrue" over this.
 
Yeah, but I mean look at the x-rays and even just what it looks like on the outside: it screams baby joint. Older kids' joints grow into you know, actual bony joints with nice dense bones pretty much right up on one another. This thing's joints are all spaced out and cartilagey looking.

There's a clear photo in this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/tiny-chile-alien-backgrou_n_3071767.html

In that one it's very clear that the bones look like they're in a fetal state, unconnected. Look at the hands and feet, etc.

It's being discussed in the Sirius thread as well. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257335
 
Last edited:
This was also posted on "I *********** love science" on facebook today:

This bizarre looking thing is "Ata the humanoid", a mummified corpse found in the Atacama Desert ten years ago. It's strange appearance led to many calling it an "alien", claiming it as proof that extraterrestrials have visited Earth.

Well, it's finally been submitted to a battery of tests and the results show it to be fully human. DNA analysis has even managed to pinpoint the location and nationality of its mother. The results do suggest that it was once alive and human, not a hoax, and so asks more questions than they answer.

The bone analysis suggests that this is not a fetus, but a child between the ages of 6-8. The specimen has just ten ribs (as opposed to 12), is just six inches long and has severe facial deformities. These symptoms do not match up to any known genetic disorder and experts have no idea how such a severely deformed and tiny child could have lived to age six.

More info: http://bit.ly/11VBkcE
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom