Merged Released For Earth Day: Sirius (UFO Flick)

[Silly Green Monkey]

There at at least a couple of other threads where this is already being discussed.

Here's one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257335

I'd say it belongs here too, at least the biological discussion does.

I wish they showed more of a closeup on some of the joints, from this distance they look fetally undeveloped but those clavicles are strongly ossified.

 

[Lithrael]

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.

Sorry to have to call you out, Kitten & a few others in this forum, but this is hyper-skepticism in action. If you look into it, it quickly becomes clear that it's most likely to be a real mummified fetus. No it doesn't have a sternum, which is not inconsistent with a fetus, especially one with a development problem; the sternum is meant to develop and close well after the ribs are formed.

Of course it's deeply unlikely to have anything to do with aliens and IMHO it's a pathetic attention grab by this Greer guy. The Live Science website is also pretty suspect for running the story, playing up the 'new research' bit as though they didn't know perfectly well it was just an ad for the guy's movie.

 

[Stray Cat]

That's not how it works.

Evidently you don't know how it works... or more appropriately, how Greer 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

You speak as if the statement linked above is Greer's only written narrative concerning these human remains. However even in that Greer has chopped up what the scientists actually said to fit better with his own alien agenda.
If you aren't aware of Greer's larger body of work I'd guess you're in no position to tell me "how it works"

- and the statements by the two scientists. You can make the case for your assertions based on those sources if you like,

My original assertion was based upon Marcus777 saying that he was only going on what the scientists at Stanford had said and then linking to a report written by Greer (who isn't a Stanford scientist) which is predictably edited to exaggerate the mystery that Greer is presently touting as the latest proof of aliens.
Had Marcus linked to any of the reports actually written by the Stanford scientists (which don't use the same emotive and misrepresentative language) , what he had said would have gone unchallenged.

but i'm far from being interested enough to play games like "are you suggesting that my suggestion is untrue" over this.

Yes, perish the thought you'd have to show some interest in the subject.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Your assertions include this

They turned the little guy over and pulled it out his ass.

("tongue-in-cheek" of course) in response to Skeptic Guy's question where the "6-8 years old" statement is coming from and you again failed to make your case that it is not, like Greer writes in what Marcus777 linked to, what Lachman concluded based on examination of the epiphyseal plates in the knees of that creature as I have sourced in reply to Skeptic Guy. I cannot see any serious misrepresentation of the scientists statements in Greer's text and think it is quite carefully worded in regards to "alien conclusions". If you want to convince me otherwise, now is the time to make your case without suggestions and evoking "body of work" i'm indeed not very familiar with.

 

[Farsight]

Well said Lithrael.

 

[SezMe]

They turned the little guy over and pulled it out his ass.

Made me LOL.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry to have to call you out, Kitten & a few others in this forum, but this is hyper-skepticism in action. If you look into it, it quickly becomes clear that it's most likely to be a real mummified fetus. No it doesn't have a sternum, which is not inconsistent with a fetus, especially one with a development problem; the sternum is meant to develop and close well after the ribs are formed.

The only mystery to me is why the two Stanford guys (or the medical guy anyway) concluded based only on the x-ray density of the epipheseal plates that it was a 6-8 year old boy.

 

[Stray Cat]

Your assertions include this




("tongue-in-cheek" of course) in response to Skeptic Guy's question where the "6-8 years old" statement is coming from and you again failed to make your case that it is not, like Greer writes in what Marcus777 linked to, what Lachman concluded based on examination of the epiphyseal plates in the knees of that creature as I have sourced in reply to Skeptic Guy. I cannot see any serious misrepresentation of the scientists statements in Greer's text and think it is quite carefully worded in regards to "alien conclusions". If you want to convince me otherwise, now is the time to make your case without suggestions and evoking "body of work" i'm indeed not very familiar with.

Wow, you pull a joke out as an example, recognise it as a joke then use it as your example.... good luck with that.

Once you familiarise yourself with the work of Dr Stephen Greer, founder of the Disclosure Project which has spent many years campaigning for the US government to release it's secret alien contact files, promoted alien abduction stories, alien implant stories and Free Energy claims, I'll gladly explain how this latest scam (his Sirius movie which he scammed many people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars to make and which touted this as the definitive evidence of aliens) is a blatant misrepresentation of the scientific findings... that is if you still need it explaining.

Meanwhile I've got enough woo to battle against without having to battle someone who doesn't know of Greer's work, defending him.

 

[Pup]

The only mystery to me is why the two Stanford guys (or the medical guy anyway) concluded based only on the x-ray density of the epipheseal plates that it was a 6-8 year old boy.

That's the part which really surprised me. Based on all the data, it seems the more obvious theory--or at least an equal one--should be that it's a fetus which has an anomalie that makes its epipheseal plates appear similar to a 6-8 year old's.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Over 20 years ago, the New York Area Skeptics investigated the "Weeping Icon" of St Irene in a church in Queens. A geologist with a uv light, a college professor and wife and a art restorer were the team. A year later, Joe Nickell joined us in revisiting the site.
Then, the icon was stolen! Here's the story from the Wall St. Journal: http://www.skeptictank.org/files/skep2/iconstol.htm

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Over 20 years ago, the New York Area Skeptics investigated the "Weeping Icon" of St Irene in a church in Queens. A geologist with a uv light, a college professor and wife and a art restorer were the team. A year later, Joe Nickell joined us in revisiting the site.
Then, the icon was stolen! Here's the story from the Wall St. Journal: http://www.skeptictank.org/files/skep2/iconstol.htm

Relevance to this thread?

 

[nablator]

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.

I bet a mummified fetus would not magically loose all of its skin and keep enough ligaments so the skeleton still holds together rigidly, like a statue, with almost all of its bones, minus kneecaps and floating ribs.

I vote skinned fetus + some modifications + bath in resin. Just like the skinned monkey that was custom built for Jaime Maussan a few years ago.

 

[idoubtit]

I contacted Dr. Nolan and he seemed like he couldn't say anything beyond the written report.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/04/revelation-that-the-6-inch-alien-is-human-sirusly/

Dr. Nolan and Dr. Ralph Lachman looked over the specimen at length to examine the bone structure. According to Dr. Nolan, the size of the specimen suggests one thing, and bones suggest another. Thus, it is not clear exactly what they have there.

An osteologist contacted me, I gave him Lachman's report, and he says it didn't make sense to him regarding the age determination.

For whatever that's worth...

 

[Archer17]

idoubtit:

Thanks for taking the time to contact Dr. Nolan.

I also found your site interesting & bookmarked it.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Thanks to everyone who posted better known news sources. It's easy to write things off when you don't know the source at all.

I admit that I was basing my estimates of what the bones should look like on the 6-8 years old statement. If we look at it as a horribly deformed miscarried fetus then it begins to make a bit more sense. Even the odd shape of the skull is understandable if it was a miscarriage.

It's still awful weird looking just as mummies go. Does anyone have any other examples of mummies that look like this?

 

[Lithrael]

Sure thing. A couple people on Etsy actually make them from fetal pigs, and they look pretty much just like this little guy. Here's a link: http://shopoddities.tumblr.com/image/31444635991
Now, these are usually prepared with a good soak in formalin and a layer of lacquer, but natural conditions can result in a similar look.

I bet a mummified fetus would not magically loose all of its skin and keep enough ligaments so the skeleton still holds together rigidly, like a statue, with almost all of its bones, minus kneecaps and floating ribs.

It's not a matter of being skinned or not having skin, it's just that fetal skin isn't thick enough to behave like the skin you see on mummies of post-natal critters. You are making a whole bunch of assertions without much research.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I contacted Dr. Nolan and he seemed like he couldn't say anything beyond the written report.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/04/revelation-that-the-6-inch-alien-is-human-sirusly/

Dr. Nolan and Dr. Ralph Lachman looked over the specimen at length to examine the bone structure. According to Dr. Nolan, the size of the specimen suggests one thing, and bones suggest another. Thus, it is not clear exactly what they have there.

An osteologist contacted me, I gave him Lachman's report, and he says it didn't make sense to him regarding the age determination.

For whatever that's worth...

Thanks very much.

Did they cross check DNA from the flesh with DNA from the bones?

 

[nablator]

A couple people on Etsy actually make them from fetal pigs, and they look pretty much just like this little guy.

Yes, very similar indeed, and also prepared and lacquered.

Now, these are usually prepared with a good soak in formalin and a layer of lacquer, but natural conditions can result in a similar look.

None of the other mummies from the Atacama desert that I've seen look heavily lacquered. Do you know a naturally occurring case of a lacquered-looking desert-dried mummy? Unless you can show an example, I think I'll go with a prepared, lacquered fetus mummy, not a naturally dessicated one.

The actual preparation means nothing. How much modification there was is the question. Some creative enhancements may have been performed to engineer "a horrible dwarf extraterrestrial" as the headline read in Chile’s mass circulation tabloid La Cuarta in 2003.

Some bones may even have been replaced with mature animal bones. We just don't know.

 

[nablator]

Did they cross check DNA from the flesh with DNA from the bones?

In the movie it is shown that the DNA specimen is taken from inside the skull.

But according to Greer's presentation "A DNA sample from bone marrow extracted from the specimen, was prepared, sequenced, and analyzed by a top research scientist at a prestigious American university."

 

[idoubtit]

Yeah, that would be Nolan. Stanford. But like I said, something funny going on.