Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Examiner)   Tiny 'alien' skeleton debunked by DNA: But wait a minute what is that?   (examiner.com) divider line 236
    More: Interesting, DNA  
•       •       •

25316 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 12:35 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



236 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-01 08:40:04 AM  
Deoxyribonucleic acid.  It's the genetic 'code' that describes all living things, but that's not what's important right now.
 
2013-05-01 09:00:37 AM  
"The conclusion? The so-called "alien" is an "interesting mutation of a male human that had survived post-birth for between six and eight years," Greer commented.

"I can say with absolute certainty that it is not a monkey. It is human, closer to human than chimpanzees. It lived to the age of six to eight," said Garry Nolan, director of stem cell biology at Stanford University's School of Medicine in California."

Really a humanoid  mutation that survived that long, 6 -10 yrs inChile at 8 inches long? Don't think so...But what do I know. What do they mean by humanoid anyway? Mix with?? Also many believe we were seeded by part alien DNA and Chile has been considered a hub forever in digs and to this day sightings and activity.

That being said whatever this is I want to know more how the heck did a third word mother keep the child alive etc wow!!!
 
2013-05-01 09:35:00 AM  
Probably carved
 
2013-05-01 10:55:30 AM  
This is marketing for an upcoming Predator movie, isn't it...
 
2013-05-01 10:57:50 AM  
That whole article reeked of bullsh*t.
 
2013-05-01 11:00:34 AM  
Looks a little chili in there.
 
2013-05-01 11:05:48 AM  

ArkAngel: Probably carved


Yeah.  The skull is a composite; the maxilae of one animal are glued on to the frontal of another; you can see the join at a horizontal crack on the frontal that should not be there on any mammal.  The back of the skull looks like it might be a coati, with the zygomatic arches broken off, and the face is probably a small monkey, or that might be carved as well.

The body looks like it is carved out of a single piece.  It looks a lot like what people imagine skeletal material looks like, when they haven't actually seen any.
 
2013-05-01 11:09:25 AM  
This whole skeleton reeks of bullshirt. The bones in the hands and feet are completely unworkable, no sternum, incorrect number or ribs.

If it is a real human skeleton then I'd wager it's a grossly mutated and deformed fetus that was miscarried.

Looks more like something someone made on Etsy.
 
2013-05-01 11:14:11 AM  
Poor little Scruffer, always picked last at kickball.
 
2013-05-01 11:34:58 AM  
img4.imageshack.us

Pat Robertson is on the case.
 
2013-05-01 12:36:48 PM  

Calmamity: That whole article reeked of bullsh*t.


This times a million.
 
2013-05-01 12:39:57 PM  

Godscrack: [img4.imageshack.us image 343x190]

Pat Robertson is on the case.


No.  Definitely human.  Homo Kennewickis.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-01 12:40:20 PM  

FloydA: ArkAngel: Probably carved

Yeah.  The skull is a composite; the maxilae of one animal are glued on to the frontal of another; you can see the join at a horizontal crack on the frontal that should not be there on any mammal.  The back of the skull looks like it might be a coati, with the zygomatic arches broken off, and the face is probably a small monkey, or that might be carved as well.

The body looks like it is carved out of a single piece.  It looks a lot like what people imagine skeletal material looks like, when they haven't actually seen any.


Is there someone who hasn't seen a skeleton?
I'm here to educate:
userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2013-05-01 12:42:58 PM  
Tiny 'alien' skeleton debunked by DNA: 'Alien' shown to be human after allimages.45cat.com
 
2013-05-01 12:45:54 PM  
dittybopper Deoxyribonucleic acid.  It's the genetic 'code' that describes all living things, but that's not what's important right now.


well played
 
2013-05-01 12:46:33 PM  
Be sure to check out the 'documentary' on this intriguing topic released last week to great critical review!
 
2013-05-01 12:47:29 PM  
from TFA: It only had nine ribs; humans have 24.

I can count 16 just from the crappy photo.  More proof that editing is a dead art.
 
2013-05-01 12:47:31 PM  
Pop-in audio ad, that when you close it, pushes another pop-up?

Lovely.
 
2013-05-01 12:50:24 PM  
Obligatory

i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-01 12:50:47 PM  
Discovered in the Atacama desert in 2003, huh. And I suppose it's just coincidence that the world's leaders in astronomy started constructing the most advanced radio telescope dish array in the same place at the same time?
 
2013-05-01 12:54:01 PM  
In other news, Tom Thumb existsed
 
2013-05-01 12:54:07 PM  
www.popsci.com
 
2013-05-01 12:55:41 PM  
I think that Dr. Greer would be all over it if it was actually an alien, unless, of course, he was threatened to cover it up.
 
2013-05-01 12:56:11 PM  

Mr. Cat Poop: Discovered in the Atacama desert in 2003, huh. And I suppose it's just coincidence that the world's leaders in astronomy started constructing the most advanced radio telescope dish array in the same place at the same time?


Huh. Based on your name, apparently you are what you eat.
 
2013-05-01 12:56:57 PM  

FloydA: ArkAngel: Probably carved

Yeah.  The skull is a composite; the maxilae of one animal are glued on to the frontal of another; you can see the join at a horizontal crack on the frontal that should not be there on any mammal.  The back of the skull looks like it might be a coati, with the zygomatic arches broken off, and the face is probably a small monkey, or that might be carved as well.

The body looks like it is carved out of a single piece.  It looks a lot like what people imagine skeletal material looks like, when they haven't actually seen any.


I wonder how they stuffed the lungs and heart in there? Because it had them.
 
2013-05-01 12:58:23 PM  
That's just what the government wants us to think.

/also, repeat
 
2013-05-01 01:00:45 PM  
www.popsci.com
3.bp.blogspot.com

Freaking Roger Daltrey.  I knew this was real.
 
2013-05-01 01:01:00 PM  
Hrm... Well, to be open minded about this, the person did say close to human, and here's the thing about DNA, human share 98% of the same DNA as chimps, so this thing being "closer to human" than to say chimps may mean the thing was 1-2% higher on the DNA ladder than humans, which is 2-4% higher than chimps...

And as Neil Tyson-DeGrasse said, "2%, that's what separates us from the chimps. So if you took the smartest chimpanzee in the world, the Einstein or Stephen Hawking of chimpanzees and you measured it's intelligence by what it can accomplish, what would you have? A chimp that can understand a few basic commands, maybe do some sign language. It would have about the same cognitive skills as a human 3 year old. Now imagine another species that is 2% higher in DNA than us. How would we look to them? If they asked us to display human intelligence and we rolled Stephen Hawking before them to explain Quantum Physics, they would laugh at us in the face. 'Aaaaawww, isn't it cute, it knows Quantum Physics, little Johny learned that at what, 2, 3 years old?"

I'm not saying it's an alien, but...

/tiny human
 
2013-05-01 01:02:28 PM  
I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?
 
2013-05-01 01:05:46 PM  

SirEattonHogg: I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?


Unless they were somehow telepathic, and could share the combined power of all those tiny brains...

/through the looking glass here, people!

...I think it's fake
 
2013-05-01 01:09:09 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-01 01:09:57 PM  

SirEattonHogg: I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?


If there were other planets that were capable of supporting life, wouldn't that planets gravity have some bearing on how large animals grew?
 
2013-05-01 01:10:43 PM  

Ghastly: Looks more like something someone made on Etsy.

Lolz
 
2013-05-01 01:11:52 PM  

FloydA: ArkAngel: Probably carved

Yeah.  The skull is a composite; the maxilae of one animal are glued on to the frontal of another; you can see the join at a horizontal crack on the frontal that should not be there on any mammal.


Reminds me of this place which has apparently closed since I was there 20 years ago.
 
2013-05-01 01:13:34 PM  
The finds were released in a new documentary called Sirius.

In addition to studying the origins of Ata, Sirius explores the subject of UFO and ET visitation, the disclosure of secret UFO files, and the investigation of advanced energy and propulsion technologies extra-terrestrial civilizations are using to travel to Earth.

Sirius premiered in Los Angeles on Earth Day and was released online and in select theaters starting last month.


This is a promotion for a film.  It's a fake documentary.
 
2013-05-01 01:14:53 PM  

bdub77: This is marketing for an upcoming Predator movie, isn't it...


Or maybe this one:
http://youtu.be/CnRIR3pqY9A
 
2013-05-01 01:15:52 PM  

SirEattonHogg: I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?




We spend our days in death-mobiles and cube farms. Don't be so proud.
 
2013-05-01 01:16:18 PM  
It's the pilot from an Iranian totally real stealth fighter.
 
2013-05-01 01:17:25 PM  

SirEattonHogg: I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?


There is a strong correlation between brain size relative to body size and intelligence though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
 
2013-05-01 01:18:10 PM  

FARK rebel soldier: FloydA: ArkAngel: Probably carved

Yeah.  The skull is a composite; the maxilae of one animal are glued on to the frontal of another; you can see the join at a horizontal crack on the frontal that should not be there on any mammal.

Reminds me of this place which has apparently closed since I was there 20 years ago.


Curses! I'd live there!
 
2013-05-01 01:18:25 PM  

FARK rebel soldier: Reminds me of this place which has apparently closed since I was there 20 years ago.


The most asked-for exhibit at the Dime Museum is Abraham Lincoln's last bowel movement -- supposedly taken from a chamber pot at Ford's Theater -- mounted in a dusty frame along with a faded, handwritten note attesting to its authenticity. Horne had taken the turd down -- he changes his exhibits frequently -- but people kept asking for it, so he put it back up. The crusty, blackened poop was exposed as a fraud, Horne says, when an analysis revealed that it contained Necco wafers, which weren't sold until 1912. Of course, even Horne's explanation may be a fraud -- who can say?

I could swear that NECCO wafers were sent to Union troops in the Civil War.
 
2013-05-01 01:18:44 PM  

GardenWeasel: Mr. Cat Poop: Discovered in the Atacama desert in 2003, huh. And I suppose it's just coincidence that the world's leaders in astronomy started constructing the most advanced radio telescope dish array in the same place at the same time?

Huh. Based on your name, apparently you are what you eat.


Or I work at NRAO on the ALMA project and was getting a kick out of the article.
 
2013-05-01 01:19:06 PM  

SirEattonHogg: I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.


You've heard it backwards - the body:brain ratio is one of the most reliable variables correlating with intelligence. That just means that

For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.

you're right, brain size itself is not a useful measurement and it's widely speculated that the distraction of our own bodies is the big hindrance to our intelligence.

/stop that
//or you'll go bland
 
2013-05-01 01:19:16 PM  

SirEattonHogg: I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?


XChaggers.
 
2013-05-01 01:19:33 PM  
I saw more disturbing things at the Body Works exhibit.
 
2013-05-01 01:20:44 PM  

Pauly Math: SirEattonHogg:


What Pauly Math said.
 
2013-05-01 01:21:44 PM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.comthetruthcon.com

Meanwhile, the little aliens' champion, Steven Greer, remains an unknown species of hominid.
 
2013-05-01 01:22:47 PM  

SirEattonHogg: I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?


What makes you think humans are the smartest on the planet?
What makes you think an advanced alien race would think humans are the smartest creature on the planet?
 
2013-05-01 01:27:29 PM  
KimNorth:

"I can say with absolute certainty that it is not a monkey. It is human... It lived to the age of six to eight," said Garry Nolan, director of stem cell biology at Stanford University's School of Medicine in California."

a humanoid mutation that survived that long, 6 -10 yrs inChile at 8 inches long? Don't think so...



Even if it only lived three to five years, that's still pretty impressive.
 
2013-05-01 01:27:34 PM  

vudukungfu: I could swear that NECCO wafers were sent to Union troops in the Civil War.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necco_wafer says they were first made in 1847. Only one man has what it takes to enact a plot this complicated... the Cancer Man. Richard Horne is the Cancer Man.
 
2013-05-01 01:30:17 PM  
FTA: It lived to the age of six to eight

The fark? I could believe this was a premature baby or fetus, but no way it lived like that for years
 
2013-05-01 01:30:49 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-01 01:31:39 PM  
Looks like alien mummy jerky to me.
 
2013-05-01 01:32:07 PM  
A live one of those would probably make for great bass bait.
 
2013-05-01 01:32:33 PM  
If that lived to 6-8 years, that's remarkable itself and leads to other interesting questions
 
2013-05-01 01:33:09 PM  
In other news, the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary.
 
2013-05-01 01:33:12 PM  

CeroX: Hrm... Well, to be open minded about this, the person did say close to human, and here's the thing about DNA, human share 98% of the same DNA as chimps, so this thing being "closer to human" than to say chimps may mean the thing was 1-2% higher on the DNA ladder than humans, which is 2-4% higher than chimps...

And as Neil Tyson-DeGrasse said, "2%, that's what separates us from the chimps. So if you took the smartest chimpanzee in the world, the Einstein or Stephen Hawking of chimpanzees and you measured it's intelligence by what it can accomplish, what would you have? A chimp that can understand a few basic commands, maybe do some sign language. It would have about the same cognitive skills as a human 3 year old. Now imagine another species that is 2% higher in DNA than us. How would we look to them? If they asked us to display human intelligence and we rolled Stephen Hawking before them to explain Quantum Physics, they would laugh at us in the face. 'Aaaaawww, isn't it cute, it knows Quantum Physics, little Johny learned that at what, 2, 3 years old?"

I'm not saying it's an alien, but...

/tiny human


Now, imagine creatures 100% higher than us in DNA. Talk to any dust mites lately? We humans imagine that we understand the universe, and the eyelash we're collectively grooming is about to get plucked by forces we could not understand if we tried, and if we could, the revelation would drive us into a screaming psychosis.
 
2013-05-01 01:33:15 PM  
My guess: parasitic twin. They say it seems to have survived for several years after birth, so my guess would be a parasitic twin that was more like a conjoined twin, something that in those days could have reasonably been removed by what passed for a surgeon at the time.
 
2013-05-01 01:33:53 PM  
La Santa Muerte approves...not that I do...

i466.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-01 01:35:56 PM  
media-cache-ec3.pinterest.com
 
2013-05-01 01:37:13 PM  

chuggernaught: What makes you think humans are the smartest on the planet?
What makes you think an advanced alien race would think humans are the smartest creature on the planet?


Yeah, yeah. We've all read "Dolphin's Way" by Dickson.
 
2013-05-01 01:37:53 PM  
Old news is so exciting...
It has already been determined this was human. It is a HUMAN (or at least something that tested positive for human DNA) that is 6 inches tall and lived for 6 to 8 years WITHOUT modern medicine. That is interesting on its own and warrants further research.
 
2013-05-01 01:38:14 PM  

amindtat: Tiny 'alien' skeleton debunked by DNA: 'Alien' shown to be human after all[images.45cat.com image 788x800]


There's something about that pic...

/So right.
//42 is the answer.
 
2013-05-01 01:38:30 PM  

KimNorth: "The conclusion? The so-called "alien" is an "interesting mutation of a male human that had survived post-birth for between six and eight years," Greer commented.

"I can say with absolute certainty that it is not a monkey. It is human, closer to human than chimpanzees. It lived to the age of six to eight," said Garry Nolan, director of stem cell biology at Stanford University's School of Medicine in California."

Really a humanoid  mutation that survived that long, 6 -10 yrs inChile at 8 inches long? Don't think so...But what do I know. What do they mean by humanoid anyway? Mix with?? Also many believe we were seeded by part alien DNA and Chile has been considered a hub forever in digs and to this day sightings and activity.

That being said whatever this is I want to know more how the heck did a third word mother keep the child alive etc wow!!!



encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
The third word is "Torgo".
 
2013-05-01 01:39:05 PM  
One thing I find fascinating is that how so many people are ready to call BS on this but really have no idea the circumstances behind this story. It's almost as if people only believe what is spoon feed to them. They don't have to do any further thinking because the guys on the evening news, or the NYT didn't say so.

Anyway, to those that want to know more:

This is a real creature.

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SMG-report-4- 22 -2013-FINAL-COMPLETE.pdf

It is not a non-human primate (i.e. monkey)

It has very similar DNA to a human.

It is 6-8 years in age. (not a human fetus)

It has 10 ribs.

It is 6" in length.

It's cause of death is considered to blunt force trauma.

There are no known human conditions that would account for the abnormalities

There were no genetic markers that would indicate dwarfism or other deformation.

It was tested by two leading scientists in their respective fields. Dr. Nolan and Dr. Lachman of Stanford.

This is really exciting news, even if the thing is not a alien. Again, there is no known human to ever of had this condition. That alone is news worthy. Alien stuff is just icing on the cake.


.

Dr. Nolan is continuing to work on the DNA analysis, and when he concludes his work, he is writing a paper for peer review.
 
2013-05-01 01:39:26 PM  

FloydA: ArkAngel: Probably carved

Yeah.  The skull is a composite; the maxilae of one animal are glued on to the frontal of another; you can see the join at a horizontal crack on the frontal that should not be there on any mammal.  The back of the skull looks like it might be a coati, with the zygomatic arches broken off, and the face is probably a small monkey, or that might be carved as well.

The body looks like it is carved out of a single piece.  It looks a lot like what people imagine skeletal material looks like, when they haven't actually seen any.


I've been wondering what your take on this would be.  Things that stuck out to me: it's too perfect and we never get any info about how or where it was found; the skull seems to be a composite; the preservation of all of the tiny phalanges and metatarsals is too good to be true; the leg bones are too big; and the remaining tissue is too perfect.  My guess is Fimo clay+monkey skull+some token human tissue.  We also don't know if the samples they used were taken directly from the remains or provided to the researchers as separate samples.
/Fiji Mermaid
 
2013-05-01 01:40:53 PM  

Draskuul: My guess: parasitic twin. They say it seems to have survived for several years after birth, so my guess would be a parasitic twin that was more like a conjoined twin, something that in those days could have reasonably been removed by what passed for a surgeon at the time.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-01 01:41:47 PM  

Draskuul: My guess: parasitic twin. They say it seems to have survived for several years after birth, so my guess would be a parasitic twin that was more like a conjoined twin, something that in those days could have reasonably been removed by what passed for a surgeon at the time.



My guess: parasitic alien twin. One human. One alien. The alien twin died because of earth's germs. The human twin had a cold. The alien twin succumbed to illness.
 
2013-05-01 01:42:39 PM  

Calmamity: That whole article reeked of bullsh*t.


this
 
2013-05-01 01:45:01 PM  

Leashlaw: We also don't know if the samples they used were taken directly from the remains or provided to the researchers as separate samples


Yes we do. See my link above.

"We obtained excellent DNA material by surgically dissecting the distal ends of two right
anterior ribs on the humanoid"

I heard in a interview with Dr. Nolan, he was saying that the being is so fragile, that they were afraid they were going to break it when extracting the DNA material.
 
2013-05-01 01:45:26 PM  
I just watched Prometheus, so I'm getting a kick...
 
2013-05-01 01:45:41 PM  
solid guts?
don't we get a little soft just under the ribs
solid legs?
i'm in with the B.S. crowd
 
2013-05-01 01:46:13 PM  

internut scholar: One thing I find fascinating is that how so many people are ready to call BS on this but really have no idea the circumstances behind this story. It's almost as if people only believe what is spoon feed to them. They don't have to do any further thinking because the guys on the evening news, or the NYT didn't say so.

Anyway, to those that want to know more:

This is a real creature.

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SMG-report-4- 22 -2013-FINAL-COMPLETE.pdf

It is not a non-human primate (i.e. monkey)

It has very similar DNA to a human.

It is 6-8 years in age. (not a human fetus)

It has 10 ribs.

It is 6" in length.

It's cause of death is considered to blunt force trauma.

There are no known human conditions that would account for the abnormalities

There were no genetic markers that would indicate dwarfism or other deformation.

It was tested by two leading scientists in their respective fields. Dr. Nolan and Dr. Lachman of Stanford.

This is really exciting news, even if the thing is not a alien. Again, there is no known human to ever of had this condition. That alone is news worthy. Alien stuff is just icing on the cake.

Dr. Nolan is continuing to work on the DNA analysis, and when he concludes his work, he is writing a paper for peer review.



Oh fark off!

www.starchildproject.com

Seems to me you're the one who believes in any bullshiat these kooks dish out, including the 'Starchild' alien skull bollocks, or whatever 'proof' they've used in the past.
 
2013-05-01 01:46:46 PM  

Perlin Noise: Calmamity: That whole article reeked of bullsh*t.

this


I don't get it. Why is everyone calling bullshiat? The mummy has been reported on by other sources to test positive for human DNA, just like the article says.

Or the it being an alien part is bullshiat? Which I will admit is a REALLY big stretch...
 
2013-05-01 01:47:21 PM  

Bastard Toadflax: In other news, the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary.


bullshiat. It is too, I looked it up.
 
2013-05-01 01:48:01 PM  
It's just a common Pixie.  You people act like you have never seen one before.

http://www.lucy learns.com/pixies-fairies-elves.html
 
2013-05-01 01:48:46 PM  
Why doesn't it have a sternum?
 
2013-05-01 01:50:36 PM  
Is it just me, or do the bones in the picture look bronze cast?  Granted, I usually work around bones in people that are still alive, so I don't know what fossilized remains would really look like, but 'bronze cast' was the thought that ran through my head when I looked at the ribs.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...this bears some investigation.
 
2013-05-01 01:50:52 PM  

GungFu: Oh fark off!

Seems to me you're the one who believes in any bullshiat these kooks dish out, including the 'Starchild' alien skull bollocks, or whatever 'proof' they've used in the past.


Well since you have it all figured out, why don't you tell me what it is.
 
2013-05-01 01:51:50 PM  
Does anyone have a link that isn't the Examiner or the guy's own website? I find it impossible to believe that that thing is real, let alone that it was a human that survived 6-8 years.
 
2013-05-01 01:52:56 PM  

swahnhennessy: Does anyone have a link that isn't the Examiner or the guy's own website? I find it impossible to believe that that thing is real, let alone that it was a human that survived 6-8 years.


http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SMG-report-4- 22 -2013-FINAL-COMPLETE.pdf
 
2013-05-01 01:56:08 PM  
Did you not get the bit about the guy's own website? You're really going to give that to me as a source? You can't be serious Sirius.
 
2013-05-01 01:56:43 PM  
I think I know enough about human nature to know if that thing ever actually lived it spent a sizable portion its life shoved up some guys arse.
 
2013-05-01 01:58:41 PM  

chuggernaught: SirEattonHogg: I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?

What makes you think humans are the smartest on the planet?
What makes you think an advanced alien race would think humans are the smartest creature on the planet?


www.technovelgy.com
 
2013-05-01 01:58:59 PM  

swahnhennessy: Did you not get the bit about the guy's own website? You're really going to give that to me as a source? You can't be serious Sirius.


Right, now read it, and follow the links in the report, from the scientists that did the testing. I am telling you that it is legit. I personally conversed with one of the scientists.

I am not saying that this is an alien. What I am saying is that they don't know what it is.
 
2013-05-01 02:00:16 PM  
it certainly does look delicious, that's for sure
 
2013-05-01 02:04:07 PM  

SirEattonHogg: but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.


www.cwporter.com
 
2013-05-01 02:04:27 PM  
'Since this does not agree with my narrow and uneducated view of reality, I am going to call bullshiat.'
 
2013-05-01 02:04:50 PM  
From the Discovery article linked in TFA:

"The skull also showed signs of turricephaly, or high-head syndrome, a birth defect in which the top of the skull is cone-shaped."

shesaidzed.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-01 02:18:00 PM  

internut scholar: One thing I find fascinating is that how so many people are ready to call BS on this but really have no idea the circumstances behind this story. It's almost as if people only believe what is spoon feed to them. They don't have to do any further thinking because the guys on the evening news, or the NYT didn't say so.


Thank you for saving me those keystrokes.  The people who just snort "BS" are one thing; normal skeptical reaction. But the ones who spin fantasies more fantastic than TFA to "support" their skepticism are just precious.

"When faced with the choice of changing their minds or proving that it is unnecessary to do so, most people immediately get busy on the proof."  John K. Galbraith.
 
2013-05-01 02:18:01 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: The finds were released in a new documentary called Sirius.

In addition to studying the origins of Ata, Sirius explores the subject of UFO and ET visitation, the disclosure of secret UFO files, and the investigation of advanced energy and propulsion technologies extra-terrestrial civilizations are using to travel to Earth.

Sirius premiered in Los Angeles on Earth Day and was released online and in select theaters starting last month.

This is a promotion for a film.  It's a fake documentary.


It certainly looks like that. The guy behind this is not only saying it's proof of aliens, but also promising new free energy technology. This whole thing just reeks of 100% utter BS. It seems to be a nice career for a UFO nutter... Just accept some fake artifact from someone and Kickstarter a movie based around examining it. As long as there are other UFO kooks willing to shell out some bucks on projects like that he'll make himself a nice living.
 
2013-05-01 02:19:26 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Looks like alien mummy jerky to me.


i1136.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-01 02:21:11 PM  

Proximuscentauri: 'Since this does not agrees with my narrow and uneducated view of reality, I am going to call bullshiat just choose to believe what I want to believe in my heart.'


FTFY
 
2013-05-01 02:21:56 PM  

internut scholar: GungFu: Oh fark off!

Seems to me you're the one who believes in any bullshiat these kooks dish out, including the 'Starchild' alien skull bollocks, or whatever 'proof' they've used in the past.

Well since you have it all figured out, why don't you tell me what it is.



I don't think your mind can process the idea that the figurine is neither human nor alien. It's a shiatty model attached to a story spun for the idiots who have the capability of thinking that it can be some ET from another planet. Throughout history there has been extremely similiar attempts at deception.

Throughout history, there has not been an alien lifeform (of the popular culture kind) found on earth. I rest my case.
 
2013-05-01 02:27:50 PM  

GungFu: internut scholar: GungFu: Oh fark off!

Seems to me you're the one who believes in any bullshiat these kooks dish out, including the 'Starchild' alien skull bollocks, or whatever 'proof' they've used in the past.

Well since you have it all figured out, why don't you tell me what it is.


I don't think your mind can process the idea that the figurine is neither human nor alien. It's a shiatty model attached to a story spun for the idiots who have the capability of thinking that it can be some ET from another planet. Throughout history there has been extremely similiar attempts at deception.

Throughout history, there has not been an alien lifeform (of the popular culture kind) found on earth. I rest my case.


So you are implying the scientists Dr. Nolan and Dr. Greer are staking their professional careers and totally making this shiat up about it testing positive for human DNA when in reality it is just a doll?

Again not saying it isn't possible, but just like that thing ACTUALLY being an alien, it is a long shot.
 
2013-05-01 02:28:24 PM  
Some more background on Dr. Greer, the guy behind this latest alien hoax. He literally claims that an alien ambassador from the Andromeda Galaxy named "Bijou" follows him around. So everyone who seems to have lost all critical reasoning capabilities and are blathering on about how people who are skeptical aren't being open-minded enough should really keep that in mind.

He's a known loon, and this is yet another hoax. It's not that skeptics aren't open-minded enough.... it's just that you're so "open-minded" that you're too willing to believe any silly garbage which conforms to your desires.
 
2013-05-01 02:30:59 PM  
Why are people arguing that this thing isn't an alien?  The whole article is saying nothing but "this isn't an alien" and everyone in the thread is saying "this isn't an alien" and yet I still see a bunch of posts saying (paraphrased) "DURRRR, nutjobs thinks this is an alien, dumbasses" when the one thing I see everyone agreeing on...IS THAT IT ISN'T AN ALIEN.

Jesus...just INCLUDING the word alien in teh headline is apparently all it takes.

I read about the tiny skeleton on Yahoo earlier today, but I imagine every internet article is using the same sources.  In the end it looks like all they know is:

DNA is human, no (known) markers for dwarfism, has the wrong number of ribs, not a fetus.

/And since we are all internet-armchair-scientizing about it, my guess is weird random mutation that we don't see because it is not conducive to survival, therefore the mutation is not reinforced and is not increasingly present in the gene pool.
//Or, ya know, it's aliens...
 
2013-05-01 02:32:44 PM  

DeathCipris: So you are implying the scientists Dr. Nolan and Dr. Greer are staking their professional careers and totally making this shiat up about it testing positive for human DNA when in reality it is just a doll?

Again not saying it isn't possible, but just like that thing ACTUALLY being an alien, it is a long shot.



Uhhh, see that makes no sense at all. It being an actual alien would be the long shot - being a hoax is all too common. There's been many supposed skeletons of fantastical things throughout history which have been hoaxes.

And Dr. Greer is a known nutbag who claims aliens from another galaxy literally follow him around, and that every time he observes the night sky he sees alien spaceships. So hoax is not only the more likely explanation, it's almost certainly THE explanation.
 
2013-05-01 02:33:31 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

I thought they were taller in the books.
 
2013-05-01 02:33:35 PM  

GungFu: I don't think your mind can process the idea that the figurine is neither human nor alien. It's a shiatty model attached to a story spun for the idiots who have the capability of thinking that it can be some ET from another planet. Throughout history there has been extremely similiar attempts at deception.

Throughout history, there has not been an alien lifeform (of the popular culture kind) found on earth. I rest my case.



Except for the parts where you are totally wrong I agree with you.

The part where you are wrong is that this "figurine" is a biological humanoid and that it is not a hoax.

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/signed-Lachma n- report.pdf

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Chile-Specime n_ GPN-Summary.pdf
 
2013-05-01 02:35:41 PM  

internut scholar: swahnhennessy: Did you not get the bit about the guy's own website? You're really going to give that to me as a source? You can't be serious Sirius.

Right, now read it, and follow the links in the report, from the scientists that did the testing. I am telling you that it is legit. I personally conversed with one of the scientists.

I am not saying that this is an alien. What I am saying is that they don't know what it is.


What I found interesting about this was that Greer wanted this to be an alien, so he took it to actual scientists, who studied it and concluded it was a 6 inch human(oid) that was probably 6 years old. The scientific opinion seems just as unbelievable as the alien theory, but these are reputable people from Stanford that studied it.

I would be hesitant about calling this BS, even if there is a pretty large chasm of WTF between what we will accept at face value and what the Stanford guys are saying.
 
2013-05-01 02:37:01 PM  

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Why are people arguing that this thing isn't an alien?  The whole article is saying nothing but "this isn't an alien" and everyone in the thread is saying "this isn't an alien" and yet I still see a bunch of posts saying (paraphrased) "DURRRR, nutjobs thinks this is an alien, dumbasses" when the one thing I see everyone agreeing on...IS THAT IT ISN'T AN ALIEN.

Jesus...just INCLUDING the word alien in teh headline is apparently all it takes.

I read about the tiny skeleton on Yahoo earlier today, but I imagine every internet article is using the same sources.  In the end it looks like all they know is:

DNA is human, no (known) markers for dwarfism, has the wrong number of ribs, not a fetus.

/And since we are all internet-armchair-scientizing about it, my guess is weird random mutation that we don't see because it is not conducive to survival, therefore the mutation is not reinforced and is not increasingly present in the gene pool.
//Or, ya know, it's aliens...



Or, it's neither, as a farker who is an actual archeologist has already pointed out - it is most likely a carving/composite someone put together. Considering the nuttery of the source of this "skeleton", and the successful way he's exploiting the credulous to make money off of it, I'm going with hoax.
 
2013-05-01 02:37:22 PM  

mongbiohazard: Some more background on Dr. Greer, the guy behind this latest alien hoax. He literally claims that an alien ambassador from the Andromeda Galaxy named "Bijou" follows him around. So everyone who seems to have lost all critical reasoning capabilities and are blathering on about how people who are skeptical aren't being open-minded enough should really keep that in mind.

He's a known loon, and this is yet another hoax. It's not that skeptics aren't open-minded enough.... it's just that you're so "open-minded" that you're too willing to believe any silly garbage which conforms to your desires.


This is true, but just because he is picking this up and running with it, does not mean the science behind the testing is flawed.

The scientists are being very cautious, and are not saying this is an alien. For the most part, Greer isn't even saying this is an alien. He is implying that it could be, but frankly it really could be. More likely not, but there is that chance. Being that it doesn't fit ANYTHING we have ever observed before.
 
2013-05-01 02:37:39 PM  

internut scholar: GungFu: I don't think your mind can process the idea that the figurine is neither human nor alien. It's a shiatty model attached to a story spun for the idiots who have the capability of thinking that it can be some ET from another planet. Throughout history there has been extremely similiar attempts at deception.

Throughout history, there has not been an alien lifeform (of the popular culture kind) found on earth. I rest my case.


Except for the parts where you are totally wrong I agree with you.

The part where you are wrong is that this "figurine" is a biological humanoid and that it is not a hoax.

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/signed-Lachma n- report.pdf

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Chile-Specime n_ GPN-Summary.pdf


As was pointed out upthread somewhere, it seems to be a mashup of different bones. In all probability, the rib ends that were supposedly dissected did come from a human, they were just carved to be that small. Why the hell do people always believe such ridiculous bullshiat? It's NOT a new species of human, it's a farking model.
 
2013-05-01 02:38:39 PM  

DeathCipris: GungFu: internut scholar: GungFu: Oh fark off!

Seems to me you're the one who believes in any bullshiat these kooks dish out, including the 'Starchild' alien skull bollocks, or whatever 'proof' they've used in the past.

Well since you have it all figured out, why don't you tell me what it is.


I don't think your mind can process the idea that the figurine is neither human nor alien. It's a shiatty model attached to a story spun for the idiots who have the capability of thinking that it can be some ET from another planet. Throughout history there has been extremely similiar attempts at deception.

Throughout history, there has not been an alien lifeform (of the popular culture kind) found on earth. I rest my case.

So you are implying the scientists Dr. Nolan and Dr. Greer are staking their professional careers and totally making this shiat up about it testing positive for human DNA when in reality it is just a doll?

Again not saying it isn't possible, but just like that thing ACTUALLY being an alien, it is a long shot.


If you read to the end of that "paper" by those "scientists", you see that they end with the suggestion of an ET, and the half baked theory of panspermia, with no citations.

/you are all being trolled.
 
2013-05-01 02:38:48 PM  
If it was a hoax, I'm pretty sure the Stanford guys would have outed it as such.
 
2013-05-01 02:39:06 PM  
Also, I should have added that the fact that this guy really thinks that aliens follow him around everywhere and that he sees alien craft every time he looks at the night sky should be an obvious hint that this is utter crapola.
 
2013-05-01 02:40:37 PM  

mongbiohazard: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Why are people arguing that this thing isn't an alien?  The whole article is saying nothing but "this isn't an alien" and everyone in the thread is saying "this isn't an alien" and yet I still see a bunch of posts saying (paraphrased) "DURRRR, nutjobs thinks this is an alien, dumbasses" when the one thing I see everyone agreeing on...IS THAT IT ISN'T AN ALIEN.

Jesus...just INCLUDING the word alien in teh headline is apparently all it takes.

I read about the tiny skeleton on Yahoo earlier today, but I imagine every internet article is using the same sources.  In the end it looks like all they know is:

DNA is human, no (known) markers for dwarfism, has the wrong number of ribs, not a fetus.

/And since we are all internet-armchair-scientizing about it, my guess is weird random mutation that we don't see because it is not conducive to survival, therefore the mutation is not reinforced and is not increasingly present in the gene pool.
//Or, ya know, it's aliens...


Or, it's neither, as a farker who is an actual archeologist has already pointed out - it is most likely a carving/composite someone put together. Considering the nuttery of the source of this "skeleton", and the successful way he's exploiting the credulous to make money off of it, I'm going with hoax.


It's also interesting to note that the scientist that studied the skeletal structure only did so from images.  And the scientist that studied the chemical makeup made no analysis of the specimen as a whole.
 
2013-05-01 02:41:30 PM  
It's probably a new species of primate, hell we recently discovered a few.
 
2013-05-01 02:42:23 PM  

MacWizard: internut scholar: swahnhennessy: Did you not get the bit about the guy's own website? You're really going to give that to me as a source? You can't be serious Sirius.

Right, now read it, and follow the links in the report, from the scientists that did the testing. I am telling you that it is legit. I personally conversed with one of the scientists.

I am not saying that this is an alien. What I am saying is that they don't know what it is.

What I found interesting about this was that Greer wanted this to be an alien, so he took it to actual scientists, who studied it and concluded it was a 6 inch human(oid) that was probably 6 years old. The scientific opinion seems just as unbelievable as the alien theory, but these are reputable people from Stanford that studied it.

I would be hesitant about calling this BS, even if there is a pretty large chasm of WTF between what we will accept at face value and what the Stanford guys are saying.


I agree.

I also find it interesting that no one, besides these obscure websites are reporting this news.

I think this is pretty wild just thinking it could be human. But further testing definitely needs to, and will be (is) happening.
 
2013-05-01 02:46:08 PM  

internut scholar: One thing I find fascinating is that how so many people are ready to call BS on this but really have no idea the circumstances behind this story. It's almost as if people only believe what is spoon feed to them. They don't have to do any further thinking because the guys on the evening news, or the NYT didn't say so.

Anyway, to those that want to know more:

This is a real creature.

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SMG-report-4- 22 -2013-FINAL-COMPLETE.pdf

It is not a non-human primate (i.e. monkey)

It has very similar DNA to a human.

It is 6-8 years in age. (not a human fetus)

It has 10 ribs.

It is 6" in length.

It's cause of death is considered to blunt force trauma.

There are no known human conditions that would account for the abnormalities

There were no genetic markers that would indicate dwarfism or other deformation.

It was tested by two leading scientists in their respective fields. Dr. Nolan and Dr. Lachman of Stanford.

This is really exciting news, even if the thing is not a alien. Again, there is no known human to ever of had this condition. That alone is news worthy. Alien stuff is just icing on the cake.


.

Dr. Nolan is continuing to work on the DNA analysis, and when he concludes his work, he is writing a paper for peer review.


THIS. I thought it was a hoax when I first saw the pics a long time ago...Watched Sirius last week and the analysis of this lil guy was the only exciting bit.
 
2013-05-01 02:47:40 PM  
Yeah, the Dr. Greer dude is a nutbag. If he's the "credible" one in this, I'm calling hoax.
 
2013-05-01 02:48:00 PM  

mongbiohazard: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Why are people arguing that this thing isn't an alien?  The whole article is saying nothing but "this isn't an alien" and everyone in the thread is saying "this isn't an alien" and yet I still see a bunch of posts saying (paraphrased) "DURRRR, nutjobs thinks this is an alien, dumbasses" when the one thing I see everyone agreeing on...IS THAT IT ISN'T AN ALIEN.

Jesus...just INCLUDING the word alien in teh headline is apparently all it takes.

I read about the tiny skeleton on Yahoo earlier today, but I imagine every internet article is using the same sources.  In the end it looks like all they know is:

DNA is human, no (known) markers for dwarfism, has the wrong number of ribs, not a fetus.

/And since we are all internet-armchair-scientizing about it, my guess is weird random mutation that we don't see because it is not conducive to survival, therefore the mutation is not reinforced and is not increasingly present in the gene pool.
//Or, ya know, it's aliens...


Or, it's neither, as a farker who is an actual archeologist has already pointed out - it is most likely a carving/composite someone put together. Considering the nuttery of the source of this "skeleton", and the successful way he's exploiting the credulous to make money off of it, I'm going with hoax.


I mean, I guess I find it questionable that someone could pass a figurine off as an actual skeleton for so long.  I mean, that is probably just about the simplest most basic testing you would do if someone handed this over to a lab.  Unless you are assuming that this whole thing from top to bottom is 100% bullshiat fiction (which it might be, I have drawn no conclusions but enjoy speculation), why bother going to the trouble/expense of complicated DNA analysis when any old MRI would likely give you everything you would need to rule out figurine.
 
2013-05-01 02:48:42 PM  

Xploder: As was pointed out upthread somewhere, it seems to be a mashup of different bones. In all probability, the rib ends that were supposedly dissected did come from a human, they were just carved to be that small. Why the hell do people always believe such ridiculous bullshiat? It's NOT a new species of human, it's a farking model.


Why do I believe this ridiculous BS? Because one of the leading scientists in the world on skeletal abnormalities concluded that it was a being. Not some mix and match hoax.

Don't believe me. Go straight to the source.  Dr. Ralph Lachman.

So either you and the farkers up thread are smarter than him or you all are wrong. It's really that simple now.
 
2013-05-01 02:50:32 PM  

chuggernaught: What makes you think an advanced alien race would think humans are the smartest creature on the planet?


Don't know about your first question (what makes us think we're the smartest). But as to your second, any alien race capable of traveling here would do so by manipulating its physical environment to its advantage in some hugely impressive way to achieve interstellar travel. And it would have arrived at the ability to do so by manipulating its physical environment starting in far less impressive ways and working its way up. On arriving at our planet it would ask itself "which species has, like us, manipulated its physical environment to its own advantage?". It might be amused by how crude and limited our efforts are, not even reaching the planetary scale of control, but nonetheless it would recognize that fundamental ability we hold in common.

In exactly the same way, when we look at archaeological evidence for our distant ancestors, we accept the emergence of stone tools as a key divergence from other early apes, and the appearance of polished stone tools as a dramatic step forward. Even across millions of years we attribute the greatest intelligence to those creatures who showed signs of becoming like us.

Of course, it's quite possible we're not the smartest and that the dolphins are smarter. But the point is that long after we've departed this planet (one way or another), dolphins will still be in the oceans doing dolphiny things, and so will their space-dolphin equivalents on other worlds. Any alien likely to actually get here is going to be a lot like use in the manipulating the environment department, and like us is likely to regard manipulating the environment as the hallmark of intelligence.
 
2013-05-01 02:51:12 PM  

Pauly Math: SirEattonHogg: I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?

There is a strong correlation between brain size relative to body size and intelligence though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient


There's a lot more than quantity in determining intelligence. Number of glial cells for one is something that seperates the most of us from Einstein. There's still a hell of a lot we do not know about neuroscience and I just wish there was more funding...
 
2013-05-01 02:52:03 PM  

swahnhennessy: Does anyone have a link that isn't the Examiner or the guy's own website? I find it impossible to believe that that thing is real, let alone that it was a human that survived 6-8 years.


http://www.livescience.com/29176-alien-looking-skeleton-poses-medica l- mystery.html?cmpid=514645

there are more pictures of it there. Basically reports the same thing, though, with a little more detail on the DNA.
 
2013-05-01 02:53:56 PM  
d.gr-assets.com
 
2013-05-01 02:54:34 PM  

Xploder: internut scholar: GungFu: I don't think your mind can process the idea that the figurine is neither human nor alien. It's a shiatty model attached to a story spun for the idiots who have the capability of thinking that it can be some ET from another planet. Throughout history there has been extremely similiar attempts at deception.

Throughout history, there has not been an alien lifeform (of the popular culture kind) found on earth. I rest my case.


Except for the parts where you are totally wrong I agree with you.

The part where you are wrong is that this "figurine" is a biological humanoid and that it is not a hoax.

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/signed-Lachma n- report.pdf

http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Chile-Specime n_ GPN-Summary.pdf

As was pointed out upthread somewhere, it seems to be a mashup of different bones. In all probability, the rib ends that were supposedly dissected did come from a human, they were just carved to be that small. Why the hell do people always believe such ridiculous bullshiat? It's NOT a new species of human, it's a farking model.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-01 02:56:57 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Yeah, the Dr. Greer dude is a nutbag. If he's the "credible" one in this, I'm calling hoax.


No, he's the one that tried to say it was an alien. The credible ones are:

Garry Nolan, professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford School of Medicine, and
Dr. Ralph Lachman, professor emeritus, UCLA School of Medicine, and clinical professor at Stanford University
 
2013-05-01 02:57:01 PM  

MacWizard: If it was a hoax, I'm pretty sure the Stanford guys would have outed it as such.


You would think, but then again....Uri Gellar.
 
2013-05-01 02:57:49 PM  

FloydA: ArkAngel: Probably carved

Yeah.  The skull is a composite; the maxilae of one animal are glued on to the frontal of another; you can see the join at a horizontal crack on the frontal that should not be there on any mammal.  The back of the skull looks like it might be a coati, with the zygomatic arches broken off, and the face is probably a small monkey, or that might be carved as well.

The body looks like it is carved out of a single piece.  It looks a lot like what people imagine skeletal material looks like, when they haven't actually seen any.


Some have actually bothered using Xray on the thing, others are quick to dismiss anything out of the ordinary from a single picture and/or are simply too lazy to delve deeper. I admit I was like you when I first heard of the case.
 
2013-05-01 03:02:50 PM  

chuggernaught: SirEattonHogg: I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?

What makes you think humans are the smartest on the planet?
What makes you think an advanced alien race would think humans are the smartest creature on the planet?


So long, and thanks for all the fish.
 
2013-05-01 03:04:28 PM  

deadsanta: DeathCipris: GungFu: internut scholar: GungFu: Oh fark off!

Seems to me you're the one who believes in any bullshiat these kooks dish out, including the 'Starchild' alien skull bollocks, or whatever 'proof' they've used in the past.

Well since you have it all figured out, why don't you tell me what it is.


I don't think your mind can process the idea that the figurine is neither human nor alien. It's a shiatty model attached to a story spun for the idiots who have the capability of thinking that it can be some ET from another planet. Throughout history there has been extremely similiar attempts at deception.

Throughout history, there has not been an alien lifeform (of the popular culture kind) found on earth. I rest my case.

So you are implying the scientists Dr. Nolan and Dr. Greer are staking their professional careers and totally making this shiat up about it testing positive for human DNA when in reality it is just a doll?

Again not saying it isn't possible, but just like that thing ACTUALLY being an alien, it is a long shot.

If you read to the end of that "paper" by those "scientists", you see that they end with the suggestion of an ET, and the half baked theory of panspermia, with no citations.

/you are all being trolled


The report I read had some explanation at the end that they didn't know what it was and a very brief mention of ET.
Yes, it is possible it is a fake or a hoax. Yes, that Greer guy is a nut.

But outright lie and fake test results? Then send them off for peer review after the analysis finishes? That's a new low and one I don't think he is willing to take.
 
2013-05-01 03:09:08 PM  

DeathCipris: Old news is so exciting...
It has already been determined this was human. It is a HUMAN (or at least something that tested positive for human DNA) that is 6 inches tall and lived for 6 to 8 years WITHOUT modern medicine. That is interesting on its own and warrants further research.


No, that is bullshiat.
 
2013-05-01 03:10:03 PM  

DeathCipris: deadsanta: DeathCipris: GungFu: internut scholar: GungFu: Oh fark off!

Seems to me you're the one who believes in any bullshiat these kooks dish out, including the 'Starchild' alien skull bollocks, or whatever 'proof' they've used in the past.

Well since you have it all figured out, why don't you tell me what it is.


I don't think your mind can process the idea that the figurine is neither human nor alien. It's a shiatty model attached to a story spun for the idiots who have the capability of thinking that it can be some ET from another planet. Throughout history there has been extremely similiar attempts at deception.

Throughout history, there has not been an alien lifeform (of the popular culture kind) found on earth. I rest my case.

So you are implying the scientists Dr. Nolan and Dr. Greer are staking their professional careers and totally making this shiat up about it testing positive for human DNA when in reality it is just a doll?

Again not saying it isn't possible, but just like that thing ACTUALLY being an alien, it is a long shot.

If you read to the end of that "paper" by those "scientists", you see that they end with the suggestion of an ET, and the half baked theory of panspermia, with no citations.

/you are all being trolled

The report I read had some explanation at the end that they didn't know what it was and a very brief mention of ET.
Yes, it is possible it is a fake or a hoax. Yes, that Greer guy is a nut.

But outright lie and fake test results? Then send them off for peer review after the analysis finishes? That's a new low and one I don't think he is willing to take.


Never go full Greer?
 
2013-05-01 03:12:24 PM  

DeathCipris: Old news is so exciting...
It has already been determined this was human. It is a HUMAN (or at least something that tested positive for human DNA) that is 6 inches tall and lived for 6 to 8 years WITHOUT modern medicine. That is interesting on its own and warrants further research.


OK, I'll choose this one to say what I just posted to FB on this topic:

Hmm, while there are 2 "Garry Nolan"s on the faculty of Stanford, one is a Cancer researcher, and one is a Genetecist, both are professors, not the "director of stem cell biology". That would be Irving L. Weissman, whose proper title is Director of Stanford Medicine's Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. See:

http://stemcell.stanford.edu/about/annual_reports/2011%20annual%20re po rt%20small%20copy.pdf

Here's the Professors Nolan, who seem like very accomplished men, but whose lists of publications do not mention stem cells, not once:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/nolan/members/members.html#nolan

http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/cancer/faculty/Garry_Nolan/

So, I'd say any claim about the composition of the "DNA" made by "Garry Nolan" in the "documentary" are pretty suspect, since that person doesn't appear to exist.
 
2013-05-01 03:14:16 PM  
I'm not vested in this debate one way or the other, but, someone is going to someone else an apology.
/welcome to fark, I know
 
2013-05-01 03:16:26 PM  
I am astounded that so many people with adequate brain power to operate a computer in order to post on Fark actually believe that this is a skeleton of a 6-8 year old human being. I would think that anyone who couldn't recognize that this story is complete and utter bullshiat would have difficulty controlling their own bowels, much less operate a computer.
 
2013-05-01 03:16:44 PM  
DNA data is available to anyone who actually knows what to do with it, as the spirit of collaboration and peer review  is well alive in Science. Scientist do not immediately dismiss things because they are challenging or ground-breaking, but most of you guys do.
Coming straight out of the Conspiracy Theorist and scientific reasoning discussion, I find these comments very interesting. Are the people calling this story bullshiat saying that world reknown scientific academia and the world famous UFO "researcher" are in on a conspiracy to bring the "reality" of the UFO phenomena to the public or did your brains just go pop?
Little human or not, it seems very real. To deny this all by saying it's a carving is lazy at best.
 
2013-05-01 03:20:35 PM  
Anyone surprised that the article just barely touches on how this item was found? Found by one of the documentary producers maybe?

/Call me when the NYT picks this up.
 
2013-05-01 03:20:56 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Looks like alien mummy jerky to me.


bbsimg.ngfiles.com

Did you say jerky mummy?

/Emperor Nimbala
//Hot and smokey.
 
2013-05-01 03:21:06 PM  
When googling "smallest known human ever recorded," the second and third entries are about micro penises.

Oh internet, you are a dark and soulless place...
 
2013-05-01 03:21:42 PM  

Deucednuisance: DeathCipris: Old news is so exciting...
It has already been determined this was human. It is a HUMAN (or at least something that tested positive for human DNA) that is 6 inches tall and lived for 6 to 8 years WITHOUT modern medicine. That is interesting on its own and warrants further research.

OK, I'll choose this one to say what I just posted to FB on this topic:

Hmm, while there are 2 "Garry Nolan"s on the faculty of Stanford, one is a Cancer researcher, and one is a Genetecist, both are professors, not the "director of stem cell biology". That would be Irving L. Weissman, whose proper title is Director of Stanford Medicine's Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. See:

http://stemcell.stanford.edu/about/annual_reports/2011%20annual%20re po rt%20small%20copy.pdf

Here's the Professors Nolan, who seem like very accomplished men, but whose lists of publications do not mention stem cells, not once:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/nolan/members/members.html#nolan

http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/cancer/faculty/Garry_Nolan/

So, I'd say any claim about the composition of the "DNA" made by "Garry Nolan" in the "documentary" are pretty suspect, since that person doesn't appear to exist.


http://www.stanford.edu/group/nolan/members/members.html#nolan

It says he is geneticist and in the paper he tested the DNA, which makes perfect sense. Where are you getting the Stem Cell thing from?
 
2013-05-01 03:26:17 PM  
chuggernaught
What makes you think humans are the smartest on the planet?
What makes you think an advanced alien race would think humans are the smartest creature on the planet?


Well, aside from the amusing books of Douglas Adams and our violent and self-destructive propensities, I would think any alien race that travels space and comes to this planet would probably measure intelligence and level of civilization by something that has some remote similarity to its own. Namely, the use of tools, understanding of mathematics and by extension level of technology/science.

Since as far as we can tell, chimps, dolphins, whales and dogs don't really use tools or understand math (beyond simple counting) or science...  And we're the only ones who travel off this planet - albeit very short voyages and distances.  Yeah, I don't think its a stretch at all to say we're "top dog" on this planet and would be perceived as such by alien races.
 
2013-05-01 03:26:30 PM  

stevetherobot: I am astounded that so many people with adequate brain power to operate a computer in order to post on Fark actually believe that this is a skeleton of a 6-8 year old human being. I would think that anyone who couldn't recognize that this story is complete and utter bullshiat would have difficulty controlling their own bowels, much less operate a computer.


When I point out and prove how you are wrong, will you come back and admit it, or will you disappear like everyone else does?
 
2013-05-01 03:26:59 PM  
I don't get the people crying "fake" and "bullshiat." The article seems to imply that this thing is real, but it's really a deformed human. Are the people crying BS saying that the doctors are in on the hoax, or that the doctors can't recognize a real skeleton from a figurine carved from human bone no matter what test they run on it?

The first time I saw it, I too assumed it was a fake. Then I saw the x-rays and heard the medical reports. Every followup seems to indicate that it's real, and not a carved figurine or a mashup of different bones.

I dunno. I have a hard time believing it's an alien, but I have an equally hard time believing that it's a human that lived to the age of six in a poor country hundreds of years ago. If it's human, it appears that it's about a quarter of the size of the shortest human ever documented, and at the age of six (or older) was about half the size of the shortest baby ever. That alone makes it a historic find, regardless of whether or not it's an alien. The chance a human that tiny would live a week, much less six years or more, would seem to be very small.

It seems clear that it's not a fetus or baby due to the bone density, it wasn't a dwarf due to the long limbs, and the skull sure doesn't look like a monkey skull to me.
 
2013-05-01 03:32:01 PM  

stevetherobot: I am astounded that so many people with adequate brain power to operate a computer in order to post on Fark actually believe that this is a skeleton of a 6-8 year old human being. I would think that anyone who couldn't recognize that this story is complete and utter bullshiat would have difficulty controlling their own bowels, much less operate a computer.


What I don't believe is that well-respected scientists AND the University of Stanford would stake their reputations and falsify test results for some PR campaign of a silly movie. You sound like the Catholic church when Galileo told the Pope that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is why they are running more tests on it.
 
2013-05-01 03:32:09 PM  

dittybopper: Deoxyribonucleic acid.  It's the genetic 'code' that describes all living things, but that's not what's important right now.


Ha Ha!! Awesome.
 
2013-05-01 03:37:59 PM  

DeathCipris: It says he is geneticist and in the paper he tested the DNA, which makes perfect sense. Where are you getting the Stem Cell thing from?


Right here, which was the article under discussion on FB:

http://www.examiner.com/article/tiny-alien-skeleton-debunked-by-dna- al ien-shown-to-be-human-after-all

internut scholar: When I point out and prove how you are wrong, will you come back and admit it, or will you disappear like everyone else does?


I do so look forward to quoting this back to you.
 
2013-05-01 03:40:36 PM  

DeathCipris: What I don't believe is that well-respected scientists AND the University of Stanford would stake their reputations and falsify test results for some PR campaign of a silly movie.


Read carefully.  They didn't examine the specimen, they were provided a DNA sample (which would never be admissible in a court of law for the complete lack of a chain of custody) and the Xray films.

They're dupes, not co-conspirators.
 
2013-05-01 03:43:58 PM  

Deucednuisance: DeathCipris: It says he is geneticist and in the paper he tested the DNA, which makes perfect sense. Where are you getting the Stem Cell thing from?

Right here, which was the article under discussion on FB:

http://www.examiner.com/article/tiny-alien-skeleton-debunked-by-dna- al ien-shown-to-be-human-after-all

internut scholar: When I point out and prove how you are wrong, will you come back and admit it, or will you disappear like everyone else does?

I do so look forward to quoting this back to you.


Ohh, FTA. Yea, you got me where Jay Petrillo got that info from, but in the write up released by the people that did the research it was not mentioned. Dr. Garry Nolan of Stanford University was only mentioned in the paper as the person that ran the DNA tests to conclude this tested positive for human DNA. He also stated he would continue research into the mummy.
 
2013-05-01 03:49:11 PM  

Deucednuisance: So, I'd say any claim about the composition of the "DNA" made by "Garry Nolan" in the "documentary" are pretty suspect, since that person doesn't appear to exist.


Haven't seen the documentary. However, the Garry Nolan in the LiveScience article...

http://www.livescience.com/29176-alien-looking-skeleton-poses-medica l- mystery.html?cmpid=514645

...(identified as a professor of microbiology and immunology) seems to be this guy...

http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/Garry_Nolan/
 
2013-05-01 03:55:18 PM  

Deucednuisance: DeathCipris: What I don't believe is that well-respected scientists AND the University of Stanford would stake their reputations and falsify test results for some PR campaign of a silly movie.

Read carefully.  They didn't examine the specimen, they were provided a DNA sample (which would never be admissible in a court of law for the complete lack of a chain of custody) and the Xray films.

They're dupes, not co-conspirators.


Dr. Nolan took the DNA Sample himself. Forensic documentation procedures were followed and he was hand delivered the distal end of the two right anterior ribs still containing bone marrow.
Short of actually being there, I think that is the best we have.
 
2013-05-01 03:58:29 PM  

Draskuul: My guess: parasitic twin. They say it seems to have survived for several years after birth, so my guess would be a parasitic twin that was more like a conjoined twin, something that in those days could have reasonably been removed by what passed for a surgeon at the time.


This is what I came here to speculate.

There have been similar cases.
 
2013-05-01 04:01:40 PM  

thatguyoverthere70: I don't get the people crying "fake" and "bullshiat." The article seems to imply that this thing is real, but it's really a deformed human. Are the people crying BS saying that the doctors are in on the hoax, or that the doctors can't recognize a real skeleton from a figurine carved from human bone no matter what test they run on it?

The first time I saw it, I too assumed it was a fake. Then I saw the x-rays and heard the medical reports. Every followup seems to indicate that it's real, and not a carved figurine or a mashup of different bones.

I dunno. I have a hard time believing it's an alien, but I have an equally hard time believing that it's a human that lived to the age of six in a poor country hundreds of years ago. If it's human, it appears that it's about a quarter of the size of the shortest human ever documented, and at the age of six (or older) was about half the size of the shortest baby ever. That alone makes it a historic find, regardless of whether or not it's an alien. The chance a human that tiny would live a week, much less six years or more, would seem to be very small.

It seems clear that it's not a fetus or baby due to the bone density, it wasn't a dwarf due to the long limbs, and the skull sure doesn't look like a monkey skull to me.


And as someone mentioned earlier, check out the leg bones. They seem pretty large. Relatively speaking, of course. If this thing was real, I'm betting it could jump like a mo'fo. Maybe it was like a flying human lemur mutant thing. I dunno. I think it's pretty neat though.
 
2013-05-01 04:02:21 PM  

studs up: I'm not vested in this debate one way or the other, but, someone is going to someone else an apology.
/welcome to fark, I know


At a nickel apiece, the value of all apologies owed by Farkers exceeds our national debt.
 
2013-05-01 04:11:44 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: studs up: I'm not vested in this debate one way or the other, but, someone is going to someone else an apology.
/welcome to fark, I know

At a nickel apiece, the value of all apologies owed by Farkers exceeds our national debt.


I'm sorry, I only understand comparisons expressed in unicorns per rainbow.

/Which can be reduced to Rhode Islands
 
2013-05-01 04:15:02 PM  

Calmamity: That whole article reeked of bullsh*t.


This. A "mixture" human male that tiny who despite his size still lived 6 to 8 years? How could you guess age? He's as small as a very at-risk premie birth. How did they keep him alive to live that long outside of modern medical intervention? Mix of what? The entire article makes not the slightest bit of sense.
 
2013-05-01 04:19:21 PM  
I'm a pixie.  Look at my profile pic ;)  I also have claws for toenails.  I never grew wisdom teeth.

/CSS (not Cascading Style Sheets...Cool Story, Sister)
 
2013-05-01 04:19:36 PM  

thatguyoverthere70: I don't get the people crying "fake" and "bullshiat." The article seems to imply that this thing is real, but it's really a deformed human. Are the people crying BS saying that the doctors are in on the hoax, or that the doctors can't recognize a real skeleton from a figurine carved from human bone no matter what test they run on it?


Conspiracy theory believers more likely to reject science and behave irrationally.
 
2013-05-01 04:21:56 PM  

internut scholar: stevetherobot: I am astounded that so many people with adequate brain power to operate a computer in order to post on Fark actually believe that this is a skeleton of a 6-8 year old human being. I would think that anyone who couldn't recognize that this story is complete and utter bullshiat would have difficulty controlling their own bowels, much less operate a computer.

When I point out and prove how you are wrong, will you come back and admit it, or will you disappear like everyone else does?


If it was proved to my satisfaction, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong. I seriously doubt that I will ever have to. If you find better evidence that a sketchy article like TFA, feel free to bring it to my attention.

/EIP
//Though I don't check it often, so I might not respond promptly.
 
2013-05-01 04:22:51 PM  

vudukungfu: FARK rebel soldier: Reminds me of this place which has apparently closed since I was there 20 years ago.

The most asked-for exhibit at the Dime Museum is Abraham Lincoln's last bowel movement -- supposedly taken from a chamber pot at Ford's Theater -- mounted in a dusty frame along with a faded, handwritten note attesting to its authenticity. Horne had taken the turd down -- he changes his exhibits frequently -- but people kept asking for it, so he put it back up. The crusty, blackened poop was exposed as a fraud, Horne says, when an analysis revealed that it contained Necco wafers, which weren't sold until 1912. Of course, even Horne's explanation may be a fraud -- who can say?

I could swear that NECCO wafers were sent to Union troops in the Civil War.


Uh...how would they know the poop contained Necco wafers? They are pretty much sugar and would dislove into their constituent molecules in the body during the process of digestion. I don't think you could make poop out of Necco wafers, there wouldn't be any of them left. It's not like they are corn kernels.
 
2013-05-01 04:26:48 PM  

DeathCipris: stevetherobot: I am astounded that so many people with adequate brain power to operate a computer in order to post on Fark actually believe that this is a skeleton of a 6-8 year old human being. I would think that anyone who couldn't recognize that this story is complete and utter bullshiat would have difficulty controlling their own bowels, much less operate a computer.

What I don't believe is that well-respected scientists AND the University of Stanford would stake their reputations and falsify test results for some PR campaign of a silly movie. You sound like the Catholic church when Galileo told the Pope that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is why they are running more tests on it.


I too find it difficult that well-respected scientists and the U. of Standford would do that, which is why I'm extremely skeptical that they have done so. TFA is very sketchy and it will take more than that to convince me.
 
2013-05-01 04:27:35 PM  
Hey, I was gonna eat that mummy.
 
2013-05-01 04:28:20 PM  

stevetherobot: internut scholar: stevetherobot: I am astounded that so many people with adequate brain power to operate a computer in order to post on Fark actually believe that this is a skeleton of a 6-8 year old human being. I would think that anyone who couldn't recognize that this story is complete and utter bullshiat would have difficulty controlling their own bowels, much less operate a computer.

When I point out and prove how you are wrong, will you come back and admit it, or will you disappear like everyone else does?

If it was proved to my satisfaction, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong. I seriously doubt that I will ever have to. If you find better evidence that a sketchy article like TFA, feel free to bring it to my attention.

/EIP
//Though I don't check it often, so I might not respond promptly.


Im just messing around with you.

Forget the alien angle thing to this. That is Greer's thing, and it is irrelevant, scientifically speaking.

This being is a biological creature and not a hoax it was tested be two leading Stanford scientists. One a specialist in skeletal abnormalities and one that is a specialist in genetics.

They performed DNA testing, CT scans and Xrays. The being has a visible heart and lungs.

They said, not Greer, that it is real, it is unlike anything that is known to medical science and that it is not a fetus.

I can't link from phone so read my previous comments and links.
 
2013-05-01 04:35:08 PM  
Of course it's granted they have some piece of alien DNA to compare this too, otherwise they would definitely have the integrity not to say it's most comparable to human.
 
2013-05-01 04:35:46 PM  
Seeing it walking around and waving would blow my mind. Clone it...it'd probably make really a cool bipedal pet.
 
2013-05-01 04:40:52 PM  

Draskuul: My guess: parasitic twin. They say it seems to have survived for several years after birth, so my guess would be a parasitic twin that was more like a conjoined twin, something that in those days could have reasonably been removed by what passed for a surgeon at the time.


That's the most logical explanation thus far, since it's bones were supposed to have been developmentally 6-8 years...
 
2013-05-01 04:41:57 PM  

Deucednuisance: Hmm, while there are 2 "Garry Nolan"s on the faculty of Stanford, one is a Cancer researcher, and one is a Genetecist, both are professors, not the "director of stem cell biology". That would be Irving L. Weissman, whose proper title is Director of Stanford Medicine's Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. See:

http://stemcell.stanford.edu/about/annual_reports/2011%20annual%20re po rt%20small%20copy.pdf

Here's the Professors Nolan, who seem like very accomplished men, but whose lists of publications do not mention stem cells, not once:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/nolan/members/members.html#nolan

http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/cancer/faculty/Garry_Nolan/

So, I'd say any claim about the composition of the "DNA" made by "Garry Nolan" in the "documentary" are pretty suspect, since that person doesn't appear to exist.


Oh, FFS. There is only one Garry Nolan at Stanford. He has appointments in 2 departments, which is quite common. (Hint: look at the Education in the 2 links. "Both" Garry Nolans got undergrad degrees at Cornell, Ph.D.'s at Stanford, and did postdocs with David Baltimore. Wow, what are the odds?)

I actually know Garry- he's the real deal.

/scientist
 
2013-05-01 04:45:52 PM  

Born to Die: Deucednuisance: Hmm, while there are 2 "Garry Nolan"s on the faculty of Stanford, one is a Cancer researcher, and one is a Genetecist, both are professors, not the "director of stem cell biology". That would be Irving L. Weissman, whose proper title is Director of Stanford Medicine's Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. See:

http://stemcell.stanford.edu/about/annual_reports/2011%20annual%20re po rt%20small%20copy.pdf

Here's the Professors Nolan, who seem like very accomplished men, but whose lists of publications do not mention stem cells, not once:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/nolan/members/members.html#nolan

http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/cancer/faculty/Garry_Nolan/

So, I'd say any claim about the composition of the "DNA" made by "Garry Nolan" in the "documentary" are pretty suspect, since that person doesn't appear to exist.

Oh, FFS. There is only one Garry Nolan at Stanford. He has appointments in 2 departments, which is quite common. (Hint: look at the Education in the 2 links. "Both" Garry Nolans got undergrad degrees at Cornell, Ph.D.'s at Stanford, and did postdocs with David Baltimore. Wow, what are the odds?)

I actually know Garry- he's the real deal.

/scientist



Sirius question: Was he paid to be in that documentary? Amd can you ask him if he thinks he's lost crediblilty for being associated with Steven Greer, who even the UFO and alien community think is a twat?

/why so sirius?
 
2013-05-01 04:50:29 PM  
cdn1.screenrant.com
 
2013-05-01 04:50:36 PM  

Deucednuisance: DeathCipris: What I don't believe is that well-respected scientists AND the University of Stanford would stake their reputations and falsify test results for some PR campaign of a silly movie.

Read carefully.  They didn't examine the specimen, they were provided a DNA sample (which would never be admissible in a court of law for the complete lack of a chain of custody) and the Xray films.

They're dupes, not co-conspirators.


Yeah, this is what's bugging me. Across all these sources I can't figure out whether Nolan took the DNA specimen himself directly from the body, or if it was provided to him with assurances that it was honestly, truly, really from the mummy -- or equally troublesome, he was provided with a clipping of bone that he was told was from the mummy. (Academics can be very trusting because they are used to assuming that the people they are dealing with are acting in good faith. Remember how Hugh Trevor-Roper was duped into "authenticating" the Hitler Diaries?)

There's a similar chain of custody issue with the body itself. Where was it found, and in what context? Was it buried or just laying on the surface? How did it come to be mummified, rather than simply decaying?

I also can't figure out who is allegedly testifying to the age at death, and if so how they are determining it. What is reliable, especially for a supposed child this deformed? I'm not sure that tooth eruption would even be reliable.

So there's really only two logical possibilities (and one illogical one) here:

1) The body is an outright fake, like the "alien autopsy" body from a few years ago. Nolan (and others) have been exploited by the fakers who have supplied them with selective evidence. For example, perhaps the DNA actually comes from a woman from that region but has been deliberately damaged (or "distressed" as antiques fakers like to say) to make it seem more "interesting". Note that Nolan has only found two kinds of thing: definitely human genetic material, and material not identifiable as anything at all. What he hasn't found, despite the misconceptions of several of the commentators on TFA, is anything that looks like DNA, but not human DNA. This is very telling: unless this creature is 100% human, it would be astonishing that only the human DNA has survived, and all of the telltale non-human DNA has not.

2) The body really is human, and truly highly anomalous, perhaps due to a combination of genetic defects and other illness. As others have pointed out, there are a lot of problems with this theory, including the fact that the body is not merely unlike any other corpse ever seen, it is different by an enormous degree. I suppose this is possible -- recall the degree of skepticism about Homo floresiensis being anything other than a diseased individual when it was first discovered -- but it's asking a lot.

If I were a betting man, my money would be on (1) as the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions.

The illogical one is

3) It's an ALIEN!!! that somehow has exactly the same DNA as a human. And no, the idea that it has the same DNA because its ancestors seeded Earth with life would somehow have to account for 7 million years of genetic divergence since then... I leave it as an exercise for the Believer to determine how many extraordinary assumptions would need to be true for that theory to work...
 
2013-05-01 04:56:53 PM  

GungFu: Sirius question: Was he paid to be in that documentary? Amd can you ask him if he thinks he's lost crediblilty for being associated with Steven Greer, who even the UFO and alien community think is a twat?


No clue. It's not like we're best buds; we've met at meetings and have published papers in the same field. I honestly don't know what to think of this story, but I'm willing to forgo judgment until I see a peer-reviewed paper, as opposed to some BS "documentary" or sloppy reporting.

/but my money is on primordial dwarfism:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_dwarfism
 
2013-05-01 04:57:07 PM  
The UFO ommunity think he's a bit of twat for not making his videos free, for organizing camps out for a fee, and maybe his encounters to big shots a la Rockefeller...paranoia is pervasive in such communities. His discluse project is still considered a must see.
The sirius documentary is more personal than most docs since it almost has an autobiographical tone, but it is worth seeing in my opinion.
 
2013-05-01 05:04:37 PM  
I'm going with aliens. Aliens seeded the earth with DNA, evolution is the basic fundamental that created us as who we are, life is present throughtout the universe and is mostly similar with respect to using DNA under the same basic conditions. This thing is some kind of freak off-shoot.

Yeah, I know it all seems like BS, but that's where I'm dropping my money. I want to believe.

I also found this quote freaky from the article on Buzz Aldrin on why we aren't really searching Mars where we should be (something I harp on in every Curiosity thread);
"Because the foundations of every fundamentalist orthodox belief system on earth would be up-ended".
 
2013-05-01 05:11:31 PM  

Born to Die: Oh, FFS. There is only one Garry Nolan at Stanford.


Huh, sorry about that.  I thought I saw two different undergrad institutions.  The pictures on the two bios don't look anything alike, and list two different specialties, so I figured it was a very odd coincidence.  My apologies to him and Fark for botching that.
 
2013-05-01 05:12:19 PM  

czetie: So there's really only two logical possibilities (and one illogical one) here:

1) The body is an outright fake, like the "alien autopsy" body from a few years ago. Nolan (and others) have been exploited by the fakers who have supplied them with selective evidence. For example, perhaps the DNA actually comes from a woman from that region but has been deliberately damaged (or "distressed" as antiques fakers like to say) to make it seem more "interesting". Note that Nolan has only found two kinds of thing: definitely human genetic material, and material not identifiable as anything at all. What he hasn't found, despite the misconceptions of several of the commentators on TFA, is anything that looks like DNA, but not human DNA. This is very telling: unless this creature is 100% human, it would be astonishing that only the human DNA has survived, and all of the telltale non-human DNA has not.

2) The body really is human, and truly highly anomalous, perhaps due to a combination of genetic defects and other illness. As others have pointed out, there are a lot of problems with this theory, including the fact that the body is not merely unlike any other corpse ever seen, it is different by an enormous degree. I suppose this is possible -- recall the degree of skepticism about Homo floresiensis being anything other than a diseased individual when it was first discovered -- but it's asking a lot.

If I were a betting man, my money would be on (1) as the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions.

The illogical one is

3) It's an ALIEN!!! that somehow has exactly the same DNA as a human. And no, the idea that it has the same DNA because its ancestors seeded Earth with life would somehow have to account for 7 million years of genetic divergence since then... I leave it as an exercise for the Believer to determine how many extraordinary assumptions would need to be true for that theory to work...


Jeez, forget the alien thing.

"While the jury is out regarding the mutations that cause the deformity, and there is a real discrepancy in how we account for the apparent age of the bones ... every nucleotide I've been able to look at is human," researcher Garry Nolan, professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford School of Medicine, told LiveScience. "I've only scratched the surface in the analysis. But there is nothing that jumps out so far as to scream 'nonhuman.'"
 
2013-05-01 05:17:34 PM  
It's a scout for the first bugger invasion. The scorching of China isn't too long from now.

/obscure?
 
2013-05-01 05:18:30 PM  
I'm going with aliens. Aliens seeded the earth with DNA, evolution is the basic fundamental that created us as who we are, life is present throughtout the universe and is mostly similar with respect to using DNA under the same basic conditions. This thing is some kind of freak off-shoot.

Yeah, I know it all seems like BS, but that's where I'm dropping my money. I want to believe.

I also found this quote freaky from the article on Buzz Aldrin on why we aren't really searching Mars where we should be (something I harp on in every Curiosity thread);
"Because the foundations of every fundamentalist orthodox belief system on earth would be up-ended".


Buzz makes a great point. Greer made the disclosure project, and despite what anyone may take issue with of his personal beliefs, it was a great project. He has on-tape testimony from dozens of credible sources from astronauts to airline pilots and military personal all speaking about their ufo experiences. Believe them or not, it's a great set of speeches. You can find it on Youtube.
 
2013-05-01 05:24:08 PM  

internut scholar: stevetherobot: internut scholar: stevetherobot: I am astounded that so many people with adequate brain power to operate a computer in order to post on Fark actually believe that this is a skeleton of a 6-8 year old human being. I would think that anyone who couldn't recognize that this story is complete and utter bullshiat would have difficulty controlling their own bowels, much less operate a computer.

When I point out and prove how you are wrong, will you come back and admit it, or will you disappear like everyone else does?

If it was proved to my satisfaction, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong. I seriously doubt that I will ever have to. If you find better evidence that a sketchy article like TFA, feel free to bring it to my attention.

/EIP
//Though I don't check it often, so I might not respond promptly.

Im just messing around with you.

Forget the alien angle thing to this. That is Greer's thing, and it is irrelevant, scientifically speaking.

This being is a biological creature and not a hoax it was tested be two leading Stanford scientists. One a specialist in skeletal abnormalities and one that is a specialist in genetics.

They performed DNA testing, CT scans and Xrays. The being has a visible heart and lungs.

They said, not Greer, that it is real, it is unlike anything that is known to medical science and that it is not a fetus.

I can't link from phone so read my previous comments and links.


If i'm in possession of something that of a biological 'creature' that seems to have never been known before, I'd pretty much give it to as many scientists as possible to get definitive results. And not just two bods from Stanford, regardless of what their qualifications are. This is potential humanity changing and yet, that's it? Inconclusive results? Most likely human. Nolan even states that he will publish a final paper on it when he's finished with it but has already said that DNA doesn't provide all the answers. But it's likely human.

So, despite all the early Greer PR for the documentary, we have something that's not an alien. And based on the miniscule bits of the figurine being tested (ie not every part of it) there's suggestion that it's human. However, bear in mind that if you scrape a few bits of a dildo for DNA testing, I bet you can conclude the dildo is human too.

What needs to be done and stop with the wishy washy bullshiat these stories engender, is to have full scientific testing of everything. Personally, if there's evidence of hearts of lungs and shiat in the figurine, test those bits too, and so on and so forth.

As a project in PR and media interest for the documentary, the story has done remarkably well. I've grown to hate UFO and alien assholes as the evidence is so flimsy, improbably and unbelievable, that I can't watch documentaries anymore with these subject matters. It give s me a headache. However, I was interested in this one as Greer was such a polarizing figure on the Joe Rogan Podcast. Of course, I didn't buy into his bullshiat but I was surprised that others did, initially. As such, when the documentary came out, I skipped all the UFO Disclosure bollocks and went to the little 'alien' tests at the end. Disappointed. But not unexpected.

Greer is a hack, even the UFO community thinks he's a hack. BUt nice try with the documentary and the little alien gimmick. It suckered even me for a few minutes in making me watch his documentary. For further evidence of his bollock, I suggest listening to him on Joe's podcast and the shiat he spews. It's unbelievable - at least for most.
 
2013-05-01 05:27:43 PM  

Deucednuisance: Born to Die: Oh, FFS. There is only one Garry Nolan at Stanford.

Huh, sorry about that.  I thought I saw two different undergrad institutions.  The pictures on the two bios don't look anything alike, and list two different specialties, so I figured it was a very odd coincidence.  My apologies to him and Fark for botching that.


Our first nickel!
 
2013-05-01 05:45:54 PM  
I'm guessing parasitic twin.  Is that the right term for conjoined-twin where one is completely internal to the other?
 
2013-05-01 05:52:44 PM  

MacWizard: czetie: So there's really only two logical possibilities (and one illogical one) here:


Jeez, forget the alien thing.
"While the jury is out regarding the mutations that cause the deformity, and there is a real discrepancy in how we account for the apparent age of the bones ... every nucleotide I've been able to look at is human," researcher Garry Nolan, professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford School of Medicine, told LiveScience. "I've only scratched the surface in the analysis. But there is nothing that jumps out so far as to scream 'nonhuman.'"


DNA analysis is complicated especially without markers. It's still too early in the analysis to determinie anything conclusive, except saying that it's more human than chimp. As someone else has pointed out in this thread, the markers for the usual suspects leading to such difformities have been ruled out. The rest is going to be pain-staking and will need the collaboration of many other scientists interested in the case. This is how you work out the details of large DNA data : through sharing.
 
2013-05-01 05:57:57 PM  

GungFu: internut scholar: stevetherobot: internut scholar: stevetherobot: I am astounded that so many people with adequate brain power to operate a computer in order to post on Fark actually believe that this is a skeleton of a 6-8 year old human being. I would think that anyone who couldn't recognize that this story is complete and utter bullshiat would have difficulty controlling their own bowels, much less operate a computer.

When I point out and prove how you are wrong, will you come back and admit it, or will you disappear like everyone else does?

If it was proved to my satisfaction, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong. I seriously doubt that I will ever have to. If you find better evidence that a sketchy article like TFA, feel free to bring it to my attention.

/EIP
//Though I don't check it often, so I might not respond promptly.

Im just messing around with you.

Forget the alien angle thing to this. That is Greer's thing, and it is irrelevant, scientifically speaking.

This being is a biological creature and not a hoax it was tested be two leading Stanford scientists. One a specialist in skeletal abnormalities and one that is a specialist in genetics.

They performed DNA testing, CT scans and Xrays. The being has a visible heart and lungs.

They said, not Greer, that it is real, it is unlike anything that is known to medical science and that it is not a fetus.

I can't link from phone so read my previous comments and links.

If i'm in possession of something that of a biological 'creature' that seems to have never been known before, I'd pretty much give it to as many scientists as possible to get definitive results. And not just two bods from Stanford, regardless of what their qualifications are. This is potential humanity changing and yet, that's it? Inconclusive results? Most likely human. Nolan even states that he will publish a final paper on it when he's finished with it but has already said that DNA doesn't provide all the answers. But it's likely human.

So, despite all the early Greer PR for the documentary, we have something that's not an alien. And based on the miniscule bits of the figurine being tested (ie not every part of it) there's suggestion that it's human. However, bear in mind that if you scrape a few bits of a dildo for DNA testing, I bet you can conclude the dildo is human too.

What needs to be done and stop with the wishy washy bullshiat these stories engender, is to have full scientific testing of everything. Personally, if there's evidence of hearts of lungs and shiat in the figurine, test those bits too, and so on and so forth.

As a project in PR and media interest for the documentary, the story has done remarkably well. I've grown to hate UFO and alien assholes as the evidence is so flimsy, improbably and unbelievable, that I can't watch documentaries anymore with these subject matters. It give s me a headache. However, I was interested in this one as Greer was such a polarizing figure on the Joe Rogan Podcast. Of course, I didn't buy into his bullshiat but I was surprised that others did, initially. As such, when the documentary came out, I skipped all the UFO Disclosure bollocks and went to the little 'alien' tests at the end. Disappointed. But not unexpected.

Greer is a hack, even the UFO community thinks he's a hack. BUt nice try with the documentary and the little alien gimmick. It suckered even me for a few minutes in making me watch his documentary. For further evidence of his bollock, I suggest listening to him on Joe's podcast and the shiat he spews. It's unbelievable - at least for most.


Firstly, I must say I appreciate your response. Secondly, I probably won't do much justice to it since I'm still on my phone and 3 beers deep. But I'll try..

I completely understand your reservations with Greer, he says some really sketchy things. I know this.
Like you, I want scientific proof.

When I initially heard about this, I was skeptical but still have a fascination with these type matters.

When the report came out and said this was human DNA I was confident that Greer was running a scam. But I had to be sure. I reached out to Dr. Nolan and picked his brain, per say.

After talking with him, and reconsidering his report. I have to say I am very intrieged with this whole thing.

Again. I'm not claiming alien. I am saying it is a intact biological organism.

I only say this because of the previous mentioned scientists test results.

Dr. Nolan is not claiming ET either. But you have to understand this is a real being, with human DNA, with no known human defects.
 
2013-05-01 06:03:57 PM  
I think that it is some kind of weird teratoma or pregnancy that developed wrong and was retained. The question is how did they determine the age. It could have existed inside the mom for years.
 
2013-05-01 06:07:27 PM  

MacWizard: Jeez, forget the alien thing.


Apparently you skimmed my post and read "blah blah blah ALIEN!!! blah blah blah", because you then went on to repeat precisely one of the points I just made about why this thing is demonstrably not alien.
 
2013-05-01 06:07:28 PM  
I wanna know which one of you Total Farkers spawned that thing?
 
2013-05-01 06:13:17 PM  

KimNorth: Really a humanoid  mutation that survived that long, 6 -10 yrs inChile at 8 inches long? Don't think so...But what do I know.


Maybe they remembered to punch holes in the lid
 
2013-05-01 06:27:57 PM  
So can someone who has read all this explain the DNA test for the rest of us.  Who conducted it, was it done by multiple labs etc.?   Human DNA is almost always found when specifically tested for just from contamination; these remains have obviously been handled by many people.
So did they grind up a tooth or use bone marrow? I mean it is not hard to imagine someone having touched it and leaving copious amounts of trace DNA if that is as deep as they went.  Even more likely that some nerd got so excited thinking he had proof of alien life accidentally jizzed all over it.
 
2013-05-01 06:38:02 PM  
Ghastly
If it is a real human skeleton then I'd wager it's a grossly mutated and deformed fetus that was miscarried.

If that thing slid out of me, I'd be screaming in Lovecraftian horror.
 
2013-05-01 07:02:35 PM  

internut scholar: Xploder: As was pointed out upthread somewhere, it seems to be a mashup of different bones. In all probability, the rib ends that were supposedly dissected did come from a human, they were just carved to be that small. Why the hell do people always believe such ridiculous bullshiat? It's NOT a new species of human, it's a farking model.

Why do I believe this ridiculous BS? Because one of the leading scientists in the world on skeletal abnormalities concluded that it was a being. Not some mix and match hoax.

Don't believe me. Go straight to the source.  Dr. Ralph Lachman.

So either you and the farkers up thread are smarter than him or you all are wrong. It's really that simple now.


Look doofus...It is a HOAX. TRhe guy you insist on quoting and whose website you keep referring to thinks ALIENS FOLLOW HIM AROUND. If you really believe this guy then you are a total moron.
 
2013-05-01 07:12:11 PM  

czetie: MacWizard: Jeez, forget the alien thing.

Apparently you skimmed my post and read "blah blah blah ALIEN!!! blah blah blah", because you then went on to repeat precisely one of the points I just made about why this thing is demonstrably not alien.


No, I read your entire post and "forget the alien thing" is not just directed at you. Your post was just the last one to bring it up. It's not just an illogical assumption. "It's not an alien" seems to be the only real conclusion reached by whatever research has been done and the point of every article I've seen about this.

Personally, I'm betting on weird anomaly, and that's only because I still have faith in science, not because I think such a scam is impossible to pull off. Science finds anomalies all the time.
 
2013-05-01 07:15:58 PM  

Dano33: [cdn1.screenrant.com image 570x300]


came for this pic...now leaving most satisfied...
 
2013-05-01 07:16:03 PM  

stryed: FloydA: ArkAngel: Probably carved

Yeah.  The skull is a composite; the maxilae of one animal are glued on to the frontal of another; you can see the join at a horizontal crack on the frontal that should not be there on any mammal.  The back of the skull looks like it might be a coati, with the zygomatic arches broken off, and the face is probably a small monkey, or that might be carved as well.

The body looks like it is carved out of a single piece.  It looks a lot like what people imagine skeletal material looks like, when they haven't actually seen any.

Some have actually bothered using Xray on the thing, others are quick to dismiss anything out of the ordinary from a single picture and/or are simply too lazy to delve deeper. I admit I was like you when I first heard of the case.


Some have actually studied both human and non-human mammal skeletal anatomy.  The skull in that photo, and the other photos I have seen, has a sagittal crest and a nuchal crest.  The zygomatics are broken away.  The pelvic girdle is obscured in exactly the places that would be needed to identify whether it was bipedal.  From what others in the thread (who care more about this than I do) are saying, the geneticist did not extract the DNA from the object itself, but from pieces that he was told came from it.  I haven't seen actual X-ray images of the object, only photos online, any of which could have been manipulated (I can't tell from the pixels).

Given that we know people sometimes create hoaxes, and we know that scientists can be fooled by a dedicated hoaxer, and the guy, Greer, who's pushing this is apparently a known kook, and the back of the skull looks a lot like a coati skull, and the front doesn't seem to fit on the back properly, you have to admit that "hoax" is a possibility.

Given that we don't know if any aliens actually exist, and that if they did, they would not likely be able to fly to earth, and if they did, they would not be likely to just leave one of the dead crew lying around, I'd say that hypothesis is somewhat less likely.

Imagination is fun and all, but this has all the hallmarks of a fake.  If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it and apologize, but I am honestly not particularly worried that I'll have to.
 
2013-05-01 07:21:21 PM  

ThatIrishGuy: Dwight_Yeast: Looks like alien mummy jerky to me.

[bbsimg.ngfiles.com image 599x599]

Did you say jerky mummy?

/Emperor Nimbala
//Hot and smokey.


Came for some mummy jerky, leaving happy.
 
2013-05-01 07:21:23 PM  

Xploder: Look doofus...It is a HOAX. TRhe guy you insist on quoting and whose website you keep referring to thinks ALIENS FOLLOW HIM AROUND. If you really believe this guy then you are a total moron.


If you haven't figured out by now that the point of the articles (there are several) is that the guy who thinks aliens follow him around (and thought this was an alien) IS COMPLETELY WRONG, then you are the total moron.
 
2013-05-01 07:46:17 PM  
How easy is it to manipulate a genome for DNA testing? Would reknown scientist be satisfied by Dr Greer's word if he is the one who provided the sample? I somehow doubt the latter since credibility of the scientist would be in question, and according to the documentary the standford scientist did take rudimentary precautions in terms of conducting the analysis of the sample (wherever it came from)
/bsc biology
 
2013-05-01 07:53:54 PM  

MacWizard: Xploder: Look doofus...It is a HOAX. TRhe guy you insist on quoting and whose website you keep referring to thinks ALIENS FOLLOW HIM AROUND. If you really believe this guy then you are a total moron.

If you haven't figured out by now that the point of the articles (there are several) is that the guy who thinks aliens follow him around (and thought this was an alien) IS COMPLETELY WRONG, then you are the total moron.


He's not wrong...noone has come to deny that conclusion. Greer himself never says it is an alien in the documentary. He's not that dumb but he his apparently pretty sly. For the time being Internut scholar has the facts right.
 
2013-05-01 08:01:51 PM  
It's a little big foot.
 
2013-05-01 08:24:11 PM  

stryed: He's not wrong...noone has come to deny that conclusion. Greer himself never says it is an alien in the documentary. He's not that dumb but he his apparently pretty sly. For the time being Internut scholar has the facts right.


Not questioning Internut scholar. Kind of been agreeing with him, except that I haven't taken Sirius seriously yet, just because of Greer.

So who made the claim that it was an alien? The Examiner headline is "Tiny 'alien' skeleton debunked by DNA." It's hard to debunk something that no one said in the first place.

The LiveScience article doesn't use the work "debunk" but says, "Apparently when the mummified specimen was discovered, some had suggested the possibility it was an alien that had somehow landed on Earth, though the researchers involved never suggested this otherworldly origin."

If not Greer, who was it that "suggested the possibility it was an alien"? I don't think he has enough credibility to qualify as a "researcher," so I took that part to mean the actual scientists never suggested it.
 
2013-05-01 08:29:39 PM  

internut scholar: They performed DNA testing, CT scans and Xrays. The being has a visible heart and lungs.


I read your links. I must have missed the heart and lungs. Could you show me, please, where heart and lungs were mentioned?
 
2013-05-01 08:34:50 PM  
What bothers me is the the attitude of "deny any evidence" followed by "if there are aliens, then where's the evidence?"
 
2013-05-01 08:35:35 PM  

FloydA: stryed: FloydA: ArkAngel: Probably carved

Yeah.  The skull is a composite; the maxilae of one animal are glued on to the frontal of another; you can see the join at a horizontal crack on the frontal that should not be there on any mammal.  The back of the skull looks like it might be a coati, with the zygomatic arches broken off, and the face is probably a small monkey, or that might be carved as well.

The body looks like it is carved out of a single piece.  It looks a lot like what people imagine skeletal material looks like, when they haven't actually seen any.

Some have actually bothered using Xray on the thing, others are quick to dismiss anything out of the ordinary from a single picture and/or are simply too lazy to delve deeper. I admit I was like you when I first heard of the case.

Some have actually studied both human and non-human mammal skeletal anatomy.  The skull in that photo, and the other photos I have seen, has a sagittal crest and a nuchal crest.  The zygomatics are broken away.  The pelvic girdle is obscured in exactly the places that would be needed to identify whether it was bipedal.  From what others in the thread (who care more about this than I do) are saying, the geneticist did not extract the DNA from the object itself, but from pieces that he was told came from it.  I haven't seen actual X-ray images of the object, only photos online, any of which could have been manipulated (I can't tell from the pixels).

Given that we know people sometimes create hoaxes, and we know that scientists can be fooled by a dedicated hoaxer, and the guy, Greer, who's pushing this is apparently a known kook, and the back of the skull looks a lot like a coati skull, and the front doesn't seem to fit on the back properly, you have to admit that "hoax" is a possibility.

Given that we don't know if any aliens actually exist, and that if they did, they would not likely be able to fly to earth, and if they did, they would not be likely to just leave one of the dead crew lying around, I'd say that hypothesis is somewhat less likely.

Imagination is fun and all, but this has all the hallmarks of a fake.  If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it and apologize, but I am honestly not particularly worried that I'll have to.


Unless you are privy to information that I am not, I believe you are mistaking.

Dr. Nolan extracted the DNA from the specimen himself. He is the one that ordered the full battery of tests. He also recommended what other type of procedures should be carried out, Xray, CT scan ect.
The CT scan found a heart structure and lungs.
The radiologist, Lachman examined that data. He concluded from those scans that there are no known human abnormalities that would account for this.
Nolan found no genetic markers frim the DNA to account for the deformation of a human.


As far as Greer is concerned, he only arranged the specimen to be studied by Nolan's team. It isn't even in Greer's possession. I understand why skeptics distance themselves as soon as they see Greer's name. But they must understand what role he is in here.
He is taking the results and "running" with it. Nolan et all are not.

Again.... Unless Nolan and Lachman are complete buffoons, this thing is legit.

We will be talking about this again too.
 
2013-05-01 08:43:37 PM  

namegoeshere: internut scholar: They performed DNA testing, CT scans and Xrays. The being has a visible heart and lungs.

I read your links. I must have missed the heart and lungs. Could you show me, please, where heart and lungs were mentioned?


I posted a few links, but check the main pdf, there is also a link,in the pdf to view the ct scan.
Just search for "lungs"
Make sure you read the reports from the scientists. Remember, they are not out to prove this thing ET, just verify if it is a biological, humanoid, and not a hoax.
 
2013-05-01 09:00:30 PM  

MacWizard: stryed: He's not wrong...noone has come to deny that conclusion. Greer himself never says it is an alien in the documentary. He's not that dumb but he his apparently pretty sly. For the time being Internut scholar has the facts right.

Not questioning Internut scholar. Kind of been agreeing with him, except that I haven't taken Sirius seriously yet, just because of Greer.

So who made the claim that it was an alien? The Examiner headline is "Tiny 'alien' skeleton debunked by DNA." It's hard to debunk something that no one said in the first place.

The LiveScience article doesn't use the work "debunk" but says, "Apparently when the mummified specimen was discovered, some had suggested the possibility it was an alien that had somehow landed on Earth, though the researchers involved never suggested this otherworldly origin."

If not Greer, who was it that "suggested the possibility it was an alien"? I don't think he has enough credibility to qualify as a "researcher," so I took that part to mean the actual scientists never suggested it.


You are correct. No one except Greer is suggesting this thing is ET, but thats his thing. He is like the Ancient Alien "theorists", we don't know, therefore aliens.

The "straight" scientists are playing this straight down the line.

Greer is muddying the waters by even being involved with this. But that is were the catch 22 lays. It was the people that have this creature that invited Greer to inspect it. Greer inturn was smart enough to have independent people study it.

I too have many suspicions about Greer, but to his credit, and according to Dr. Nolan's account to me, he told me even Greer was very open to what the scientific results were, and still to be.
He acknowledged that Greer speculates, but her isn't the straight scientist, so that privelage is afforded to him.
At this point, Greer's wild speculation is just as good as any scientist's theory, until there could be repeated data.

Which brings me to something else.... There are rumors that there is another one of these creatures. And if that is the case, then im sure you could see what the implications of that would be.
and thats a big IF, but at this point I would not be shocked.
 
2013-05-01 09:04:26 PM  

MacWizard: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Yeah, the Dr. Greer dude is a nutbag. If he's the "credible" one in this, I'm calling hoax.

No, he's the one that tried to say it was an alien. The credible ones are:

Garry Nolan, professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford School of Medicine, and
Dr. Ralph Lachman, professor emeritus, UCLA School of Medicine, and clinical professor at Stanford University


Ah, appreciate the clarification
 
2013-05-01 09:08:08 PM  
internut scholar:

Which brings me to something else ... There are rumors that there is another one of these creatures. And if that is the case, then im sure you could see what the implications of that would be.

Invasion?
 
2013-05-01 09:13:02 PM  

KarmicDisaster: internut scholar:

Which brings me to something else ... There are rumors that there is another one of these creatures. And if that is the case, then im sure you could see what the implications of that would be.

Invasion?


Lol. We can defend with fly swatters and squishing them with boots.

No. It would mean that the chances of this being a deformed human just got lower.
 
2013-05-01 09:15:29 PM  

justtray: I'm going with aliens. Aliens seeded the earth with DNA, evolution is the basic fundamental that created us as who we are, life is present throughtout the universe and is mostly similar with respect to using DNA under the same basic conditions. This thing is some kind of freak off-shoot.

Yeah, I know it all seems like BS, but that's where I'm dropping my money. I want to believe.

I also found this quote freaky from the article on Buzz Aldrin on why we aren't really searching Mars where we should be (something I harp on in every Curiosity thread);
"Because the foundations of every fundamentalist orthodox belief system on earth would be up-ended".


That's a seemingly intriguing statement, but has he ever followed up on it? Offered any explanation as to what he meant and how he came to the conclusion?

You can write the rover team and ask them why haven't Jose whatever areas Buzz Aldrin apparently thinks is more worthy of search.
 
2013-05-01 09:28:56 PM  
Why do people assume aliens would have heads?

Or bones, for that matter?
 
2013-05-01 09:33:52 PM  

internut scholar: KarmicDisaster: internut scholar:

Which brings me to something else ... There are rumors that there is another one of these creatures. And if that is the case, then im sure you could see what the implications of that would be.

Invasion?

Lol. We can defend with fly swatters and squishing them with boots.

That's the parasitic male.

The female is considerably larger.
 
2013-05-01 09:49:10 PM  

medius: It's a little big foot.


It could be a really big little foot
 
2013-05-01 09:59:49 PM  

Phletchengreuber: medius: It's a little big foot.

It could be a really big little foot


i304.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-01 10:20:47 PM  

Xploder: internut scholar: Xploder: As was pointed out upthread somewhere, it seems to be a mashup of different bones. In all probability, the rib ends that were supposedly dissected did come from a human, they were just carved to be that small. Why the hell do people always believe such ridiculous bullshiat? It's NOT a new species of human, it's a farking model.

Why do I believe this ridiculous BS? Because one of the leading scientists in the world on skeletal abnormalities concluded that it was a being. Not some mix and match hoax.

Don't believe me. Go straight to the source.  Dr. Ralph Lachman.

So either you and the farkers up thread are smarter than him or you all are wrong. It's really that simple now.

Look doofus...It is a HOAX. TRhe guy you insist on quoting and whose website you keep referring to thinks ALIENS FOLLOW HIM AROUND. If you really believe this guy then you are a total moron.


I normally don't respond to people that resort to personal insults, and I already responded to this numerous times...., but this time is just for you..... Forget Greer, he isn't the issue or the matter at stake. He is NOT the one that carried out the tests.
Its a humanoid being, with human like DNA, that has been determined by STANFORD scientists, with real verifiable names (Nolan, Lachman) that have determined that its NOT A HOAX.
It has no known human condition.
You can find these data under different links. I provided the most comprehensive link I know of.
Sorry that Greer, a known UFOologist is pushing this for his own agenda but thats his prerogative.
 
2013-05-01 10:34:43 PM  

SirEattonHogg: I would guess one problem with this "thing" being an alien species is if it got here, then that denotes intelligence and its head size seems too small to have the brain power. Obvious intelligence that could create an interstellar spacecraft capable of large distances.

I've read that there is no direct correlation between body size and brain power in a species.  For instance, humans don't possess the biggest brain, but obviously we're the smartest on the planet.  OTOH, isn't there a minimum brain size needed for developing self-awareness, critical thought, imagination, etc?


Considering that some of the smallest humans in the world were infant-sized but still had full adult human intelligence, I would think that the number of neurons is more important than general brain size. The density, also. A brain with lots and lots of compact little wrinkles and lots of neuronal links could be the size of a walnut and still contain full human intelligence, I'm sure.

And that's assuming their brains work the same way as ours. Suppose they have a way of thinking that requires only enzymes, proteins, amino acids or even minerals. Who's to say they'd even require neurons?

There's also the matter of scale. How do we know that an alien species, at six inches tall, isn't the largest creature on it's own planet? Perhaps the walnut-brains there look down on those creatures who have brains only the size of a pea.
 
2013-05-01 10:48:03 PM  

abhorrent1: That's just what the government wants us to think.

/also, repeat


http://www.fark.com/comments/7715879/You-UFO-nutters-can-put-away-yo ur -tin-foil-hats-now-that-space-alien-skeleton-discovered-in-Chile-is-re ally-just-a-plain-old-mummified-human

And that was a followup. Maybe there is something spooky going on?

/Me and Scoob will check out the kitchen
 
2013-05-01 11:55:58 PM  

amindtat: Tiny 'alien' skeleton debunked by DNA: 'Alien' shown to be human after all


Hey, I remember that song!
i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-02 04:12:52 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I also found this quote freaky from the article on Buzz Aldrin on why we aren't really searching Mars where we should be (something I harp on in every Curiosity thread);
"Because the foundations of every fundamentalist orthodox belief system on earth would be up-ended".

That's a seemingly intriguing statement, but has he ever followed up on it? Offered any explanation as to what he meant and how he came to the conclusion?

You can write the rover team and ask them why haven't Jose whatever areas Buzz Aldrin apparently thinks is more worthy of search.


I think he was referring to a "monolith" on Phobos. I looked at a picture I found on GIS and am a bit skeptical about the whole thing, if that really is what he's talking about.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-02 05:38:45 AM  

MeanJean: Ghastly
If it is a real human skeleton then I'd wager it's a grossly mutated and deformed fetus that was miscarried.

If that thing slid out of me, I'd be screaming in Lovecraftian horror.


If it slid into you I bet you'd scream louder.
 
2013-05-02 08:30:13 AM  

MacWizard: Personally, I'm betting on weird anomaly, and that's only because I still have faith in science, not because I think such a scam is impossible to pull off. Science finds anomalies all the time.


If I had to lay odds on this thing, I'd say 90% chance of hoax, 10% chance of anomaly.

Reasoning being: hoaxes happen all the time, and this thing wouldn't merely be anomalous, it would be wildly anomalous. Maybe some very rare combination of unusual factors -- mutation plus infection plus ... -- would do it. Or (as has been suggested upthread) a maldeveloped conjoined twin that was surgically removed from the other twin at around the age of 6.

By the way, if it is a hoax, I wouldn't be surprised if Greer is the victim, not the perpetrator. It would be very easy for a scammer to persuade Greer that he had evidence of an ET. The provenance of this thing is a black hole, which is always a red flag for a hoax.

The other possibility well worth considering is that some part of the science is bad. For instance, the DNA is valid, but the alleged age is wrong (I still don't know the source for that). Or the DNA is contaminated from somebody who handled it. Or the thing is a composite, two different corpses crushed together in a grave, and if you took DNA from elsewhere you'd get different results.
 
2013-05-02 08:36:19 AM  

internut scholar: No. It would mean that the chances of this being a deformed human just got lower.


Or, if it comes from the same location, it could mean that there is a genetic cause that was passed down from a carrier to two infants rather than one. Or it could mean there is an environmental cause.

However, if the other one is from an unrelated location then yes, I agree.
 
2013-05-02 10:33:40 AM  

czetie: MacWizard: Personally, I'm betting on weird anomaly, and that's only because I still have faith in science, not because I think such a scam is impossible to pull off. Science finds anomalies all the time.

If I had to lay odds on this thing, I'd say 90% chance of hoax, 10% chance of anomaly.

Reasoning being: hoaxes happen all the time, and this thing wouldn't merely be anomalous, it would be wildly anomalous. Maybe some very rare combination of unusual factors -- mutation plus infection plus ... -- would do it. Or (as has been suggested upthread) a maldeveloped conjoined twin that was surgically removed from the other twin at around the age of 6.

By the way, if it is a hoax, I wouldn't be surprised if Greer is the victim, not the perpetrator. It would be very easy for a scammer to persuade Greer that he had evidence of an ET. The provenance of this thing is a black hole, which is always a red flag for a hoax.

The other possibility well worth considering is that some part of the science is bad. For instance, the DNA is valid, but the alleged age is wrong (I still don't know the source for that). Or the DNA is contaminated from somebody who handled it. Or the thing is a composite, two different corpses crushed together in a grave, and if you took DNA from elsewhere you'd get different results.


I disagree. I find the likelihood of this being a hoax rather low. And that is because I am relying on Dr. Nolan to know what the hell he is talking about. So if I am wrong, then it's literally his fault. He is the one putting his name and his university's name on the line. If he got duped here, then he has a lot more to lose than me.

I found this interview he did with Greer on George Nory's  program.

Cut to 0:22 - 0:35, that is the portion where Nolan is on. As you will hear, he is pretty straight forward with this.
At the 0:27 mark, he clearly states that this is a biological being and not a hoax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SkI-4lhy1KI#!
 
2013-05-02 10:41:57 AM  

czetie: internut scholar: No. It would mean that the chances of this being a deformed human just got lower.

Or, if it comes from the same location, it could mean that there is a genetic cause that was passed down from a carrier to two infants rather than one. Or it could mean there is an environmental cause.

However, if the other one is from an unrelated location then yes, I agree.


Check this out too.

http://share.pdfonline.com/5a6b5801433d43d6b6ba71bf627537f5/Atacama% 20 Specimen.htm
 
2013-05-02 11:46:09 AM  

mat catastrophe: Why do people assume aliens would have heads?

Or bones, for that matter?


I remember that being brought up in the disclosure project. A few people said they were shocked that all of the different types of intelligent aliens were all bipedal, in humanoid form and they couldn't understand why. Also, there are about 40 types ranging from blonde human looking,greys,insectoids,reptilians....no blobs.
/hard to keep a straight face while typing this but I clearly remember that the spectators (mostly composed of witnesses) nodding in approval while this was being said.
 
2013-05-02 11:57:24 AM  

internut scholar: czetie: internut scholar: No. It would mean that the chances of this being a deformed human just got lower.

Or, if it comes from the same location, it could mean that there is a genetic cause that was passed down from a carrier to two infants rather than one. Or it could mean there is an environmental cause.

However, if the other one is from an unrelated location then yes, I agree.

Check this out too.

http://share.pdfonline.com/5a6b5801433d43d6b6ba71bf627537f5/Atacama% 20 Specimen.htm


That's probably the best concise summary of the evidence I've seen. So thanks.

By the way, I'm not impuning Dr. Nolan's credentials or work. But it's perfectly possible that this thing is both biological and a hoax (the people saying "it's a model" are not paying attention). Dr. Nolan seems to be careful to attest to only what's actually in front of him, which is good. If I were faking something like this and I expected it to pass in front of an expert, I'd take that it into account. I still wouldn't be surprised if its a mashup of different specimens, in particular the legs (which presumably is what the looked at to determine age based on epiphyseal plate X- Ray density standards) are from a different specimen than the ribs, which supplied the DNA. (For comparison, remember the way Hugh Trevor-Roper was duped, and before that the hoaxers behind the Vinland Map).
 
2013-05-02 12:00:01 PM  

FloydA: Some have actually studied both human and non-human mammal skeletal anatomy.


The complete absence of condyles or processes on the legs is a dead giveaway for me.  In some rarely-shown close-ups, the leg bones are revealed to be almost perfectly cylindrical: no points of muscle attachment or articulation are evident.  The tiba and fibula are particularly crudely rendered.

It's a fake.
 
2013-05-02 01:02:13 PM  
Totally legit....

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-02 01:39:50 PM  

Deucednuisance: FloydA: Some have actually studied both human and non-human mammal skeletal anatomy.

The complete absence of condyles or processes on the legs is a dead giveaway for me.  In some rarely-shown close-ups, the leg bones are revealed to be almost perfectly cylindrical: no points of muscle attachment or articulation are evident.  The tiba and fibula are particularly crudely rendered.

It's a fake.


Good eye!  If there is preserved connective tissue, the condyles should be present as well.  This was made by someone who has only a passing knowledge of what bones look like.
 
2013-05-02 03:16:08 PM  
I really really wish this thing had been found in Ireland. Because that would be fun.
 
2013-05-02 03:58:00 PM  

FloydA: Deucednuisance: FloydA: Some have actually studied both human and non-human mammal skeletal anatomy.

The complete absence of condyles or processes on the legs is a dead giveaway for me.  In some rarely-shown close-ups, the leg bones are revealed to be almost perfectly cylindrical: no points of muscle attachment or articulation are evident.  The tiba and fibula are particularly crudely rendered.

It's a fake.

Good eye!  If there is preserved connective tissue, the condyles should be present as well.  This was made by someone who has only a passing knowledge of what bones look like.


Would either of you like to present your observations to Dr. Nolan? Being that you are a scientist, I know for a fact he would welcome your concerns and ideas. If so, please email me.
 
2013-05-02 04:58:00 PM  

internut scholar: Would either of you like to present your observations to Dr. Nolan?


I didn't see "Anatomist" among his credentials, did you?  He's the genetics guy.

(And surely you know by now that "Argument from authority" is a fallacy?)

This is peer review, well, it would be, except that Dr. Nolan hasn't published anything yet.

Look, just because you're a credulous dude doesn't mean we all have to be.

Isn't the usual line from your sort "Keep an open mind, see for yourself and make up your own mind"?

That's what I'm doing, and explaining my objections to the evidence presented.

Why do you have a problem with that?  Can you show me any condyles or processes on the leg "bones" in any photo?  (Do you even know what they are?  Do you understand why they must be present?) They should be visible, and they do not appear to be.  I hadn't even mentioned the lack of bone heads.  In sum: those "knees" appear to be entirely non-functional.

Let me put it to you this way: if there are no condyles or processes on those bones it bodes very poorly for the previously mentioned "heart" and "lungs" to have been functional.  The creature would have been basically crunchy soup in a skin bag, making the "six-year" claim pretty shaky.

I don't even want to get into the minuscule likelihood of the preservation of an entire skeleton with no collapse of the ribcage or skull, no animal damage, etc.  It's astoundingly rare for such to happen, even in the case of intentional mummification.

Everything Dr.s Nolan and Lachman say could 100% accurate, and I suspect that it is.

That doesn't rule out "hoax" which is what it appears to be.

You can lay off the condescension, too.
 
2013-05-02 05:11:59 PM  

Deucednuisance: internut scholar: Would either of you like to present your observations to Dr. Nolan?

I didn't see "Anatomist" among his credentials, did you? He's the genetics guy.


Woah, back it up a little. Clearly, you took internut scholar's post as sarcasm and condescension. Based on everything else he's posted in this thread (not all of which I agree with by any means), I don't think it was.

Would you do me a favor? Try reading it again, see if you can convince yourself to take it purely at face value, i.e. an offer to pass on your comments to Dr. Nolan, with whom he happens to be acquainted. If you can do so, take him up on it.

And if you can't, keep calm and carry on...

/Still think it's a composite and a deliberate hoax
 
2013-05-02 05:21:52 PM  

Deucednuisance: internut scholar: Would either of you like to present your observations to Dr. Nolan?

I didn't see "Anatomist" among his credentials, did you?  He's the genetics guy.

(And surely you know by now that "Argument from authority" is a fallacy?)

This is peer review, well, it would be, except that Dr. Nolan hasn't published anything yet.

Look, just because you're a credulous dude doesn't mean we all have to be.

Isn't the usual line from your sort "Keep an open mind, see for yourself and make up your own mind"?

That's what I'm doing, and explaining my objections to the evidence presented.

Why do you have a problem with that?  Can you show me any condyles or processes on the leg "bones" in any photo?  (Do you even know what they are?  Do you understand why they must be present?) They should be visible, and they do not appear to be.  I hadn't even mentioned the lack of bone heads.  In sum: those "knees" appear to be entirely non-functional.

Let me put it to you this way: if there are no condyles or processes on those bones it bodes very poorly for the previously mentioned "heart" and "lungs" to have been functional.  The creature would have been basically crunchy soup in a skin bag, making the "six-year" claim pretty shaky.

I don't even want to get into the minuscule likelihood of the preservation of an entire skeleton with no collapse of the ribcage or skull, no animal damage, etc.  It's astoundingly rare for such to happen, even in the case of intentional mummification.

Everything Dr.s Nolan and Lachman say could 100% accurate, and I suspect that it is.

That doesn't rule out "hoax" which is what it appears to be.

You can lay off the condescension, too.


I think you that you are misreading my tone (nature of the printed word and perhaps I'm not stating my position correctly)

Yes I understand all that. I really don't know if you have seen what I have seen. I don't know what ct scans you reviewed, I don't know what reports you have read.

All I am simply saying is that Nolan is open to defending his work. If you have objections, concerns, ideas...ect he is interested in hearing them. I am as well. I am sure you know that is how science works.
So its really not a pissing match here.
I am curious as to how he would answer your legitimate questions.
I already asked him my own and found him to be a open and forthright fellow.
I have no dog in this fight. I want the truth
 
2013-05-02 05:24:50 PM  

czetie: Deucednuisance: internut scholar: Would either of you like to present your observations to Dr. Nolan?

I didn't see "Anatomist" among his credentials, did you? He's the genetics guy.

Woah, back it up a little. Clearly, you took internut scholar's post as sarcasm and condescension. Based on everything else he's posted in this thread (not all of which I agree with by any means), I don't think it was.

Would you do me a favor? Try reading it again, see if you can convince yourself to take it purely at face value, i.e. an offer to pass on your comments to Dr. Nolan, with whom he happens to be acquainted. If you can do so, take him up on it.

And if you can't, keep calm and carry on...

/Still think it's a composite and a deliberate hoax


Lol. Thanks. I really meant nothing other than, lets push this "argument/debate" in a legitimate way.
I love weird stuff and I love science, when the two come together I.m happy.
 
2013-05-02 05:29:08 PM  

internut scholar: I think you that you are misreading my tone


OK, snark retracted.

Feel free to share with him that some anonymous guy on the internet who's taken Anatomy for Figure Drawing and Physical Anthropology, is married to a zoologist and best friend to a Physical Therapist (so "how bones fit together" is a pretty common topic in his life) thinks the anatomy of the legs in the few pictures he's seen appears to be so wrong as to be non-functional.
 
2013-05-02 05:29:34 PM  
And yes, Dr. Nolan told me to direct anyone that would like to discuss the specimen to him that he would be happy to talk.
 
2013-05-02 05:46:34 PM  

internut scholar: FloydA: Deucednuisance: FloydA: Some have actually studied both human and non-human mammal skeletal anatomy.

The complete absence of condyles or processes on the legs is a dead giveaway for me.  In some rarely-shown close-ups, the leg bones are revealed to be almost perfectly cylindrical: no points of muscle attachment or articulation are evident.  The tiba and fibula are particularly crudely rendered.

It's a fake.

Good eye!  If there is preserved connective tissue, the condyles should be present as well.  This was made by someone who has only a passing knowledge of what bones look like.

Would either of you like to present your observations to Dr. Nolan? Being that you are a scientist, I know for a fact he would welcome your concerns and ideas. If so, please email me.



I'll wait to see what he publishes, but frankly, I'll still be skeptical no matter what.  Understanding genetics is important, but it does not, by itself, give one any insight into whether or not this thing is legitimate.  It looks like a fake, and a crude one at that.  If it is a hoax carved out of actual human remains, then it will test positive for human DNA, but that won't make it any less of a hoax.

A link that you posted earlier suggests that in addition to a geneticist, the object was also shown to a pediatrician.  I have seen no evidence that it has been shown to anyone who knows anything about skeletal biology.  Given that the thing looks so incredibly phony, that doesn't surprise me.  Hoaxers tend to avoid showing their work to people who actually have the ability to recognize the hoax.  Nolan may be sincere, and he may have found human DNA, but he has almost certainly been duped.
 
2013-05-02 06:23:21 PM  

FloydA: internut scholar: FloydA: Deucednuisance: FloydA: Some have actually studied both human and non-human mammal skeletal anatomy.

The complete absence of condyles or processes on the legs is a dead giveaway for me.  In some rarely-shown close-ups, the leg bones are revealed to be almost perfectly cylindrical: no points of muscle attachment or articulation are evident.  The tiba and fibula are particularly crudely rendered.

It's a fake.

Good eye!  If there is preserved connective tissue, the condyles should be present as well.  This was made by someone who has only a passing knowledge of what bones look like.

Would either of you like to present your observations to Dr. Nolan? Being that you are a scientist, I know for a fact he would welcome your concerns and ideas. If so, please email me.


I'll wait to see what he publishes, but frankly, I'll still be skeptical no matter what.  Understanding genetics is important, but it does not, by itself, give one any insight into whether or not this thing is legitimate.  It looks like a fake, and a crude one at that.  If it is a hoax carved out of actual human remains, then it will test positive for human DNA, but that won't make it any less of a hoax.

A link that you posted earlier suggests that in addition to a geneticist, the object was also shown to a pediatrician.  I have seen no evidence that it has been shown to anyone who knows anything about skeletal biology.  Given that the thing looks so incredibly phony, that doesn't surprise me.  Hoaxers tend to avoid showing their work to people who actually have the ability to recognize the hoax.  Nolan may be sincere, and he may have found human DNA, but he has almost certainly been duped.


Ok, but have you read the report by Dr. Lachman? Because he also examined it.

he is also confident that its not a hoax and he is a specialist in skeletal abnormalities.
 
2013-05-02 07:59:40 PM  

Deucednuisance: the anatomy of the legs in the few pictures he's seen appears to be so wrong as to be non-functional.


In fairness, this thing is so deformed it wouldn't be remarkable that its knees are non-functional.

But yeah, my money is still on it most likely being a hoax that has been constructed by somebody with a good idea of which experts it would be put in front of (compare the Hitler Diaries and the Vinland Map histories).

I'm also hoping that if any of you guys ever find out the real story, somebody will let me know. EIP.
 
2013-05-02 08:03:39 PM  

Deucednuisance: internut scholar: I think you that you are misreading my tone

OK, snark retracted.

Feel free to share with him that some anonymous guy on the internet who's taken Anatomy for Figure Drawing and Physical Anthropology, is married to a zoologist and best friend to a Physical Therapist (so "how bones fit together" is a pretty common topic in his life) thinks the anatomy of the legs in the few pictures he's seen appears to be so wrong as to be non-functional.


Yeah, I am none of those things, but the knees, or lack thereof, bugged me. Also the sternum.
 
2013-05-02 08:10:50 PM  

internut scholar: Ok, but have you read the report by Dr. Lachman? Because he also examined it.


From your link, line 1: Thank you very much for the opportunity to examine the radiographic images of this specimen.

From your first link:

We obtained excellent DNA material by surgically dissecting the distal ends of two right

anterior ribs on the humanoid. These clearly contained bone marrow material, as was

seen on the dissecting microscope that was brought in for the procedure. The bone

marrow and other material from the skull were obtained under sterile, surgical

procedures and placed directly into sterile containers provided by Dr. Nolan.

Using forensic documentation procedures, this evidence was then hand-delivered by
me to Dr. Nolan in Washington DC in October, 2012.

According to your links, neither Nolan nor Lachman examined the actual specimen. Just the images and the rib ends.
 
2013-05-02 08:36:50 PM  

namegoeshere: internut scholar: Ok, but have you read the report by Dr. Lachman? Because he also examined it.

From your link, line 1: Thank you very much for the opportunity to examine the radiographic images of this specimen.

From your first link:

We obtained excellent DNA material by surgically dissecting the distal ends of two right

anterior ribs on the humanoid. These clearly contained bone marrow material, as was

seen on the dissecting microscope that was brought in for the procedure. The bone

marrow and other material from the skull were obtained under sterile, surgical

procedures and placed directly into sterile containers provided by Dr. Nolan.

Using forensic documentation procedures, this evidence was then hand-delivered by
me to Dr. Nolan in Washington DC in October, 2012.

According to your links, neither Nolan nor Lachman examined the actual specimen. Just the images and the rib ends.


Excellent points. I also found this to be a point of contention. I questioned Nolan on this, he told me that he had a MD whom he trusted obtain the dna for him.
This will have to be addressed when he writes his final paper.

As far as the scans and Lachman's involvement goes, I don't find that as troublesome considering the nature of his specialty.

But both of your points valid.
 
2013-05-02 09:06:27 PM  

internut scholar: But both of your points valid.


So can we all agree on this:

If this is a hoax, it is a hoax by somebody who went to a lot of trouble to put convincing evidence in front of the people who would lend credibility to the project?

This would not be unknown, by the way. As I mentioned before, both the Hitler Diaries and Vinland Map hoaxes were initiated by people with a very good idea of what they needed to do to deceive the experts they had co-opted. The very best forgers don't just fake the artifact, they think very carefully about how they will fake the provenance and the authentication. By contrast, bad forgeries fall apart very quickly on precisely those grounds.

In other words, this is either (a) a real profoundly deformed human or (b) a very well designed hoax.
 
2013-05-02 10:26:03 PM  
Ghastly


If it slid into you I bet you'd scream louder.

This is why I have you faved.
 
2013-05-02 11:17:21 PM  

czetie: internut scholar: But both of your points valid.

So can we all agree on this:

If this is a hoax, it is a hoax by somebody who went to a lot of trouble to put convincing evidence in front of the people who would lend credibility to the project?

This would not be unknown, by the way. As I mentioned before, both the Hitler Diaries and Vinland Map hoaxes were initiated by people with a very good idea of what they needed to do to deceive the experts they had co-opted. The very best forgers don't just fake the artifact, they think very carefully about how they will fake the provenance and the authentication. By contrast, bad forgeries fall apart very quickly on precisely those grounds.

In other words, this is either (a) a real profoundly deformed human or (b) a very well designed hoax.


I agree 100%
 
Displayed 236 of 236 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report