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
    More: Interesting, DNA  
•       •       •

25327 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 12:35 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 36 of 236 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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