Friday, May 03, 2013

Steve Greer and Sirius

I have disagreed with much of what Dr. Steven Greer has done over the years. I suggested that he vet his witnesses with a little more enthusiasm and have found a few flaws in some of the witness testimony he has gathered. As a single example, he has an Air Force officer who talks about seeing a classified document come through the message center that describes a UFO crash. That is true.

Greer at Podium in Washington, D.C.
The problem? This refers to the Spitsbergen UFO crash. Several messages were exchanged in the early 1950s by various government agencies. Those messages have long been declassified and the crash has long been discredited. This specific case does nothing to advance our knowledge and gives us nothing of value. The tale is true, the officer did see the messages but they have been available to UFO researchers for decades.

Greer has a new passion that is Sirius. This is a feature length production that covers a great deal of territory, though my interest was in the remains of a little creature found in Chile a while ago. It is about six inches tall and according to reputable experts, lived to be six to eight years old.

True, I wasn’t all that interested in the discussion of the energy policies of the government, nor in the ways that energy can be produced without damage to the environment and little expense. Yes, that could potentially be of greater value than the little alien or little creature, but that was what I wanted to know about.

Greer took the podium and gave us an abbreviated lecture. He told us that many in the media, who had seen an advance copy of the movie, or had viewed it on the Internet before it was removed, said the DNA proved the little being was a human. But that wasn’t quite right. He noted that our genetic makeup matched that of the Neanderthal to more than 99% and that we shared 97% of our genes with the great apes.

This little creature had a genetic makeup that was about 90 or 91% of ours. That left some 9% that was unidentified. Greer said that this could be caused by problems with the computer analysis; it could be bad sequencing, or just damaged genes. There were many plausible answers for this discrepancy, but at the moment, there were none. Experts in genetics, top scientists in the field at prestigious universities were intrigued by these problems.

In fact, one of them, Garry Nolan, director of stem cell biology at Stanford University's School of Medicine in California, said that it wasn’t a monkey, that it had lived to six or eight based on an examination of the bones, and that it had been a living, breathing creature. In other words, Nolan, with the proper scientific credentials is just the sort of man you’d want to examine something like this.

And, as he pointed out, the creature, little human, tiny alien, whatever it might be, shouldn’t have been able to survive years given its size.

You could say that it was some sort of mutation that survived birth. A single example of a mutation that didn’t live long enough to reproduce, if it had ever been able. Greer, however, said that they may be other examples and he is chasing them down. One, in Russia, might have been seen alive by people who are still alive. In other words, there might be some very exciting evidence that these little things exist in the world today.

So, I found his documentary interesting, which is usually code for “I didn’t like it much but don’t want to say anything bad.” What I mean is that I didn’t agree with some of what he said, did enjoy the various clips of UFOs shown, and was very interested the information about the little being. Parts I ignored and other parts that I watched carefully.

But the point for me was the analysis of the little creature. Greer made it clear that the analysis was continuing and the final answer, if we get there, will be fascinating whatever it is.


paul thompson said...

Greer is definitely a member of the tinfoil hat crowd. He is a true believer. I once saw a documentary about him showing him and his fellow tinfoil hat wearers going out into the desert, sitting in lawn chairs, and pointing flashlights up into the sky, hoping to signal UFOs with the hope that they would land and communicate. Oh please! He has no credibility with me, so I couldn't take anything he says or does seriously.

Wade said...

Siriusly, Paul. Dr. Greer strikes me as being a limelight seeking egoist, but I feel you make the usual skeptic blunder by assigning anything to do with him to the tin foil trash heap.

Is the PHD from Stanford a member of the tin foil brigade? I was pretty much flabbergasted when he reported out his findings. Both because of what he found, but also because he had the temerity to touch the Great Taboo. I wonder if Stanford will make a move to get rid of him now.

But this doesn't necessarily taint his findings. You are dismissing everything about this because you feel you can dismiss Greer. How does that work?

cda said...

Where did Dr Greer get his doctorate from and what was the subject of his thesis? Also, what is his profession?
I presume ufology is purely a hobby. Or is it?

Lance said...


The lack of identifiable DNA in the sample is not mysterious and it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

I realize that the movie tries hard to foster the ooga booga but after watching the thing: a string of half-truths, disconnected (and mutually exclusive) conspiracy theories, and idiocy, I would have thought you might be a bit more skeptical about the claims presented.

Having partially unidentifiable DNA results can be caused by many things, most commonly degraded or defective sample acquiisition. I happen to have a friend who is the director of genomic research at a big university and he told me the above. It is also mentioned in Dr. Garry Nolan's report (but oddly not mentioned in the movie--shockingly close to the standard way UFO nuts do everything).

Basically, I don't get my scientific breakthroughs from a guy who points flashlights at the sky and says he can vector in alien craft at will.

By giving Greer even the small amount of consideration you do above, you diminish (if that is even possible) the UFO myth.


Wade said...

Lance, self-righteously snarky as usual.

Who do you get your scientific breakthroughs from? Is there an official skeptic smell-o test that they have to pass?

Sorry, I am being snarky too, but then I have an excuse. I am on heavy cold meds...

Larry said...

Fortunately, having a tangible specimen to work with should remove this from the realm of character assassination fairly soon. If the body is some kind of hoax that should be discovered soon. If it is not, that should also be obvious--that is, if multiple different laboratories are allowed access to the evidence.

What I read the other day is that Nolan has so far not discovered any thing other than human DNA, but has not analyzed all the DNA that should be there. So, formally, the issue of whether there are any non-human genes in the body is open.

But suppose the analysis gets done and there is no non-human genetic material discovered? The mystery doesn't go away. What you would then have is a 100% modern human genome that produces a phenotype that has never been observed before, even in the fossil record.

I would have to suspect that a phenotype consisting of a 6 inch tall adult hominid is highly unlikely to have been evolutionarily feasible. By which, I mean able to feed, clothe, and sustain a breeding population.

Indeed, Nolan is reported to have said that some genes in the little body are identical to those found in the indigenous tribes that historically border the Atacama desert, leading to the likelihood that the creature was born to a more or less normal female of the local population.

But Nolan also supposedly found none of the genes that are normally associated with genetic dwarfism and in any case the proportions of the body are not indicative of classic dwarfism, either.

To all appearances, the body--assuming it's a real organism--could be a Genetically Modified Organism.

Lance said...

No, no Larry. I am quite sure that for you and many other UFO faithful, the mystery never goes away no matter what.


Jack Brewer said...

Momentarily willing to forego extended discussion of the lack of peer review and otherwise standard scientific protocol glaringly absent from this fiasco, we might choose to consider Dr. Nolan's recent email to Loren Coleman:

"I can’t police every website and I know I am being misquoted in many quarters. What I said is in the attached report.

"Every nucleotide so far is human. The mystery is only I cannot find a mutation that accounts for the morphology. But the genome is a huge place and lots of places for subtle mutations to hide. Concluding the specimen is alien or a hybrid would be a gross overstepping of the bounds.

"It is likely a human child with an unfortunate mutation. How the child’s bones say it is 6-8 years old is a mystery."


In my opinion, we are long past offering Greer the luxury of suspension of judgment. From my vantage point we have reached a time that suspension of _attention_ is in order, pending he ever actually produce any of the proof of extraterrestrials he chronically claims to possess.

Mr. Randle, I appreciate that you have devoted a great deal of your life and personal resources to pursuing truth behind the UFO enigma and, specifically, Roswell. That stated, I hold the opinion that credibility within the UFO research community will be achieved if or when it is earned, which would include adhering to prfoessional research protocols. More directly stated, when a band of people descend upon the nation's capital, many of which directly or indirectly stating and knowingly implying they have direct conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial intervention, and then fail to present any such conclusive evidence, they are judged poorly because they have indeed collectively demonstrated poor judgment, not because they have been treated unfairly.

Again, I can appreciate that the topic is much more personal to you than is the case with the average member of the UFO community. I also appreciate the time and attention you offered to address my questions posted at 'Orlando Paranormal Examiner.' Thank you.

Lance said...

Great post by Jack!

The bone information is only one data point. There are other data points that speak strongly that this is a very young baby or fetus...for instance the obvious fontanelle.

What we see here is sadly why UFOs are greeted with derision.

Same with the silly thing at the Press Club....getting the dregs of former and disgraced government officials (at least one is a 9/11 Truther) to listen to the mostly deluded ravings of irrational advocates (Did Penniston have any more new messages from the aliens?) is a hilarious sideshow that will mean exactly nothing in 3-2-1.

Of course, I could be wrong and Greer is actually akin to Galileo (something suggested here by one of the hardcore buffs).



Larry said...

Lance said:

“No, no Larry. I am quite sure that for you and many other UFO faithful, the mystery never goes away no matter what.”

So now you’re an amateur psychoanalyst?

As luck would have it, so am I!

I’ve noticed that you can’t seem to go more than a few posts without deviating away from the topic of UFO reports and what they may or may not signify and devolving into personal attacks.

Whenever you start a sentence with words to the effect that “I am quite sure” that “you” believe “X” about “Y”, you have just moved away from talking about “Y” (i.e., the UFO phenomenon) into talking about “you” and “me”. In other words you have moved from a discussion in which logic and facts can be asserted and debated in an impersonal way into a personal and emotional confrontation that cannot really have any satisfactory outcome.

For example, suppose I were to assert “I am quite sure that you, Lance, are too stupid to understand the subtlty of my arguments”. We’ve just gone from discussing how a UFO debate might be diverted from its original purpose into a discussion of how stupid you are and how sure I am of it.

I’m quite sure you wouldn’t want that, would you? That’s why I would never suggest such a thing, no matter what.

KRandle said...


Are you incapable of finding out about Greer's education on your own? He is not a Ph.D, he is an MD.
Greer was born in Charlotte, North Carolina in 1955. Greer completed his graduate work at East Tennessee State University James H. Quillen College of Medicine in 1987. He attended MAHEC University of North Carolina where he completed his internship in 1988 and received his Virginia medical license in 1989.

Lance -

Please reread the posting again. You are in conflict with the Nolan, who has the proper credentials. He thinks this little creature, whatever it might be, is mysterious.

I pointed out that there are all sorts of mundane and terrestrial reasons for gap in the little creature's DNA. What I found interesting was that some highly credentialed scientists are taking their time to study this. Will it turn out to be something mundane? Probably. But at the moment the answers do not exist.

Besides, Lance, I was only looking at the information about the little creature and not all the other matters covered. Thought I made that clear.

Ross said...

The properly credentialed Dr. Nolan hasn't raised any doubts about the creature's human status. The lying huckster, Dr. Greer, has. That should tell all you need to know.

Sarge said...

A six inch tall six year old child could grow to an eighteen inch tall adult. I do not need a UFO to think about people that small, my people were Irish.

David Rudiak said...

The smallest verified adult human to date has been only 22 inches tall. Most dwarves are much taller than this. I have been able to find no example of dwarfism characterized by fewer than normal ribs as in this skeleton. Of the 200 known forms of dwarfism, Greer's skeleton doesn't seem to match any known type. Doesn't mean it's ET or a hybrid, but it does seem to be unique and of scientific interest. Further DNA studies might tell us more. Therefore let's not jump to conclusions one way or the other, even if Greer seemingly did.

Lance said...

Dr. Rudiak's comments are reasonable.

As I mentioned above however, the age of the specimen is not established. Therefore looking at statistics for adult dwarfs is not prudent.

It is almost certainly an aborted fetus or stillborn child and not 6 years of age (or an adult).

The age thing was suggested by Dr. Lachman, not Nolan (indeed this is outside of his field) using (apparently) only one data point.

There are other data points that suggest that this is a fetus or infant. Additionally I believe that another examination by other doctors in Chile determined exactly that (not mentioned in the film of course!)

Again I remind you that all this comes from a person who claims that he can shine flashlights in the sky to bring down alien ships at will. Is there any depth to which a UFO star can go below at which the faithful say, "Hey, wait a minute!"?

And what the hell does an unfortunate human specimen (even with an unknown deformity) have to do with alien peace brothers?

Greer knows that the undiscerning person watching the film with make their own gossamer connections to tie together all this silliness.

Giving him a pass or any kind at this point seems hilariously unwise.



Anthony Mugan said...

It is really appalling the way some people jump to conclusions without supporting evidence as has been the case with this small body. Much the same occurs with many UFO reports. A strange light must equal an alien spaceship is all too easy to see why the field is subject to so much ridicule. The evidence supporting the suggestion that there may be technological devices behind a minority of reports just gets drowned out, pArticularly as even then the evidence is not clear cut

KRandle said...

All -

What is astonishing here is that the evidence isn't all in. Chimpanzees share about 97% of human DNA but that doesn't make them humans.

This little creature is being examined by experts who are trained in these things. I'm willing to wait for the examinations to be completed.

Do I think it is alien? No.

There are problems with about 9% of the DNA which, as we all know have a number of explanations, none of which lead to the extraterrestrial. I think it laughable that so many seem to know exactly what it is when those examining it have additional questions to be answered.

Even Greer, in his remarks preceding the film made it clear that he doesn't think it alien and that the 9% discrepancy is interesting but has many explanations.

When the final answer is announced, I'll get it posted here... probably not first, but I will post it.

Lance said...

Actually it isn't clear that anything else is being done at all.

Greer has the film out now. Nolan said more research should be done but has not said he is doing any.

Knowing that we are dealing with UFO people, I would not be surprised if things are left exactly where they are for maximum mystery.


David Rudiak said...

Lance wrote:
The age thing was suggested by Dr. Lachman, not Nolan (indeed this is outside of his field) using (apparently) only one data point.

There are other data points that suggest that this is a fetus or infant. Additionally I believe that another examination by other doctors in Chile determined exactly that (not mentioned in the film of course!)

While I must admit that my initial assumption was human fetus, that is all it was--an assumption. The fact is the experts to date who have examined the skeleton disagree as to age. So again don't jump to conclusions until all the data are in.

Some thoughts from an expert on other methods of dating age:

Larry said...

Lance wrote:

“..The age thing was suggested by Dr. Lachman, not Nolan (indeed this is outside of his field) using (apparently) only one data point….”

The “age thing” was discussed by Lachman, who was brought in specifically because he is an expert on interpreting radiographic information (x-rays) regarding human skeletal development. But there is more than one data point. I believe the point you are referring to is the fact that at birth, the joints at the ends of the long bones (arms and legs) consist mainly of cartilage. After birth, when the joints start to become load-bearing, they begin to ossify (fill in with bone). In normal development, that proceeds at a more or less predictable rate. The radiographic difference between cartilage and bone is very detectable in x-rays. Lachman compared the degree to which the knee joint had ossified with that of a 6 to 7 year old. Also, it was noted that the cranium had densified (become more radio-opaque) compared to that of a neonate. Also, there was at least one adult tooth (not a deciduous or baby tooth) detected in the mandible.

These are all pieces of evidence that would show up on x-rays and would probably not be observed in a simple visual examination. I don’t know what kind of exam may or may not have been done by doctors in Chile, but unless they performed the same kind of detailed radiographic exam that was done by Lachman, they probably would have missed this.

These are 3 different data points, but they all have in common the idea that the laying down of calcium in the skeleton (bones and teeth) proceeded at a rate consistent with the idea that the creature lived for at least several years after birth.

Beyond that is the fact that the proportions of the body (ratio of long bones to spine and head length) are also way different than those of a fetus and, in fact, more resemble those of a thin, gracile adult or adolescent.

So, the overall pattern is that either the creature lived outside the uterus for at least a couple of years after birth and developed at a normal rate or, if you want it to be a fetus, it did all of that development at an accelerated rate in utero. In principle, maybe that latter option could have happened, if accelerated skeletal growth is part of the syndrome that the creature had. No one on the team of experts has ever seen such a syndrome as presented by this specimen nor found any reference to such a thing in the literature. Nor could they find any of the known markers for dwarfism in its genome. So, to say that “… It is almost certainly an aborted fetus or stillborn child..” is an unwarranted conclusion, not supported by the knowledge, at this time.

Lance said...

It is hard to get UFO buffs to understand that the prosaic explanation DOES outweigh the nutty one.

This does not mean that the prosaic explanation is always right. Just that it almost certainly is.

Because a 6 inch tall 6 year old is (as far as I am aware) an unprecedented occurrence, I submit that my conclusion is fully supported.

Nolan himself says:

"It is likely a human child with an unfortunate mutation."


Lance said...

Evidence is now being revealed that further solidifies the prosaic explanation that the specimen is a mummified fetus.

The same kind of bone density changes were seen in Egyptian mummified remains.

The missing ribs mean nothing if you understand that, at the likely stge of development, they are nt expected to have formed yet.

Here is an article that includes two links that anyone interested in this should find interesting.

Still unexplained is why UFO buffs are willing to give Greer the time of day.


Anthony Mugan said...

Perhaps the general rule of thumb that comes out of this is to always ask the question as to what if any hard evidence is being presented to support a particular claim? Can the claim be tested further? To what extent does the claim fit with wider theory? What alternative explanations are there and how do they stack up?
I rather lost interest in Ata quite quickly as a result!

Roland HereNow said...


if you don't believe in any of this, what are you doing here? From what I can see, you're just here to discredit and insult people. Surely this does not pay a wage while wasting valuable free time that you could be investing in what you truly do believe in and care about.

I'm curious, as a first time poster here, why do you even bother posting? Who is your true enemy in this battle, or perhaps your ideal objective?

Please don't withhold any evidence.

Lance said...

Hi Roland,

Believers always get their feathers ruffled when their ideas are challenged. This is yet another example of how these beliefs are wholly disconnected from science. Scientific ideas are batted back and forth, argued about, and solidified before they are accepted as viable (the exact opposite approach is used by paranormal believers and conspiracy theorists)

And even as a layperson, I do believe in science. And I believe that critical thinking is something worth promoting.


As an example, the recent Boston bombing suspects were apparently big believers in various YouTube 9/11 conspiracies (the exact same kind of conspiracies promoted by Greer in this film).

So fighting against this kind of thinking may be of some value.

Even if if hurts your feelings.


Lance said...

More evidence for the prosaic explanation:

From the article:

At least one expert has a more prosaic take—but agrees that the specimen is human. "This looks to me like a badly desiccated and mummified human fetus or premature stillbirth," says William Jungers, a paleoanthropologist and anatomist at Stony Brook University Medical Center in New York. He notes that "barely ossified and immature elements" of the hands and feet, and the wide open metopic suture, where the two frontal bones of the skull come together down the middle of the forehead. "Genetic anomalies are not evident, probably because there aren't any," he says.

cda said...

In response to Roland, why is this 6-inch creature being discussed at all?

Greer admits it is probably not alien, Kevin does not think so either. Nor, it appears, does any other commentator on this blog.

So what is, or was, the purpose of Greer bringing it up? It has absolutely no connection with the main point of his movement - namely to penetrate and break the alleged UFO-ET cover-up.

It MAY have some scientific interest. It MAY present an anomaly in our understanding of human fetuses, but its ET relevance, it seems to me, is zero.

Did anyone, for example, discover it in a landed or crashed UFO?

Roland HereNow said...

Lance, you said: "So fighting against this kind of thinking may be of some value...Even if if hurts your feelings."

So, you are a self appointed guardian of society to protect us all from "idiocy"? A kind of paternalistic impulse that seems to also find joy in stepping on people as though they were inferior. Lance, you don't hurt my feelings. I was simply asking who hurt yours.
cda: re; the little Chilean Dude. Admittedly, to feature it in a documentary about UFOs is to lead the viewer to the assumption, regardless of how it is downplayed and neutrality claimed by Dr. Greer.

My take is that it has value as a provocation to challenge accepted scientific norms - whether about genetic mutations or anything.

The fact that it does pose a mystery is of value itself because, despite what I've read here, there are high level clinical professionals who are scratching their heads over it.

If no one here is scratching their head, it is not for having solved the mystery, but for having assumed their own mental position secure.

Skepticism has its faults when protecting one's position is more critical than the evidence.

But that is just my opinion. And certainly, I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings or jump on their naiveté to elevate myself.

Roland HereNow said...

cda: forgot to mention: the relevance of Ata is that it MAY be an example of a hybrid. This is, after all, one of the major claims of abductees - that they are being sexually harvested to create another life form made of shared DNA.

That the mother is an Indigenous Native of Chile tells half the story. The other half is perhaps wherein the mystery lies.

I'm not siding with any position, but I certainly understand the implications of the one being pointed to by the lack of that percentile that puts it BELOW chimpanzees in relation to the human gene count.

Lance said...

"I'm not siding with any position, but I certainly understand the implications of the one being pointed to by the lack of that percentile that puts it BELOW chimpanzees in relation to the human gene count."

Unfortunately, it appears that you do not.

Kevin makes the same mistake you do above.

The unknown portion of the DNA results from the fetus (or whatever) cannot be compared to the known (but different) DNA of chimps,

Much of the unknown result resulted (as Dr. Nolan explained) from machine read errors.

Hopefully this helps you understand your error. If not I can elaborate.



KRandle said...

Lance -

I worry about your lack of reading comprehension. I stated, right in the post, that the 9% problem could be in the computer analysis, aka: machine error.

The point being made, which you seem to ignore, is that we share 97% of our genetic make up with the chimp which merely demonstrates how significant these differences can be...

The fact that the little creatures DNA is 90% human seems to suggest a terrestrial origin but there are some anomalties that interest science, but apparently not you.

And while we're on it, you said, "Scientific ideas are batted back and forth, argued about, and solidified before they are accepted as viable (the exact opposite approach is used by paranormal believers and conspiracy theorists)."

I assume you mean the rational discussions between Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope. You know, the guys who would dynamite fossil beds so the other guy couldn't use them... fine, open rational discussion there.

And besides, who made you keeper of the flame of truth?

Lance said...


I may be mistaken but you still don't seem to understand.

Ok, we share 97% with chimps....
The other 3% is however mapped.

In the case of the specimen, 90% has been mapped, 10% could not be mapped (because of a host of potential factors but essentially because of a bad sample)

These two ideas are not the same thing.


Roland HereNow said...

Lance, I think you need to be abducted. ;)

But even then, I fear you'll say - "Cheap Mexican beer! I'll never drink this stuff again." :)

Seriously, your struggles to contain what is happening in the outside world within you inner sphere is commendable but I feel that it will grow tiresome at some point if you don't let down your guard a little for some alternative views to creep in.

I think it's important to be skeptical too. But not at the cost of shutting down my own investigations into the truth.

David Rudiak said...

(part 1 of 2)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the latest DNA studies show that nearly all modern homo sapiens are hybrids with other, now-extinct lines of humans who co-existed with homo sapiens until fairly recently.

Homo sapiens migrating out of Africa through the Middle East and Europe tended to interbreed with Neanderthals. If you are of Middle Eastern or European descent, chances are your genes are ~1%-4% Neanderthal.

Although speculation that maybe the hairier, more beetle-browed modern Europeans may have some Neanderthal blood in them goes way back, the conventional wisdom of many "rational skeptics" for decades was that there was no interbreeding with the Neanderthals. Well, DNA proved them wrong.

I also remember being told by a linguistic friend of mine 40+ years ago that Neanderthals couldn't speak because they had no hyoid bone in their throat. That made no sense to me that Neanderthals, who were so closely related to us, would have no hyoid bone. The hyoid bone, being small and fragile, may simply have not been preserved. My instincts turned out to be right. Since then, a very homo-sapien-like, Neanderthal hyoid has been found.

The point is, until you get better data, over-arching statements like "Neanderthals couldn't speak" and "we didn't breed with Neanderthals" are little more than speculation. Lance's arrogant "rational skepticism" plus two-bits will get you on the bus.

Another mysterious line of recently discovered humans (only first found in 2008), the Denosivans, existed in Southeast Asia through Siberia. Their mitochondrial DNA (DNA derived from the mother) is distinctly different from that of both Neanderthals and homo sapiens. Homo sapiens migrating through there tended to pick up 2-6% Denosivan genes. Hence Australian aboriginals and Melanasians are hybrids with Denosivans.

There are also genetic differences between central Africans and the homo sapiens who came out of southern Africa, suggesting yet another, still not found archaic human subgroup in central Africa that interbred with homo sapiens.

And there may be a few more lines of humans out there we still know nothing about. The also recently discovered (2003), so-called "hobbits" or homo floresiensis of the isle of Flores, Indonesian, have also thrown the anthropological world into a tizzy. The experts are still debating whether or not they are another distinct human species or mutation of human sapiens. Most evidence currently points to the former, also raising questions as to how they got there and how they fit into the human evolutionary tree. (In fact, the heated debate has a lot of parallels with the current debate about the status of the Ata skeleton.)

The Ata skeleton still has many unanswered questions about it. The mitochondrial DNA indicates the mother was unquestionably human, but there is enough unsequenced nuclear DNA (from both mother and father) to leave the door open on the paternity or whether it is a hybrid or mutant of some sort. (Dr. Nolan to date has been unable to find evidence of any dwarfism mutations or other mutation such as progeria--rapid aging), another speculative explanation for the advanced calcification of bones and teeth found) that otherwise would point to the being living several years post-birth.

The experts still disagree about its age. The evidence remains conflicting as to whether it was a fetus or lived to be several years old. Dr. Nolan is currently conducting further tests, such as the ratio of fetal to adult hemoglobin and trying to do more complete DNA sequencing which might produce an explanatory mutation such as progeria.

David Rudiak said...

part 2 of 2
Lance doesn't seem to get that REAL science (not the phony, arrogant "rational skepticism" that he practices which pretends to know all the answers) is rarely about absolutes, that experimental data is typically ambiguous with experts often having reasonable disagreements about the best hypothesis to explain the existing data.

The best plan is to take a wait and see approach until more definitive data comes in that may resolve the ambiguity. Maybe it will indeed show that the Ata skeleton is that of a fetus with a genetic mutation that explains the calcifications found.

But it may also NOT come out that way. It could conceivably come out that Ata is indeed a hybrid with a few percent of the DNA NOT being human. Only a few percent can make a world of difference, such as the mere 3 per cent difference between chimps and humans. Chimps will never write a book, compose a symphony, play chess, do physics, or learn calculus. On the other hand, they are quite a bit better at climbing trees.

You see Lance, in REAL science, you don't know the result until you get more data. You can lay odds that Ata will turn out to be a totally human fetus, but that is just guess-work. Usually the most interesting experimental results are those that you DON'T expect.

Larry said...

Too bad the discussion has moved on to another topic.

I have just heard that someone found out that the Atacama creature was reported by some Nuns to have been found in a small coffin in a part of a churchyard that is reserved for fetuses.

If so, then Lance's opinion of Greer is well justified.

Lance said...

Dr Rudiak opens the door for us to his world.

It's a world where 6 inch 6 years olds are just as likely as the taller 6 year olds we are all familiar with.

In his conspiracy-riddled worldview, EVERY idea is just as valuable as every other one. Here the ravings of a man who uses flashlights to call down flying saucers should be given just as much respect (indeed I think Rudiak would prefer more respect) than those who suggest that such things are unproven.

Notice how he accuses me as of being dogmatic. Fortunately you can look above and see that I always spoke in probabilities ("almost certainly" etc.)

Contrast this with his claims (for instance that an alien craft that JUST HAPPENED to look like balsa wood and sticks ABSOLUTELY crashed in Roswell in 1947).

UFO buffs lament that science doesn't pay attention to their religion. Here is the reason. You can find it here in long 2-3 or 4 part conspiracy-laced messages that bluster and pontificate and puff and boil with unsupported (and often completely discredited) nonsense.



Tim Hebert said...

Well if Larry is correct with his information, ie, Nuns finding the Ata "creature" in a small coffin buried in a church yard reserved for fetus/infants...then Dr. Rudiack's assertion hold true also:

"You see Lance, in REAL science, you don't know the result until you get more data. You can lay odds that Ata will turn out to be a totally human fetus, but that is just guess-work. Usually the most interesting experimental results are those that you DON'T expect."

I bet Dr. R. didn't see that coming...

Larry, do you have a link to that info?

Larry said...

Tim wrote:

"..Larry, do you have a link to that info?..I bet Dr. R. didn't see that coming..."

No, I don't have a link (I was informed by a third party whose anonymity I will protect. And I don't think Lance saw it coming either.

What got me thinking about this is Lance's pointer to the article ( That article refers to the case of an Egyptian mummy that was analyzed by the Radiology Group, Nuffield Department of Surgery, in 2006. The analysis was of a child (not a fetus) whose age at the time of death was estimated as between 14 and 24 months. So, on that point, the relevance to the Atacama case is somewhere between slim and none.

Secondly, the article states: "A striking appearance is the marked increase in the attenuation value of all non-ossified cartilage ... This appearance has been previously reported as probably induced by the embalming process..."

The argument by the Stanford group that the organism is developmentally beyond that of a fetus seems to be primarily based on interpretation of the radiographic data. Mainly, they think that ossification appears to have proceeded in the cartilage (knee joints and cranium) at a rate consistent with survival of the organism postpartum by a minimum of 2 years. The Nuffield Group is saying that x-rays of non-ossified cartilage can appear to be denser than they otherwise would be and therefore imply an older age than would otherwise be the case if exposed to Egyptian embalming fluid.

What is Egyptian embalming fluid? It’s Natron, or a mixture of sodium salts that occur naturally in the salt flats of the Egyptian desert. Natron preferentially attaches itself to the cartilagenous tissues making them appear radiodense. This would give a false positive reading on the x-rays.

I’ve been to the Atacama on Astrobiological field experiments. Some parts of the Atacama are literally the driest places on Earth, where no rainfall has ever been recorded, and salt structures can remain on the surface, uneroded for millions of years. Other places are covered by persistent, seasonal brine pools, year after year. In either case, there are large amounts of Natron lying around the landscape. I speculated that the Atacama mummy may have been exposed to soaking in sodium salts (Natron) and would therefore give a false positive result as to its age, as it did in the case of the Egyptian mummy.

I shared this idea with a respected researcher I know, who did a little digging and came up with the information on the nuns. I have not checked out their story myself.

That's all I know at the moment.

Tim Hebert said...


Thanks for the reply and the interesting follow-up. Should you be able to provide a follow-up link in the future, I would like to see the information.

Larry said...


I suspect that this information will make its way out before too long, but I don't plan to post any more about this topic.

A few paragraphs back, Lance predicted: "...No, no Larry. I am quite sure that for you and many other UFO faithful, the mystery never goes away no matter what."

Just to prove him wrong, I'm stating that as far as I'm concerned, the mystery just went away.

Lance said...

Thanks Larry! I shouldn't have made it personal against you--the comments still seem appropriate for many other folks.



David Rudiak said...


Dr. Lachman, who literally wrote the textbook on human juvenile skeletal deformities, became interested because there were deformities evident that he had never seen before in any child or fetus. The x-rays he did suggesting post-partum ossification of the cartilage came afterward.

Even if your hypothesis of this being a fetus soaked in salt brine creating a mummy that mimics this ossification were correct, the mystery of the mutations causing the deformities remains. Dr. Nolan could find no mutations on his initial (incomplete) DNA sequencing.

Lance has being trying to make this into a case of "UFO religion" and "nuttiness" by "believers" who want to make this into an alien hybrid. Typical Lance posturing and insults.

That isn't the case at all. The experts think there is still a genuine scientific mystery here that needs resolving about the source of the deformities, for which there is still no previous example of a mutation or mutations that may have cause them. Dr. Nolan said he would do more detailed DNA sequencing and other tests to determine age, such as whether fetal hemoglobin is present. If this definitely turns out to be a miscarried or aborted fetus, then that solves the mystery of size, but not necessarily the skeletal deformities, which might turn up with more DNA analysis--or not.

Trained Observer said...

Sirius is undeniably a UFO cult movie from start to finish.

While there is a lot of disingenuous talk from various people associated with the film about how all the evidence isn't in and so forth, the UFO cult members in the movie constantly refer to little corpse as an ET when talking about it, pretty much putting the lie to any claims of objectivity they care to put forth.

This is pure B.T. Barnum and Ripley material. It just seems painfully obvious to me. In fact photos of Ripley holding a very similar looking corpse has surfaced. I just marvel that this was given the time of day, much less the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to make such a movie about it.

Also, does anyone know why the movie is called Sirius? I do not recall anyone explaining that. Could it be that the UFO contactee cult depicted in the film believe they are in contact with visitors from Sirius?

The literal prayer to the ETs that Greer leads should have jarred every viewer into a realization of what they were watching. A UFO contactee cult you can join for a few thousand dollars.

Does anyone know if it is true that the two main financial supporters of the film, other medical, left Greer's group shortly before the film came out? I think the more interesting story here is about the making of SIRIUS and the fallout within the cult.

When the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects is joined at the hip with bar room curios like the tiny corpse and the modern version of the perpetual motion machine, is it any wonder it draws such ridicule?

Wouldn't the subject be better served if the American people asked questions of the government like: "Are foreign aircraft really violating our national airspace?" "If so, what are they doing and where are they from?", rather than "Tell us what you know about ETs!"? I think you still get the same answer, but at least the line of questioning points to real world concerns that everyone whether they are UFO believer or not, can find pertinent to national security or at least the FAA and the safety of air travel.