Some
15 years ago or so, a small, tiny really, skeleton was found in the Atacama
Desert in Chile. It was only six inches tall, thought to be six to eight years
old, was humanoid and looked like something that might have come from another
world. And that was what a number of people believed. They had found the
remains of creature from another world.
There
was DNA that could be examined, and in 2013, it was revealed that only 92 or
93% of the DNA had been identified. That DNA was human, but the other seven or
eight percent was unknown. Some pointed out that the difference between humans
and chimpanzee DNA was only three percent. But that three percent was critical
and the difference between high intelligence and human beings, and the lower
intelligence and chimpanzee.
This,
according to a few including Steven Greer, suggested that the creature was not human, while others
said that, of course, it was. The problem was a few assumptions reported as
fact such as the age and size of the little being suggested it was non-human.
 |
| The Sirius premiere at the Citizen Hearing in Washington, D.C. Photo copyright by Kevin Randle. |
Study
of the skeleton by some UFO researchers resulted in a documentary called, “Sirius.”
It can be viewed here:
While
the movie was mostly panned, it was one of the first that had been funded by crowd
sourcing which makes it interesting in its own right. But I digress…
There
has been a long-term study of the little skeleton. A few years ago, it was
determined that the skeleton was only 40 years old and not an ancient alien as
some speculated. Gary Nolan, senior author of the
new study and professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University
reported on the results of that study.
You can read the whole story
here:
 |
| Steven Greer at the Citizen Hearing with his film. Photo copyright by Kevin Randle |
The mystery of the DNA has now been solved. According to Nolan,
the skeleton is a human female, probably a fetus, with Chilean ancestry. The age
estimates based on the bones were off. The fetus suffered from a number of rare
genetic and bone related mutations. That was what lead to the erroneous assumption
about its age.
The point is that the skeleton has been identified as human. Completely
human. And, yes, I know there will be those out there who believe that these conclusions
are the result of government repression and an attempt to hide the truth about
alien visitation. But it seems that the study was completed by a disinterested
third party who had no government controllers and certainly isn’t a government
agent. They went where the evidence took them and it seems they solved the
mystery of the Atacama Mummy.
But, no matter what we say, there will be those who ignore the
evidence. I believed that we have the answer, but if you wish to continue to
believe… well, that’s your business, so, here is a list of various sites that
have additional information.
7 comments:
Will someone now please give that unfortunate child a decent burial and let it rest in peace?
made me jump right off the Greer bandwagon, that whole alien thing. To claim it was alien without full proper testing was a little too keen for me.
They solved the Starchild skull mystery and it is fully human as well. As other posters have stated, it is best to wait for all the tests to be done before stating it is an alien.
Time to move on to the next mystery...
Here is a reaction from Greer :
https://www.uapinfo.net/dr-steven-greer-on-the-atacama-conclusion
Peer review requires that those engaged in it are disinterested third parties who had a sufficient knowledge and background to intelligently study the work of those who produced the original study. To select the peers based on their association with a specific group, organization or who hold specific beliefs defeats the purpose of peer review.
And to label the conclusions with which you disagree as junk science without allowing for a legitimate peer review seems to taint the process before it can be begun.
A tempered response suggesting that the published study is the conclusions drawn by the team working with Nolan and must be reviewed by other scientists with a proper background and who had no personal bias about the object to be tested would have received a more favorable review. To attack first and study later might work in military situations (though Custer certainly learned the folly of not studying the situation) but it is not good science.
Hi Kevin - I've just tonight discovered your blog, via a google search for "the unholy 13" after learning about that phrase from some reading about Roswell, which led me to a post of yours from 2014 (http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2014/08/mj-12-unholy-thirteen-and-roswell.html) I've enjoyed seeing your intelligent handling of this sort of material. as well as been impressed by the quality of the commenters.
I know my question here is off-topic, but I am very interested in something you said in that 2014 post and would like you to elaborate on it, and I don't know where else to ask: you say that in the late 1970s you came up with a "terrestrial explanation" for cattle mutilations; will you say exactly what that explanation was, and if today you still believe that it holds?
Thank you very much.
Hi Kevin - I've just tonight discovered your blog, via a google search for "the unholy 13" after learning about that phrase from some reading about Roswell, which led me to a post of yours from 2014 (http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2014/08/mj-12-unholy-thirteen-and-roswell.html) I've enjoyed seeing your intelligent handling of this sort of material. as well as been impressed by the quality of the commenters.
I know my question here is off-topic, but I am interested in something you said in that 2014 post and would like you to elaborate on it, and I don't know where else to ask: you say that in the late 1970s you came up with a "terrestrial explanation" for cattle mutilations; will you say exactly what that explanation was, and if today you still believe that it holds?
Thanks very much.
Post a Comment