Atacama ‘alien’ mystery is no mystery


warning-abortion

Recently there has been a storm of speculation about the identity of ‘humanoid’ remains found in the Chilean Atacama desert in 2003.

Atacama Humanoid © 2013 Sirius Disclosure

Atacama Humanoid © 2013 Sirius Disclosure

The specimen was acquired by the Disclosure Project and has been under investigation by researchers at Stanford University in an effort to categorically confirm or reject the possibility of it being the remains of an alien.

On 22nd April the preliminary results were released, concluding that the specimen is human, but that despite the tiny size (~6 inches) it was thought to be a child  aged between 6 and 8 years old with a variety of unknown medical conditions, rather than a foetus. This seems quite remarkable to me, since I’ve dealt with skeletal foetus specimens rather similar to this in museum collections.

Skeleton of foetus with estimated age of 18-20 weeks

Skeleton of foetus with estimated age of 18-20 weeks

The main differences I can discern by looking at the high quality photos, X-rays and CT scan on the Sirius Disclosure website are that the Atacama specimen is from a slightly earlier stage foetus (discussed below); it has mummified soft tissue that has shrunk tight (discussed below), pulling the ribcage into a more narrow configuration; and the head has been distorted, probably as a result of an illegal back-street abortion where a hook has been used to extract the foetus (discussed below), causing damage to the back of the skull and stretching the pliable head.

[Edit 07/05/2013: In the comments below, a contributor called Fred links to an image of this specimen where the large hole in the head is absent. Presumably the large hole was made while taking samples for testing.

There are other parts of the skull where a hook may have been inserted, causing the cranial deformation seen, such as through a fontanelle, but this is hard to confirm from the images available, so this makes the case for an abortion using a hook less likely. Abortions in the region are often carried out using an unknown mixture of herbs and it is possible that the deformation seen was caused by forceps used to facilitate extraction or as a result of post mortem tight wrapping of the specimen]

Atacama Humanoid © 2013 Sirius Disclosure

Atacama Humanoid © 2013 Sirius Disclosure

When undertaking an evaluation of something unusual like this, it is important to consider a range of factors, from the context of the specimen to how the evidence is balanced and what relative weighting should be applied to particular lines of evidence.

In this case the age estimate provided by Dr. Ralph Lachman has perhaps been overly influenced by the high density of the bone in the x-rays of the specimen (a pdf of his report can be seen here). In mummified specimens there is a well recognised increase in the density of both bone and cartilage to x-rays, to the point that age determination becomes unreliable (pdf of report on Egyptian child mummy detailing complications in age determination).

When this factor is taken into account, the specimen can be considered in a different light.

The length and degree of development is consistent with a 14-16 week old foetus, where the bones have mostly formed and are starting to harden, the skin is transparent and the external genitalia are formed, but the fingernails, eyelashes and eyebrows have not yet formed.

This would explain not only the very small size, but also why there are only 10 pairs of ribs, as the lower ‘floating ribs’ – the ones you can see partially developed in the skeleton of the older foetus below – wouldn’t have yet formed. It would also explain why there is no evidence in the x-rays of the deciduous or unerupted permanent dentition that you would expect to find in a 6-8 year old.

Skeleton of foetus with estimated age of 18-20 weeks

Skeleton of foetus with estimated age of 18-20 weeks

Looking at the wider context of the find, Chile has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world. This means that illegal abortions are common in the country, with the third highest rates of maternal mortality in the country being as a direct result of complications arising from an illegal abortion. The ways in which these complications can arise are horrific, as must be the circumstances of any woman who decides to risk them in order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. This isn’t the kind of decision to be made on a whim.

Nonetheless, it appears that some unfortunate woman underwent the procedure and the aborted foetus was disposed of in a remote location in the Atacama desert, only to become dried out, discovered and made the focus of study.

This brings me to the media handling of the reportage of the specimen. The preliminary results of the study clearly identify the specimen as a young human being (even if I disagree about the age range reported). It is also clear that the specimen is relatively recent and not of great antiquity; so why have papers like the Sun and Daily Mail taken the decision to sensationalise the story, rather than treat it with the respect that it deserves?

This is utterly unlike their reporting of the human placenta found in Tooting in March (SunDaily Mail) or the Sun’s analysis of a television broadcast of an abortion, or the slew of articles from the Mail’s apparent obsession with abortion.

It almost seems as though the Atacama specimen was deemed undeserving of respect because it’s considered a “freak” or “mutant”, but I fail to see how the specimen deserves any less respect than any other innocent dead human being. I wonder if the more prosaic story of the dumped outcome of an illegal and unsafe abortion, carried out on a desperate woman who may not have survived the procedure, would have gained the same attention that the story of a purported “alien” or “freak” has garnered. It saddens me to say that I rather doubt it.

About these ads

142 thoughts on “Atacama ‘alien’ mystery is no mystery

  1. Wonderful info and commentary Paolo. Many thanks for this.

    (On a ridiculously pedantic note, you might want to consider using an article before “slew” in the penultimate paragraph.)

  2. Your explanation makes a lot of sense, but how in the world did an expert come to the conclusion that the specimen was 6 to 8 years old child ? There lies the real mystery.

    • Mummified remains of children are notoriously difficult to get an accurate age for. A medical doctor unused to the problems posed when interpreting radiographic information for mummified material would have been working from their familiar knowledge of normal human radiographs. It’s a simple mistake to make when you know your own specialism intimately, but aren’t familiar with related fields that use similar techniques.

      • So what your saying is the baby was mummified in the womb? Since you are justifying your viewpoint on mummified remains and applying it to what you consider a fetus.

        • No dude, no clue where you got that. What he literally just said it’s hard to determine an age for a mummified child. He also said above it was dumped in the desert, and mummified. Which is easily believable seeing how the sand is so dry and could cake and stick to the thick wetness of “child”. In my personal opinion, it was dumped within twenty minutes after the operation, if it is just an old aborted child. Salt does what to water? Then combine the 0% climate and the dry sand, you have yourself an accidental mummification.

          • If it was an aborted fetus you can’t apply the same things as if it was born. I would be more convinced if the argument focused on how a fetus would have such details are the pictures clearly show. Instead the argument was “well mummified remains can look a lot older”. A fetus is not a human, you can’t apply the comparison to a child that was born and a fetus. I got that from the comparison he made to skeletal remains being overestimated in age because they were mummified. “accidental mummification” or not — that still doesn’t explain the bone developments. Fetuses that size don’t have that type of skeletal structure. It would look a lot different, hence the determination of the age.

            • As you can see from the foetus skeleton I showed, the skeletal structure is the same between the two specimens, except for the changes in shape caused by shrinkage of the soft tissue.

            • At one time in your development, you were a fetus too. Were you not human then? If so, what made you become one? And is what made you human present in a day-old newborn?

        • As Blade says, I am not saying that.

          The specimen was found in a bag near a ghost town in the desert (which may have been where the procedure took place). The incredibly dry climate would have rapidly dessicated the foetus given its small size and lack of a thick skin. It’s very simple.

          • I see, so basically the bones were still affected in a way that the density of them overestimated the age. It’s very telling also that it has the hole in the back of the skull so it does look like an abortion. I understand more where you’re coming from now and it does seem like the simplest explanation.

            • That’s it. Glad it makes sense – I do think that simpler explanations are more powerful in these circumstances, especially when they fit the observations and caveats associated with the data analysis.

            • I’d like to note that the hole in the back of the head was a result of a procedure done to gather some DNA, which does not affect the point of this article which was quite good. After watching the sirius disclosure documentary I wanted some facts from the other side and it shined some light on the topic. Thank you!

          • Paolo, it’s important to note that the foetus was found wrapped in a cloth. The compression of the cloth aided the elongation of the skull, the arms and legs being straightened, and the thorax compressed. This part always gets left out, much to my dismay!!

            • Thanks Cathy,

              I didn’t realise it was wrapped when it was found – that would certainly help explain the distortion seen in the specimen.

  3. Great article, very informative and good to have as a reference the next time someone trots out the miniature human/alien story.

    • Not quite – they were able to get usable results for 91% of the DNA (which turned out to be human), which is remarkably good for a specimen preserved like this. The good recovery of DNA suggests that the specimen is probably no more than a couple of decades old at most. The Sirius researchers give an age of 6-8 years, I think 14-16 weeks. They think the damage to the back of the head is postmortem, I think it was the result of an abortion using crude techniques. I hope that clarifies things for you.

      • Concerning the DNA matching, let’s make some things clear. Quoting from Dr. Nolan’s whitepaper response, ” Over 560 million paired end sequence reads passed automated quality control filters and provided an estimate 19.6X coverage for the whole genome. Approximately 509 million (~91%) reads were mapped to the human reference genome hg19 (providing a 17.7 fold coverage of the genome).” He goes on to explain that, “The presence of ~9% “unmatched” DNA should not
        be interpreted to represent anything unusual about the specimen itself.” Note that this is not the same as saying THAT THE OTHER 9% WAS UNUSABLE or conversely that ONLY 91% was usable.

        In the next paragraph, Dr. Nolan indicates, “Reconstruction of the mitochondrial DNA sequence and analysis shows an allele frequency consistent with a B2 haplotype group found on the west coast of South America, supporting the claimed origination of the specimen from the Atacama Desert region of Chile.” Which definitely indicates human DNA.

        The mystery seems to be in terms of phenotypes not matching genotypes and these difference possibly being epigenetic. Not in whether or not this was human.

          • Sorry, but you misinterpret the meaning of the numbers. The sequencing was done with high-throughput sequencing technology (most likely on a Illumina Genome Analyzer). This technology has a relatively high error rate, which is compensated for by high coverage. Nine percent of the reads didn’t map because they contain sequencing errors or come from degraded/damaged DNA. I’ve worked with data like this a lot and you never expect all reads to map.
            The quote makes no statement at all about whether any parts of the human genome were not recovered by the sequencing data. It sounds like they actually got the complete genome with 17.7 fold coverage (Well, as complete as it gets, some regions are always difficult).

  4. ITS NOT A HUMAN NOR ALIEN (because we cant prove that it is), ITS A MYSTERY! I don’t see how hard it is to understand.

    • I’m just gonna break the trend here of not responding to this. Just because you can’t understand how to identify this, doesn’t mean everyone can’t. We can figure out anything, as long as we look with a fresh perspective every time.

  5. I watched the documentary “Sirius” and there is one aspect you did not mention, although the points you did make sound like convincing counter arguments to what the movie said. I’m talking about the DNA results, as in they found DNA of the mother, but there is no recognizable DNA of the father, yet it is male. Also they mentioned there is a lot of “junk” DNA, like a majority portion. I know this happens with a lot of DNA tests because we have barely touched the surface of DNA. But what is your take on it? If you respond try to message me on Facebook, I’m in all Seahawks attire. (Also I saw you said it had 100% DNA in a comment, that completely contradicts the film, I am going to check their website in the mean time, where the research is accessible to everyone) Love to hear from ya.

    • You only get the mother’s DNA in a mitochondrial DNA test as the sperm doesn’t contribute any mitochondria. The point of the 100% human DNA is that only 91% of the DNA was identifiable and all of that was human. The remainder is probably too degraded to sequence effectively, but further sampling and testing may address that.

  6. It would be nice to get other scientific studies on this specimen. I’m assuming this is only the second study on this?

  7. I’m guessing that the first plausible explanation the experts looked into was that it is a foetus, and that they probably have very solid reasons and evidences that make them think this being is not one. I’m not saying it is impossible that all these experts that had direct access to the ‘specimen’ to study and analyze it  might not have a clearer picture of what ‘it’ is (or what it’s not) than you do..but. As of today, until further studies are conducted and anyone can prove with hard data what it is (or not), it remains a mystery (what you are expressing is an opinion).

    • Yes, I am expressing an opinion. An informed opinion. An opinion that is based on published data on interpreting xrays of mummies to get an age estimate that the Sirius experts probably weren’t aware of as they were not pubished in medical journal. It falls to them to test that alternate explanation by looking at the specimen again.

      • I just think that you are expressing this opinion (mystery solved etc) with a bit too much ‘certainty’. Why just not state your hypothesis (that’s what it is so far) with a bit more ‘humility’, as a possible explanation rather than claiming that you have solved the mystery. Have a good one.

        • Fair enough. I’m normally more cautious about identifications, but in this instance I think that case needs to be asserted more strongly, given the fact that whatever the outcome there is a dead human involved and although the Sirius guys are dealing with it in a respectful way, the media are not.

          As to my certainty, I suggest talking a step back and thinking about the context of the specimen. What evidence is there to suggest that it is anything other than an aborted foetus?

          The only evidence for it NOT being an aborted foetus is the ageing of the individual using x-radiography. However, the specimen is mummified and there is a well recognised issue with getting accurate ages of mummified infants using this technique.

          In short, there is no compelling evidence that this specimen is anything other than the mummified remains of an aborted foetus.

          As soon as there is some robust evidence to the contrary I will be less certain about my identification, but since my identification accounts for all of the observed physical features of the specimen and the expected complications of analysis due to mummification, without the need to invoke a suite of unknown medical conditions, I think it is by far the most robust hypothesis.

          I acknowledge that the specifics need to be tested for confirmation. An inspection of the inside of the skull in the area of peak deformation to look for scratch marks from a hook should provide adequate evidence in support.

        • I’m with you. And… one simple question for paoloV, if this is a human fetus, where are the images of the many similar fetus? where are the others similar fetus that those “desperate poor indigenous Chilean girls” have thrown away??? sorry for my english…

          • What, like the Ripley one? http://i.imgur.com/9SXWlMO.jpg

            I’m sure there are plenty of other examples out there, but I expect it would mainly be local people who find them, who know what they are and don’t report them. The deformation in this specimen makes this one look unusual, which is why it got picked up in the first place. Note that even this specimen was not shown to the press for a decade, until Sirius Discovery started their study, so I wouldn’t expect there to be that many to make an international impact.

            I’m not sure why you use quotes for “desperate poor indigenous Chilean girls” since it isn’t a quote (at least not by me).

            If you are trying to insinuate that illegal abortions don’t happen (despite the published facts about the abortion situation in Chile), or that the many indigenous women in Chile who turn to illegal abortions aren’t doing so because they find themselves in a desperate situation, then I don’t think it’s your English you should be apologising for.

  8. its hard to believe that the experts will not consider the specimen to be nothing but just an aborted fetus, I think that explanation is number one on their list coz its the most obvious explanation, but no they ruled that one out and instead they said its between 6 to 8 yrs old. They must have a very good reason why they came up with that result, they are putting their professional career on the line. They can always say its a fetus and problem solve but they didn’t. And between you and the experts who actually examined the specimen i say I will put more weight on their findings.

    • You feel free to believe what you like. I’ve explained why the Sirius researchers have probably made a mistake and I’ve provided a reference (which itself references other examples) to illustrate how similar mistakes have been made by others in the past when dealing with mummified infants. To my mind the lack of acknowledgement of the problems associated with ageing mummified infants in the reports makes me dubious of the findings.

    • Scientists do not “put their professional career on the line” by publishing a hypothesis that is challenged by their peers, especially if it is they themselves who return to their original material and re-examine it in view of other informed opinions. Far from it – that is what scientists do. Experiment or observe – form hypothesis – write paper – get criticism from immediate circle – submit for publication – the paper is peer-reviewed – it’s published (hopefully) – then it’s subjected to scrutiny by far more peers – some of whom express their opinions – the original researchers will respond to criticisms. If it’s an experiment some will try to reproduce the experiment and they’ll publish … and so on. That’s how it works.

      The problem comes when the popular media gets involved. They do not – or will not – understand the process of scientific enquiry. Instead, initial findings are presented as entrenched positions and criticism in the genuine sense – people bringing their own knowledge to bear to help members of their learned community – is presented as some kind of war of words. It doesn’t help that both “criticism” and “argument” get degraded, because in their technical sense both are positive activities. No wonder non-scientists get confused.

  9. they said it had a different number of ribs from a human too im pretty sure they didnt just miscount also.

    • Did you read the article properly? He mentions the ribs. If the specimen is indeed a foetus, the two floating ribs that aren’t accounted for could easily have not formed yet. This is further backed up by the actual foetus shown to have its floating ribs beginning to develop after the other 10 have already formed. In this way, the missing ribs actually support that it is a foetus

  10. Absolute nonsense! Pablo you mustn’t lie! This was an alien from the H1N1 galaxy. He fed due to the influx of birds to his planet. Millions were wiped out. Poor guy came here seeking refuge but was killed by an Obama drone strike. I heard from my friend’s, brother’s, half-sister’s, hamster’s, buddy’s dad that they mistook him for Iran. They should really work on the GPS in those things…

  11. Sorry, your analysis doesn’t quite cut it. Notice how the ribs have well begun their angling downward so that the vertebral attachments are a bit higher than where they join the sternum. Quoting from the Osteology of Infants and Children by Brenda Baker, Tasha Dupras and Matthew Tocherio, (Texas A&M Anthropology series 12) in chapter 7 on the ribs, “Through childhood they gradually angle downward so that adult ribs, rather than being straight across, are much higher at the vertebral end than the sternal end in standard anatomical position.” Furthermore, the text states in the same paragraph cited that, “by 11 to 12 fetal weeks, all ribs have begun to ossify” and “In fetal and neonate remains the ribs are relatively horizontal.” The vertical angulation and structure of the ribs do not suggest a fetus and do little to shed light on the 10 rib set anomaly or the budding discussed, as well.

    In addition, If you carefully read the pdf of Dr Lachman’s analysis you will find that he makes no mention of knee epiphyseal densities instead the exact phrase used was knee epiphyseal standards. It was Dr. Nolan’s response that used the phrase epiphyseal “density” a common and possibly mistaken assumption made by someone who specialty does not involve x-ray analysis, wherein Dr Nolan may be assuming that it was sole density that was being analyzed.

    In conclusion, I am waiting for further study releases to shed more light on this mystery.

    • In all fairness, I forgot to mention that the only thing other than size that suggests this might be a fetus is the hypoplasia (underdevelopment or incomplete development of a tissue) in the mid part of the face. If you wish to make an argument that this is merely a fetus that would be a more fruitful approach.

    • But we are not dealing with just an infant, we are dealing with an infant who has undergone postmortem mummification. Did you read the reference I linked to on the analysis of the mummified infant? The rib cage in that specimen had narrowed (presumably by angling downward) as a result of mummification. This sort of thing is commonly seen in taphonomy, where postmortem processes impose a change on the anatomy of the specimen as tissues tighten due to dessication.

  12. Google earth’s car should have taken a lot of pics of tiny humans/aliens living among us. I want to believe that any medical doctor can identify a fetus and its age; otherwise I have fully lost faith for the field.

    • Why is it that people can’t understand that there is a difference between a living (or freshly dead) specimen and a mummified one? The techniques used to interpret a mummy are somewhat different to those used to interpret a live or freshly dead specimen. Postmortem processes are complex and specific to the environments in which they occur. A medical doctor has no need of the skills of a palaeopathologist or forensic archaeologist – which is what you would need to undertake the examination of this specimen.

      • You sounded like my boss, “people can’t understand”, instead of “maybe i wasn’t clear enough” – ok you were clear enough and I got it, I’m not a doctor nor a palaeopathologist and the first thought I have when I saw the skeleton was that it was a fetus, once I took the time to read about abortion procedures, your argument has more weight to me, cheers.

        • Apologies, yours was the last comment I replied to after having responded to several from people who clearly hadn’t read the research I linked to, which discusses an Egyptian infant mummy with lots of parallels to this specimen – my patience had worn thin and you bore the brunt of that for no good reason. My bad!

      • By the way, thanks for reply, you have won yourself a follower Sir, excuse my bad english I’m mexiCAN.

      • So you believe a whole proffesors team didn’t get into consideration that the specimen was mummiefied? you think you were the only one that didn’t step in that possibility of error? besides that the deformations are so many and never seen before. I don’t know what it is. but if it was a fetus they would have found out so far. many analysts insist that its not a fetus for more reasons than just the xrays.

        • The team make no mention of the bone density artefacts recognised as being associated with mummified remains in any of their reports. This means it is not a case of my believing that they have not considered the implications of mummification, it means that they either have not considered those implications or that they have considered them and have chosen to ignore them without providing any justification. I am assuming the former option, which is simple and entirely excusable human error, over the latter, which is dishonest and inexcusable.

  13. Pingback: Populär Astronomi - » ”Alien”-skelett vittnar bara om mänskligt lidande

  14. The fetus was actually found in a graveyard next to a church in an abandoned town, so it might have been a miscarriage.

    • It is possible, although that doesn’t explain the hole in the back of the head and the deformation of the skull. It also doesn’t explain why it was found in a “pouch” or why it wasn’t buried (unless it was dug up – a detail I’ve not seen expressed anywhere).

      Still pretty depressing.

        • Thanks for that – very useful.

          I think they sampled from the hole when taking samples, but there was reference to “postmortem” damage on the head, which suggests that the specimen came with the hole.

          I’ll see if I can find any references to funereal practices for miscarried foetuses in Chile. Even if it was an abortion the mother or the person conducting it may have wanted to give the foetus a burial on sanctified ground – it’s seen as important in some Catholic countries.

      • The hole in the back of the head is from the examination to remove internal tissue. There are a number of photos both of the remains and in x-ray prior to the hole being cut.

        If you are actually qualified to give an analysis on mummification, particularly of children, why not contact these people and offer your services so you can possibly see it in person.

        • PS here’s a vid on you tube that provides a very nice slideshow of the images up close, higher definition. Maybe that will help

        • The more I find out about it, the more I realise that the Sirius Discovery guys HAVE had other expert opinion saying that this is a foetus, but they have chosen to ignore it: http://t.co/22IV4M5tV2

          This is not how scientists deal with evidence and it seriously compromises the research credibility of the Sirius Discovery project.

  15. Paolo V: Just want to say thank you for your contribution to civil dialogue and thoughtful conversation. Your replies are even-handed and sensible. Glad to have stumbled on your blog.

  16. Pingback: Atacama ‘alien’ mystery is no mystery | Secret Code

  17. Pingback: NeuroLogica Blog » Atacama Specimen

  18. Paolo: I sent Dr. Nolan your article, and he acknowledged that the evidence seems to be pointing in this direction, so I would say science is taking it’s correct course.

    • Thanks Jordon,

      I’ve heard from Prof. Alice Roberts, who’s a medical doctor who specialises in osteoarchaelogy and she agrees with the foetus interpretation, as does an earlier identification of the specimen being a foetus by a Dr. Etxeberria: http://t.co/22IV4M5tV2

      It does seem to be the best interpretation of the evidence.

  19. It does for sure. And I’m happy to see Dr. Nolan accepting that direction, rather than digging in his heels.

  20. Pingback: סיפור החייזר הממוחזר | חשיבה חדה - הבלוג

  21. Pingback: Getting Serious about “Sirius” | DatDanWeerWel

  22. Why anyone would get a foetus and dump it in the desert is beyond my comprehension. Moreover, this is no ordinary desert but the driest on earth. So, if they were trying to get rid of the evidence why leave it in a white cloth near an abandoned church??

    Your statement about it being a foetus is ludicrous. This creature was examined by the leading expert in skeletal dyplasias Dr Lanchman who categorically stated ON RECORD that it was NOT a foetus. Who the are you to disagree otherwise?

    To suggest that a hook-abortion procedure could have deformed that skull proves that you know nothing about the development of the human skull. Why anyone would believe that is again beyond my understanding. This creatures skull is highly unusual. It had a coronal synostosis and one fully formed tooth in the mandible. I wonder why you did not mention that? The skull received a fracture to the right parieto-occipital bones. I don’t know what that hole is in the back of the skull but it would highly unlikely be the result of an abortion tool.

    • 1) Something being beyond your comprehension says little about the real world and more about your ability to comprehend it. I don’t know why someone would bury a placenta in an ice-cream tub in Tooting, but someone did it. I would think that disposing of an illegally aborted foetus in an abandoned graveyard would be eminently understandable – a graveyard is where you dispose of human remains in a Catholic country and you couldn’t leave an illegally aborted foetus in a graveyard that is in regular use because you’d expect someone to find it, so leaving it in an abandoned one makes sense.

      2) Expertise is knowledge within a field. Dr Lanchman is an expert in skeletal dyplasias but is not an osteoarchaeologist or palaeopathologist, So Dr Lanchman is no more qualified to make a statement about this specimen than I am. Besides which, arguments from authority don’t hold any water when they are not supported by good evidence and in this case the evidence supports the identification of it being a foetus (which is also the opinion of at least two osteoarchaeologists: Prof. Alice Roberts and Dr. Etxeberria: http://t.co/22IV4M5tV2).

      3) I know a bit about the development of the human skull. I’ve dealt with hundreds of them at every age range from foetuses to elderly adults. The plasticity of a foetal skull could easily lead to it being deformed by internal pressure on the parietal from a hook and the forces exerted during transit through the female reproductive tract. This deformation would negate the diagnosis of a coronal synostosis, since it would not be caused by fusion, but by an external force.

      4) In my study of the x-rays I failed to see any fully formed tooth. At best there may be a single tooth bud, which is consistent with a foetus at 14-16 weeks of development.

      • Lachman is a paediatric radiologist and world expert in skeletal dysplasias. To say he is no more qualified than you is laughable. Nolan recalls Lachman saying on seeing the specimen quote: ‘Wow, this is like nothing I’ve ever seen before.’ After reading previous posts on this blog the hole in the occipital bone is certainly postmortem induced. It was excavated by researchers for sampling brain tissue. Moreover, what is YOUR explanation for the estimated age of the humanoid given that Lachman says it’s between 6 – 8 years of age based on measured epiphyseal bone plates of the femur? How are the epiphyseal plates affected in mummified foetuses? How many mummified foetuses has you seen? No one is suggesting it’s an alien but you are stating here that it is a normal foetus that has undergone changes due to trauma associated with an abortion. Where is your evidence that this is indeed the case? Given that the hole in the parietal bone is not due to a hook used to extract the foetus, how do you explain the shape of the skull? To suggest that trauma could be responsible for the coronal synostosis is to be kind fanciful. I guess that the facial bone hypoplasia was caused by trauma too no doubt?

        • I agree that Dr Lachman is eminently more qualified than me to comment on paediatrics and dysplasia, but not on mummified remains. I’ve almost certainly seen more mummified remains (human and animal) than Dr Lachman, given that I deal with them on a daily basis. The fact that my suggestions are corroborated by two different osteoarchaeologists adds sufficient support to make your repeated appeals to authority irrelevant. In case you don’t know what I mean by ‘appeal to authority’ check out this link: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

          Believe what you like, your opinion is irrelevant to the truth of the situation – whatever that might be. If you want to continue repeating your assertions without engaging with my responses you can do it elsewhere.

  23. Pingback: Bizarre: The Atacama Humanoid : DS2030

  24. Pingback: I’ve got your missing links right here (11 May 2013) – Phenomena: Not Exactly Rocket Science

  25. Pingback: Atacama Specimen | Illuminutti

  26. Pingback: Red Pills of the Week — May 11th | Mysterious Universe

  27. Pingback: Meet a Museum Blogger: Paolo Viscardi | Museum Minute

  28. Yes, Paolo V you are completely out of your league in you evaluation. I cannot believe how unscientific you are coming to a conclusion without doing the science. All of the medical experts that have examined the X-rays and CAT scans have concluded because of calcification and joint platelets the child is between 6 to 8 years old. Seems you rely more on your ego centric conservative belief system that clouds you ability to have an open mind to the facts and the science. Indeed, you ignore Dr. Nolan’s work showing only a 91% DNA match with humans. A chimpanzee has a better match. You are indeed in the right place a museum. Keep on quacking with egg on your face. And let the real scientist do the science.

    • Hi there Mr. Troll!

      I’m not going to bother replying to your comment seriously, because all of the points you raise have been discussed elsewhere.

      You keep on trolling away – I’m sure someone, somewhere will find you entertaining.

    • Well said Rick.

      The other Paolo cronies can give this a thumbs down like the childish ignoramuses that they are. I just noticed that what I said above were questions that went unanswered.
      I did a major in Zoology in my undergraduate days and later studied numerous premedical subjects then later completed my doctoral thesis in Neuropathology, so I guess I am also not qualified to speak on the subject either??
      Please explain how the epiphyseal plates are affected as a result of exposure to the elements as you seem to suggest. You are an expert in mummified foetuses so you should know.

      • “I guess I am also not qualified to speak on the subject either??”
        Since when did I say that anyone was not qualified to speak on the subject? All I suggested was that Dr. Lachman’s expertise is in a different field, so his opinion should not be given greater weight than it merits.

        As far as I’m concerned anyone can speak on the subject, but their opinions don’t have to be taken as gospel (mine included).

        “Please explain how the epiphyseal plates are affected as a result of exposure to the elements as you seem to suggest.”

        First of all you should read the paper I cite in the article. It, and others if refers to, note that mummified infant remains have uncharacteristically high bone densities that make them difficult to age using radiographic techniques. It is also mentions that mummified human remains have unusual levels of calcification, even in adults. These are recorded facts.

        What I think may be happening is that early-stage autolysis starts breaking down the cells, releasing electrolyte rich fluid. As the dry conditions dessicate the specimen, the cartilage of the developing bone acts as a precipitation matrix for the salts, increasing the opacity of the cartilage to X-rays. This is not a fact, it is a hypothesis, which I hope to test as soon as I can organise access to an X-ray machine or CT scanner.

        “The other Paolo cronies can give this a thumbs down like the childish ignoramuses that they are.”

        There is no need for this, it’s just petty and I will block you if you can’t be civil.

  29. Pingback: Ever seen a UFO?? - Page 7

  30. Have you seen this?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/ata-6-inch-alien-sirius_n_3246330.html

    Some photos from 1933 were found by a Ripley’s Believe it or Not museum that show a similar small human mummy that supposedly came from the same general area as the recent mummy. Back then they considered t to be a “shrunken” human which would be impossible since bones don’t shrink.

    It’s interesting that both of these mummies come from the same area. I have read that they estimate that the Atacama specimen died approximately 100 years ago (although that is just a guess). If true though it would place both specimens from roughly the same time period as well.

    Kind of makes me curious just what exactly was going on down there back then.

    • I have indeed seen it, but thanks for sharing!

      I think the dating for the more recent specimen is probably much less than 100 years, since so much of the DNA was able to be sequenced (as a specimen ages the DNA breaks down, so it can’t be sequenced as completely – it’s a problem we have with museum specimens). One age estimate I saw was ‘a few decades’ (http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/8647484/Mystery-of-a-15cm-skeleton-unravels).

      I also saw a report saying that the specimen was in a pouch tied with a violet ribbon, which (assuming this information is accurate) means it’s almost certainly from after the 1880’s since this is when violet dyes were becoming widely available.

      I have also heard of another specimen that was apparently found even more recently in the Atacama desert area. These findings are quite widely separated geographically, but all share the same preservational environment, they are also share a Catholic approach to abortion (http://womensenews.org/story/the-world/080115/bolivias-bad-births-sit-political-sidelines#.UaJlnUCTiSo) so there are a huge number of abortions (80,000 in Bolivia every year) being carried out, mostly illegally – I doubt the situation was much different in the 1930’s or earlier.

      This doesn’t necessarily support the abortion hypothesis, but it certainly doesn’t detract from it.

      Thanks again for the link!

      • Wow! This is great!! Looks like all the evidence is lining up. It makes sense that in a catholic country where abortion is illegal an indigenous woman having either a self/other performed abortion or a miscarriage would try to inter the body somehow out of respect. Putting it out there in the ruins makes sense. It’s remote, easier to leave it out in the open than digging a hole, and is anonymous. The woman can leave her respects in private, knowing the body will just dry out in the heat and dryness of the desert. This has probably been going on for many years. I expect more mummified fetuses to be found, only in the future identification will be quick, and I hope the ‘alien’ hoopla will be avoided. I’m tired of this tabloid shit.

        • Indeed! The tabloid nonsense is my main issue here. The artificial inflation of importance of one story, aimed at generating sales / traffic, while ignoring a substantially more important aspect of the wider story, because it wouldn’t be popular.

    • I’m sorry, but this video does nothing to address my observation that the density of the bone and the fusion of the epiphyseal plates that contributed to the estimate of 6-8 years for the specimen can be explained by the reported fact that mummified specimens exhibit unexpectedly high bone density and ossification characteristics due to post-mortem processes. They need to get someone with experience of interpreting mummified infant remains to analyse the specimen, not a doctor familiar with living patients. Take away the unexpectedly advanced age of the specimen and all of the characters observed can be explained very easily.

      • What about the significance of the specimen only having 10 ribs with no other correlated DNA mutations, and only 91% human matching DNA?

        • 10 ribs is what you’d expect from a 16 week foetus – the others are still developing. The 9% unmatched DNA is a normal issue with the analysis – Greer mentions that himself in the video. The 9% only becomes an issue in light of the other oddities, but those oddities are only an issue if you ignore the fact that mummified infants have high bone density – and it is a fact that has been noted independently before, check this reference: http://www.ashmolean.org/assets/docs/Exhibitions/AngelaPalmerCT.pdf

          In fact, here’s what it says about the specimen examined in that paper:

          Age
          Independent dental examinations (not documented here) have suggested an age
          between 14 months and 2 years. The overall length of 74cm is concordant with this
          when measured against modern growth curves (Black and Krishnakumar, 1999; WHO,
          2006). The date of the mummy is believed to be around AD200 and it is unclear
          whether it would be reasonable to expect a child of that period to be of smaller
          stature, or whether the documented smaller height of individuals of that time
          represents reduced growth in later childhood.
          An examination of the epiphysis is to be undertaken for further evidence on the age.
          However this is complicated by the appearances of the skeleton (see below) and will
          require a specialist paleo-orthopaedic opinion.
          Current orthopaedic and neuroradiology opinions of the overall skeletal appearance
          have suggested ages between 7 – 10 years. This appears unlikely in view of the height of the child and further consultation will be made, based on the appearance
          of the epiphyses.

  31. Your patience is amazing Paolo. Thanks for not only the initial post and details + references but the repeated posts with the same information for people that have poor reading comprehension. The other professionals weighing in with how the scientific process actually works and “I don’t understand how/why” of something doesn’t mean its not normal. Currently we are seeing what happens when the general population doesn’t understand how things work or how due process is important and it leads to a massive waste of time amplified by our ratings fueled media. Such a shame.

    • Thanks Joshio, my patience isn’t as good as I wish, since there have been times I’ve been snippy with people unnecessarily – for which I apologise. You’ve really hit the nail on the head in your penultimate sentence – the media have absolutely no incentive to desist from misrepresenting and sensationalising situations like this, anything for clickthroughs. Of course, this means that the sensational stories get headline publicity and the reasoned refutations are appended to the bottom paragraph in a “but it’s probably just this” comment – despite the fact that refuting sensational stories is harder work than creating them.

  32. Excellent article. Your article provides a link to Dr Lachman’s PDF report. It clearly states the presence of a ‘at least one’ mandibular tooth. How does this correlate with your theory that the humanoid is a fetus? Additionally, the humanoid has cervical and lumbosacral spine lordoses that one would not expect in a fetus or infant. Your reposponse is appreciated.

    • Thanks Victor. Looking at the x-rays and CT scan I struggled to discern the mandibular tooth in question, which suggests it isn’t of very high density. I think that Dr Lachman is considering the tooth buds that start developing around 14 weeks as full teeth in light of his diagnosis of the bone density. To put that in context, a 6-8 year old should have a set of milk teeth, plus developing adult teeth in the mandible and maxilla that would show up in an x-ray. That means there should be up to 38 teeth visible in total. For an example, here’s an x-ray of a 7 year old’s jaws: http://0.tqn.com/d/dentistry/1/0/m/5/primary.jpg

      As to the lordoses (and indeed the non-foetal pose), that may be a postmortem feature, caused by immersion in water immediately after death (presumably the placenta and amniotic fluid was washed off before the foetus was tied in the bag if this was the result of an abortion), followed by natural dessication that set the tissues in place. This sort of post mortem posture change is commonly seen in dinosaurs, although they start out with a straight back which arches backwards, rather than a bent back that straightens up, but both changes involve a similar net change of back position in the same direction – there is some information about this here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21207-watery-secret-of-the-dinosaur-death-pose.html

  33. Dear Mr. Viscardi!

    After reading Your article and comments I thought at first that the enigma of Ata’s age really is solved. Especially, because i myself am inclined to think that it’s a foetus.

    Nevertheless, after checking the link You provided about child’s mummy with problematical age definition I am not so sure at all. In fact the article doesn’t specify what testing had been done:

    “Current orthopaedic and neuroradiology opinions of the overall skeletal appearance
    have suggested ages between 7 – 10 years.”

    Here i find only “current opinions” what can mean anything, even looking to blure photos for a 5 seconds…

    More to that, authors say that “An examination of the epiphysis is to be undertaken for further evidence on the age”. And that’s all. We have no information about those tests if such are done ever.

    But, as we know, Lachmans age results are derived exactly from “knee epiphyseal standards”.

    Thus, while being sceptical about Lachmans results (especially because he didn’t performed another age tests to prove “epiphyseal” results, I am becoming sceptical also about Your idea that mummycifation induces post mortem ossification. Especially i think so after reading this report about king Tut’s daughters’ foetus age:

    http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/AJR.11.6837

    From this report it’s clear that so called epiphyseal standards regarding formation of ossification centres corresponded well with other used age estimations for those fetal mummies.

    May be we need to search for other explanations for Lachmans age definition results?

    I am an Latvian science writer and i am actually writting an article about Ata. Will be very glad to hear from You and discuss this problem further. Please, if possible, write me: valters.grivins at gmail.com

    Sincerely,
    Valters Grivins

    • Thanks for your thoughts Valter, the problem with mummification is that the terminology is determined by the outcome (a mummy) rather than by a single process – a mummy can be made through a variety of mechanisms and so you can’t expect the same process to yield exactly the same changes in the specimen. Some of the other references cited in the paper I link to also note a change in density of bone and cartilage, so it is something that occurs, but it may not ALWAYS occur. This means it should be considered when a wildly unexpected age is reported using that technique – as in this case.

      • Yes, I was thinking the same that greater density of Ata’s epiphyses could depend from some unknown conditions of dead body+ in situ environment. Would be great to do experiments with bodies of some animals putting those in various environments and see afterwards what happens with cartilage.

        If You have any article in digital form where unnatural calcification of cartilage tissue in mummies is described, my be You can send me corresponding text? I checked, but none from articles given in references in report You linked to is available in internet free of charge. Only had got the abstract of “Paleoradiologic evaluation of the Egyptian royal mummies”:
        “We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published. These radiographs demonstrate findings not previously described in Egyptian mummies, including congenital lunate-triquetral fusion and destructive skeletal lesions not explainable on the basis of vandalism by tomb robbers. Antemortem fractures, degenerative joint disease, and arterial vascular calcification were also seen. In 11 of the 12 cases, there was chondrocalcinosis of intervertebral discs or menisci, probably an artifact of embalming. Visceral packing and skeletal deformity due to wrapping were observed, as well. Radiology provides important paleopathologic and archeologic information for the accurate, comprehensive study of Egyptian mummies.”

        Most interesting point for our case here is chondrocalcinosis of intervertebral discs and menisci, of course.

        And yes, You are right – we must speak here about mineralization not ossification. The later is not possible in deadmen’s bone.

        • It seems quite odd to me that any such mineralization could occur if the body was not burried but left in a cloth in the sense that there is no direct contact of the body with ground water. Since it rarely rains in the Atacama desert even if the body was burried this would seem highly unlikely. The most abundant mineral in the desert is silcon in sand. How could silicon get into cartilage from the air? For that matter how can any mineral get into cartilage in mummified remains other than from the embalming ingredients?

          How and why would minerals deposit in cartilage in a mummy?

          • Read the comments above, I don’t suggest that the mineralisation is due to diagenesis, but that it may be due to preferential precipitation of the body salts released by autolysis in the matrix of
            the cartilage during the process of desiccation. It’s not really mineralisation, but partial or pseudo mineralisation.

            • In that case would these “body salts” have the same density and imaging properties as bone in a CT scan?

            • Why the quotes? Body salts exist (electrolytes for example) and play an important role in our physiology. The interpretation of x-rays is based on relative densities in the scan, so precipitated salts wouldn’t need to have the the same properties as bone, they would just need to increase the x-ray opacity of cartilage to make it closer to that of the rest of the foetal bone (which itself would only just be starting to ossify at the 14 week stage). Different materials can often look the same in a scan because they have a similar density, so it’s easy to mistake them.

            • It was your terminology (body salts), it seemed quite non specific therefore the quotes.

            • Fair enough. I was typing on my phone, so I was not inclined to type out a list or get into detail. I though that body salts was a common enough term to adequately describe the cocktail of phosphates, sulphates, chlorides etc. that play a role in homoeostasis.

  34. Excellent. The plot thickens. I also have a few questions for Paolo: 1. I am still unclear about the presence of ‘at least one mandibular tooth’ noted on Dr Lachman’s report. Paolo mentioned that he thought this was a tooth bud. But from investigating embryology texts, the tooth buds in the fetus are not protruding from the maxilla (especially in a 14 week old fetus where only the incisor buds would be present). As the buds are fairly level with the surrounding contour of the maxillary and mandibular bone, I find it hard to believe that tooth buds (even artificially ossified ones) could be mistaken for a ‘tooth’, especially by an expert pediatric radiologist. Paolo, do you have any radiographic and/or anatomic skeletal examples of human fetuses at 14-20 weeks old for comparison? The ones I have seen do not show any ‘protruding buds’ as you suggest are what Dr Lachman is referring to in his analysis. 2. Another question I have relates to the other cartilaginous structures that are absent on ATA. ie the nasal cartillage, pinna, etc. Wouldn’t your hypothesis of epiphyseal cartilage ossification also apply to these areas? ie why did those structures disintegrate while the epiphyseal cartilage ossified?

  35. 1. I too am unclear about this tooth, since I’ve not seen any good evidence for it in the photos (http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/291697/slide_291697_2330826_free.jpg?1366709861000) and only seen a possible hint in an x-ray (http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/291697/slide_291697_2330942_free.jpg?1366709861000), which looked unerupted to me and consistent with a tooth bud.
    2. Internal and external chemistry is different. External cartilage wouldn’t be exposed to the same electrolytes resulting from autolysis as the internal cartilage, so I wouldn’t expect it to be as likely to become partially mineralised (and that’s what I think it is – mineralisation rather than ossification).

    • The thing is it doesn’t have any non-human DNA. It just has a small portion of DNA that hasn’t been able to be adequately mapped. It has genetic markers indicating native South American parentage and there is nothing to suggest that it’s not human.

    • Thanks for the link – very useful!

      I will see if I can find an electronic copy of some of the other papers on mummies with odd ‘ossification’ characteristics.

      So far no experiments have been done on this – there are only observations recorded. My explanation is therefore only hypothetical, but at least it has a reported observational basis and it makes fewer assumptions than Dr Lachman’s diagnosis, which requires a set of previously unobserved phenomena to have occurred (e.g. extreme small size & unrecorded developmental conditions). I would like to get hold of some foetal pigs, a dessicator and an x-ray machine to test the hypothesis.

      • just working on my article and thinking continuously about possible mineralization of Ata’s cartilge tissue. Probably fetus was buried together with placenta what could give more liquid for electrolyte (Osario report says that Ata’s founder said that he cleared some “bad smelling” substance off from mummy – however i am not sure about true meaning of that sentence because of poor quality of automatic translation from Spanish) and the other thing is that La Noria was a “nitrate” city, what means that soil can be very rich there not only with silicon as commentator Roger S above thinks, but sodium salts as well, which in fact can be deposited almost on surface in Atacama:
        “Although nitrate
        is found throughout the alluvium it is concentrated
        into a more easily extractable form in the caliche.
        The depth of the caliche layer ranges from just a few
        inches below the surface to several feet, and while
        averaging just a foot in thickness, can reach up to 12
        feet thick (Whitbeck, 1931).”

        http://geographyplanning.buffalostate.edu/MSG%202007/3_Marr.pdf

  36. Thatnk you Mr. or Dr. PaoloV. It’s nice to read a critique-synopis by someone who has a learned, smarts–common sense. I would bet my life you are right on the mark. Only “curious” thing about Atacama mummy it was found in Atacama Desert with landscape denoting apparent Mars similarity, and also situated within its boundaries Valle de la Luna or Valley of the Moon for obvious none need be stated. Thanks, again.

  37. I am undecided at this point, but one thing that does bother me though PaoloV is that you are not addressing the fact that the hole (which is fundamental to your theory) appears to have been added later. Please comment specifically on this…

    • But I do address the hole and I did so as soon as I found evidence to suggest it was added after the specimen was found. I added the following edit:

      [Edit 07/05/2013: In the comments below, a contributor called Fred links to an image of this specimen where the large hole in the head is absent. Presumably the large hole was made while taking samples for testing.

      There are other parts of the skull where a hook may have been inserted, causing the cranial deformation seen, such as through a fontanelle, but this is hard to confirm from the images available, so this makes the case for an abortion using a hook less likely. Abortions in the region are often carried out using an unknown mixture of herbs and it is possible that the deformation seen was caused by forceps used to facilitate extraction or as a result of post mortem tight wrapping of the specimen]

  38. For either side to claim “victory” here is nonsense. There is too much unidentifiable DNA to make a positive orientation one way or the other. The photos that Fred linked to show no hole. PaoloV your heels seem to be dug in a bit too deeply here.

  39. I can only claim a certain knowledge of human remains from the classical forensic medicine. The post-mortem changes in a full-term fetus quite often lead to mummification, even in the cool, humid conditions in Denmark. Quite a number of full-term children have been found found mummified under thatched roofs in the bad, old days. A fetus is practically sterile, except from the surface — and there are no bacteria in the intestines to start putrefaction.
    The surface to volume ratio is very high, speeding up desiccation.
    The skin is very thin, offering no heavy barrier to evaporation.
    An early fetus will be even more wet and soft, drying down to almost nothing but parchment and immature bones. The collagen of the skin will shrink and might very well change the posture of the fetus.
    I wonder whether one should rule out a spontaneous abortion with some attempt at´befitting burial? The use of a hook for extracting the fetus might very well have pulled the head clean off.
    A fetus, dead in utero, can be end up as a “stone child”: lithopedion, by accumulation of calcium in the otherwise rather soft bones —
    Finally: a very high proportion of spontaneous abortions (especially the early abortions)are due to anomalies in the fetus.
    The cranium does look odd — but a rapid passage through a narrow female pelvis ( a very young mother or a rachitic pelvis)might have squeezed the soft cranium out of shape.
    Especially if it did not wear the helmet normally used by aliens.
    Finally: I never thought so few people knew so much about about so many strange bones!
    Thank you for a very good read.

  40. I have read up the lithopedion on PubMed. The calcification seems to be mainly external and not adding substance to the bones. And it is calcification, not ossification. So I will back down on the lithopedical changes in bones.
    My Spanish does not permit reading of the forensic report — but I note that the author also stress the sterility of the foetus as important in mummification.
    The hole in the cranium seems “old” to me, with nibbled edges, not the result of present attack with sharp instruments in investigation.
    I can of course not discuss abortion practices in rural Chile ( I know nothing), but in Denmark illegal abortions were almost always performed without proper dilatation of the cervix. The soft cranium will probably be damaged by passing the narrow cervical canal.
    Intrauterine dismembering is happily a thing of the past. But the procedure involved emptying the cranium for neural tissue (with a catheter and suction) to permit crushing of the cranium prior to removal.
    I wonder whether the hole and the collapsed cranium could be due to such perforation/suction?

    • Thanks for your comments Jakob, they are both interesting and useful. The hole in the cranium is definitely where they sampled from as I have since seen images of the specimen from before the sampling for DNA testing and the hole is absent. The limited literature about abortion among native Chileans indicates that use of a herbal mixture that induces miscarriage is common and that a ceremony may take place for the aborted foetus. It may therefore be impossible to distinguish between abortion and natural miscarriage as a cause.

  41. Hard facts on a soft subject:

    We have been discussing the soft and moist nature of a fetus. Documenta Geigy: Wissenschaftliche Tabellen (1968)p.513 gives a water content of 90-88% for a fetus around 14-16 week.
    In an extreme case of drying you will thus end with a papyrus fetus of 1/10 of the original weight (close to 100 g?). The extremities can not shorten up, but the thickness of the limbs will be reduced to approx. 1/3.
    If the drying up takes place under conditions where no soluble substances are leached from the body, the concentrations of
    solutes will increase to about 10 times of starting values. That holds for calcium too. So the ~2 millimoles/liter of the fetus will be increased to 20 millimoles/kg of mummy material.
    I do not know if this is enough to influence the radiographic density of bones?
    If it was a 6-8 year child it seems to have made without knee-caps?
    I remember the magician and sceptic James Randi telling Benveniste (in the case of the homeopathic dilutions in 1988):
    “If you write a paper on having two Shetland ponies in your backgarden, no one requires much in the matter of proof. But if you write about unicorns, most editors would like a picture or two”
    Benveniste was not amused — I am.

    • There is no tooth – check the X-ray / CT scan. The specimen seems to be showing a part of the mandible through the tissue, which looks a bit like a tooth. In an 8 year old you’d expect to find most of the milk teeth AND the adult teeth developing in the jaw in the X-ray. There’s nothing there.

      The 91% match of the DNA is almost certainly an artefact of degradation and experimental noise – a common source of error/cause of incomplete matching when sequencing.

  42. This was an excellent read, I have been following this story and until I stumbled upon this, I had not heard any scientific discussion about what this specimen might be… other than from the Disclosure Group. Thank you Paolo, for providing so much information to back your hypothesis, a true credit to reasonable application of knowledge. I may have to change my position on this situation, as I was nearly convinced of the authenticity of Disclosure’s claims. I again thank you for providing a reasonable disagreement, as objectivity is necesary to discovering truth. Keep up the good work.

  43. Pingback: 11 questions to a museum blogger for #museumweek | Zygoma

  44. Pingback: Atta boy, sepupu alien mini 6 inci dari Gurun Atacama | Artikel Misteri

  45. Very well written!.
    AND….above all you brought up the tragedy that as you mentioned ended up in some”peoples”dark perverted fantasys about allmost everything from aliens to”freaks of nature”or mutants.
    Probably the poor girl(something tells me that she was young VERY young)got eighter raped..or sold herself in the streets for a few pesos and if she was lucky…some amphetamine,cocaine or some other illegal substance(which indeed also would play a not so unimportant role for the child).We’ll never know…because SHE will never tell.As I tryed to say..A HUMAN LIFE IS cheap…dirtcheap…
    And to be honest…I really hope that all of them who raving on about aliens and shit..would have been there with her as she gave birth to her stillborn child.

  46. Great article! However, you didn’t address the issue of the DNA testing done by Stanford. DNA sequencing was done 3 times, and concluded that there was a 91% match to human DNA. I think it’s important to note that the great apes share 98.5% of our DNA. Something to consider…

    • Well technically the 91% of DNA that was able to be matched was 100% human. That doesn’t mean the other 9% is not human, it means it wasn’t able to be matched. This is usually because it is degraded and it’s a common problem – the same thing happens with museum specimens that are tested.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s