E.T Corpse 2013 Disclosure

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by soundslikepurpl, Apr 12, 2013.

  1. From the coming Documentary Sirius from Dr.Stephen Greer, DNA testing is ongoing and x-ray CAT scan show advanced calcium density meaning the skeletal structure is a natural alien form basically even without DNA research complete but most people feel a grand story past corporate media that has been exponentially losing control by Internet and the veil is dissolving through the years, cheershttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/04/07/tiny-alien-humanoid-among_n_3017854.html
     

    Attached Files:

  2. #2 Sam_Spade, Apr 13, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2013
    No peer review, huh? Rushing incomplete results? Amateur removal from site?

    Alien cause it looks weird?

    Seems legit.
     
  3. #3 Senior PoopiePants, Apr 13, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2013
    Steven Greer is a fucking liar and a theif! :mad:

    He's a con man. Remember the "ET" he got a picture of, but it was really just a moth? :rolleyes:

    This guy charges a lot of money to see his shit and to go to his seminars. A fucking scammer. Just like Darryl Anka (Bashar).
     
  4. The stakes are high with no alternative these people are all light in darkness take it as a collaborative mosaic and calm down wait til free energy suppressed technology is common knowledge when we don't use nuclear power oil or coal, the research before was a different time December 21 ended those attachments man we good to go now Shuree legit fc u
     
  5. I won't hold my breath.
     
  6. Over your head there's always exceptions get past your stupid providence ya jaded consumer your banal preference has no bearing on objective reality or Myne mawfick
     
  7. Fucking useless
     
  8. Uhm.....what?
     
  9. Only me once again
     
  10. Looks like someone might be just a tad too high.
     
  11. A'ight the cost of sanity is alienation stings but I felt close to the community here since 2008 and always will lurk but when it comes to sharing I think I'll pass from now on
     
  12. Fake and gay
     
  13. To be honest, you might want to consider taking criticism a little less personally... doubly true in the SCIENCE & nature section.

    Peer criticism is invaluable, it is powerfully constructive. It is not rejection of you as a individual, it is a rational framework on which to strengthen your ideas... only if you wisely heed the words.
     
  14. for real.

    until this is absolutely without a doubt proven to be an alien corpse, and other scientists can agree with the results.. this belongs in pandoras box and should not be taken very seriously.
     
  15. I wish OP would use periods/punctuation. I don't meant to be petty, but I can't even understand what the hell he's typing.

    And we're supposed to take something like that seriously when the person can't even create an intelligible post?

    Perhaps not so petty after all...
     
  16. No peer review because the investigation has probably only recently been completed, regardless, I would be extremely cautious of allowing anyone else to handle this if the first impressions of it are correct. How do you know the results are incomplete and rushed? How do you know that the removal was amateur? Furthermore how would a removal affect the subject's DNA?

    They consider the possibility of an extraterrestrial origin because it's DNA correspond's with no known species on earth, not because it looks weird.

    I'm not saying this is an alien, but your argument sounds baseless, but you've probably read more about it than I have.
    '
    '
     
  17. I'm sure I seen some of these photos years ago.
     

  18. If it has DNA, it's probably not alien.
     
  19. #19 Sam_Spade, Apr 13, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2013
    Why? There are thousands of more appropriately trained academics and professionals than a long-defunct emerg MD and dubious conman. This man has no specialized training in anything to do with the analysis of remains. He's likely don't more to contaminate the specimen than to protect it -- this all is assuming it's not a blatant fraud.

    Also, it doesn't require actually handling the finding. A skilled radiologists can tell you a heap of a lot with the right documentation. Why not even a simple ultrasound? Same goes for various modalities of chemical analysis.

    Not to mention that peer review can also be conducted regarding the intensively-documented methodology of the researchers, ensuring that errors or fraud does not crop up. Poor methodology can lead to contamination, unjustified certainties, and sensationalism.

    It is very telling that there is no established research team, and that a documentary is being produced in lieu of academic publication. Documentaries are profitable ventures with mass appeal, it is not an avenue of dissemination within the scientific community. It lacks exhaustive technical specificity (and must, by necessity).

    Because the DNA analysis hasn't been returned, verified or reviewed. A number of standardized test used in paleoanthropology are clearly missing. You don't rush the announcement of a find when you have no idea what you have. That's a great way to destroy your credibility and reveal yourself as a sensationalist - not a scientist.

    Because I know Chile has some very serious laws regarding historic finds. If this was actually found in the Atacama desert (big IF), it was poached by an amateur.

    Not only does this breach Chilean national sovereignty, but it would also be a grave violation of hard-won indigenous cultural rights. I find it quite repulsive, fraud or not.

    Well, it has much more to do with DNA. If this is a fetal mummy of some type with a debilitating genetic disease, or perhaps is beyond acceptable limits of nuclear DNA analysis, then it won't tell us much.

    In any palearcheological find, the location of an specimen within a site will tell you almost as much about the specimen as the biophysical analysis will tell you. Removing such a specimen without systematic documentation absolutely destroys any hope of triangulating relative age, related artifacts, manner of burial/deposition.

    This is my bread and butter - I realize it may seem very abstract. Perhaps I can offer you a personal case study if you'd like further clarification? The reality is that the biophysical analysis of human (or non-human) remains are very typically inconclusive or extraordinarily limited. 'Bones and stones' anthropology is still referred to as such because the stones tell us so much of the story. They're far from irrelevant.

    Don't get me wrong; I like Indiana Jones too (at least the first three), but that ain't how science gets done.

    That's quite an assumption. I've not even been able to find a preliminary analysis.

    Not much effort has been made to addressed the more terrestrial liklihoods as far as I know. The burial of fetal mummies is actually quite a common practice of the Chilean pre-columian civilizations. The Chinchorro mummies are a great example of such practices in the Atacama of Northern Chile that you may already have heard of.

    Well I hope I've maybe been effective in elaborating on some of my criticisms.

    I can provide some sources, case studies and further readings if absolutely necessary... but there is nothing that I claimed that you shouldn't be able to do research on for yourself! :)
     
  20. Way to take the unlimited potential and spirit of the smeared passion of dr Greer all for your convenient boxes, reducing initiatives in research not funded by gas, oil, pharma whatever for statistical problem solving standards but thanks for the words it's appreciated
     

Share This Page