Tiny Humanoid Creature Found In Chile

Yeah i would bet its an embryo, Seen mabye so called examples of little aliens etc... All turned out to be human embryos.

Yep...the "revelation" of it being that animal, kind of sets the wheels turning, more than it satisfies the question....they definitely do not look alike.... Weird....

but there are many many stories of little people in American Indian folflore from almost every Indian nation...

Not just American...you've also got pixies, faeries, dryads, leprechauns, etc. Little people seem to be in just about every mythos.....

Makes you wonder if it isn't finds like this, that are responsible for sprouting the initial legends....

[Edited on 7-10-2003 by Gazrok]

Thats crazy, what do you think it is asala????

They dont look alike, they are not the same.

Just look at the head of that little marsuipial, and the head of that little alien creature. The neck and the head. Which way they are pointing.

The face of the littel humanoid is facing towards teh ground if it were walking on both feet and arms like that mouse looking creature. While if it were the little marsuipial. it woul dbe facing forward.
They dont look alike, they aren't alike. IT's a total bs cover story.

I can't detect any visible bones of the human skull in this picture. Could anyone possibly zoom in to the skull while still keeping a relatively high resolution?

Oh someone please help me here,
I remember watching something on Tv once a month or so back and it sort of went like this.
Its a story of a monk in thailand( I dont remember but somewhere thier lol) who had these two skeletons which looked like the above and as the story goes he was walking through a forest and stoped to rest and mediate by a tree.
He had a dream that these beautifull women were dancing around him, and when he woke up he walked by a tree and noticed that thier were seeds that seemed to be sprouting little humans.
Thiers a legend in bhuddism that when bhudda traveled to somewhere(dont know where) a certain person planted trees around an area where he stoped to rest and this tree sprouted some sort of beings that would protect him from any harm. The monk i was telling you about claims to have aqquired the skeletons of these little creatures, two to be exact.
Im sorry if this sounds a bit odd, but its out of memory and I never payed to much attention to the show.
If anyone has more information on this, please feel free to clarify.
Deep

I'm going to play skeptic here. I think that if these pics are of a recently deceased carbon-based lifeform, the tissue degradation wouldn't give it such rigidity. Notice how the specimen is totally rigid. That's not really possible from a biological standpoint.

Also, notice how they store the specimen. This doesn�t belong on cotton balls, it belongs in a jar of embalming fluid.

I think it is a fetus of some kind of a life form. But who knows maybe it is an alien?

Originally posted by kukla
I'm going to play skeptic here. I think that if these pics are of a recently deceased carbon-based lifeform, the tissue degradation wouldn't give it such rigidity. Notice how the specimen is totally rigid. That's not really possible from a biological standpoint.

Also, notice how they store the specimen. This doesn�t belong on cotton balls, it belongs in a jar of embalming fluid.

There are a number of methods that natural mummification can happen. Which could give it this apearance. I think this is the case with this particular creature.

Embalming something after it was found mummified isn't what people do, I think. It would likely damage the specimen further.

I guess it is possible that an alien life-form could mummify in eight days. In that case, embalming fluid would not be a good idea.

If it was a case of rapid mummification, then why is the skeleton structure exposed in parts? Also, notice the arms, seem to be in a fetal position, yet the legs are stiff.

Originally posted by kukla
I guess it is possible that an alien life-form could mummify in eight days. In that case, embalming fluid would not be a good idea.

If it was a case of rapid mummification, then why is the skeleton structure exposed in parts? Also, notice the arms, seem to be in a fetal position, yet the legs are stiff.

Well, it could be the case that this creature perhaps burned to death and what we are seeing is its charred corpse. That could explain the dryness and the trauma.

Though if this creature was really small and died in a hot, sun baked area without being burned, scavenging animals may have mauled the corpse a bit and then its small size allowed for rapid dehydration of body tissue and mummification from intense heat.

Originally posted by heelstone
Though if this creature was really small and died in a hot, sun baked area without being burned, scavenging animals may have mauled the corpse a bit and then its small size allowed for rapid dehydration of body tissue and mummification from intense heat.

That's a good point. All this stuff is from 2002. You would think we'd see something new in this matter. I would still argue that there would be better storage arrangements than cotton balls in a first-aid kit.



[Edited on 16-10-2003 by kukla]

If it was a fetis of any primate, the original bone material would be of cartilage and not of ossified bone with calcium and phosphorous deposits. A simple calcium test would show if it was in the fetal stage of development. Another possibility of a known source would be a baby of a lemur of some 2 years old after the bone mass is replaced by adult bone material. The size would be such that a lemur, the worlds smallest primate, would be the best possibility. It all depends on if they find calcium significant calcium or not.

Plus, cartilage is stretchy and strong, but not anything like bone. It will not survive long enough for mineral leaching and preservation for long periods of time.

To determine if it is in a growth period, you would look for growth plates of cartilage where cartilage is formed and then ossified. This causes bones to grow. In an adult(as in fully grown!), you will not find large localized deposits of cartilage.

And of course scientists would do a few of the various types radioactive decay dating. Radioactive dating would determine when this creature lived.

The absense of calcium and a radioactive dating of more then 100 years would be an anomaly. The absense of growth plates would be wierd. These two put together would need some explaining to say the least.