Robert Ripley knew what Dr. Steven Greer's Sirius Alien was in the 1930′s!

Hmmmm. It also looks like Ripley may have painted on a hairline, eyebrows and dots for the iris of the eyes.
Not accusing, but it looks suspicious to me...

peace,
AB

reply to post by Bilk22


Bingo.

The process of 'shrinking' a head involves making a small hole at the back of the head by which the fragments of the already smashed skull bone and brains were removed, then the remaining 'empty' head was carefully and laboriously shrunken.

reply to post by mikemck1976


okay, so we have now, two completely different, miniature remains,,,, what a world, what a world...

have you ever heard, about the native american legend, (dont remember the tribe) about a couple of indian warriors that ventured to south america?
they met a race of exactly the same sized people, as in those photos,
they lived in tiny houses, made from sticks and stones, and birds, (geese, if i remember correctly) were their mortal enemies, so the indian warriors taught the little men, how to fight of the birds, by hitting them in the neck with sticks,
but after a while, crane birds came, and the little men tried to reach their necks, but could not reach them,
so the cranes killed them all,
they would have survived, if they had not started fighting the birds,,,, their original technique was simply to hide until the birds left....

Originally posted by sealing
I think what Ripley had was another little alien.
From the same area too. I don't think it's possible to shrink an
8 year old to six inches tall, all while keeping the diminsions perfectly.

This Greer alien is gonna be a game changer,IMO
and I'm no Greer proponent .
After watching the professors from Stanford commenting on it
I'm pretty excited about what this may end up being.

Dont you mean a 6 year old eight inches tall?
Perhaps its a remnant of the little people tha ancient races mention in folk lore?
not nessessarily off PLANET?

The interesting part in this:

They concluded that it was an 'interesting mutation' of a male human that had survived post-birth for between six and eight years. ‘I can say with absolute certainty that it is not a monkey. 'It is human - closer to human than chimpanzees. It lived to the age of six to eight,’ said Garry Nolan, director of stem cell biology at Stanford University's School of Medicine in California. 'Obviously, it was breathing, it was eating, it was metabolizing. 'It calls into question how big the thing might have been when it was born.'

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... claim-scientists-new-documentary.html#ixzz2VHa8DQEC Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

reply to post by gortex


If this is a shrunken pre-term baby--- how can we explain that the results came back as a six year old child?

I was just guessing Greer sent a fake sample to the good doctor of Stanford.

reply to post by Char-Lee


this is really starting to bother me,,,, it looks like a classic hoax, but the scan reveals the organs and the skeleton-that can not be shrunken,,,, and the only way an artist could do that really, is by 3d-modelling, and it cant print out bones....
do we really have an alien here?
or are the institutes lying to us? (would not be the first time)

there are some interesting stelae in south america, that depicts a man holding a extremely small and weird looking child, and there are others arguing and pointing fingers at it,,,

its a shame, that its almost impossible, to find the stelae that i am talking about, from the web, even if you know the official names of the stones,,, the web is filled with trash,,, needle in a haystack.....

and what about the hole in the head? it resembles the one that newborns have...
one last thing... the tall ridge on top of its head, is usually a sign of large jaw muscles,,,
something does not add up..

We have DNA decoders now. Maybe Mr Ripley was wrong. Maybe he fashioned with a little artistic flare. Just saying, it could be plausible too. Until there's a full report on the little guy, DNA report too, we won't know.

reply to post by ThinkingCap

If this is a shrunken pre-term baby--- how can we explain that the results came back as a six year old child?

It's possible that it may be due to the mummification process as mentioned here by Paolo Viscardi natural history curator at the Horniman Museum in London , he is responsible for the fossil and bone collections so I guess he probably knows what he's talking about

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.
paolov.wordpress.com...

reply to post by gortex


thank you for the link,,,

i think i am pretty much done with this topic now,,,
you made my day!

the skull of a fetus is easily distorted.....

Originally posted by solve
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

this is really starting to bother me,,,, it looks like a classic hoax, but the scan reveals the organs and the skeleton-that can not be shrunken,,,, and the only way an artist could do that really, is by 3d-modelling, and it cant print out bones....
do we really have an alien here?
or are the institutes lying to us? (would not be the first time)

there are some interesting stelae in south america, that depicts a man holding a extremely small and weird looking child, and there are others arguing and pointing fingers at it,,,

its a shame, that its almost impossible, to find the stelae that i am talking about, from the web, even if you know the official names of the stones,,, the web is filled with trash,,, needle in a haystack.....

and what about the hole in the head? it resembles the one that newborns have...
one last thing... the tall ridge on top of its head, is usually a sign of large jaw muscles,,,
something does not add up..

edit on 4-6-2013 by solve because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2013 by solve because: one more thing

Yes how could such a HUMAN survive. Size does mater for a fetus, for the lungs to function and it was said to have digested food. It always makes me think of the stories of the intelligently controlled flying "balls'. The one the three boys found and that left during the night, the one the family found that is well documented.

One thing though, the Russian story, the old lady found the little thing in a human graveyard in the bushes, this one essentially the same if it was by an abandoned church.

Then there is the mexican farmer who found the little creature in his field and drowned it. Similar story and he died in a mysterious fashion as did the russian woman.

Originally posted by stirling

Originally posted by sealing
I think what Ripley had was another little alien.
From the same area too. I don't think it's possible to shrink an
8 year old to six inches tall, all while keeping the diminsions perfectly.

This Greer alien is gonna be a game changer,IMO
and I'm no Greer proponent .
After watching the professors from Stanford commenting on it
I'm pretty excited about what this may end up being.

Dont you mean a 6 year old eight inches tall?

Perhaps its a remnant of the little people tha ancient races mention in folk lore?
not nessessarily off PLANET?

i honestly don't think that is a really crazy idea. they did find the "hobbit" people and there have been fairy and little people (some quit mean little people some kind) stories for a long long time.

They are Prince's ancestors, durr.

I realise the idea of ET and small aliens is not acceptable to some people, but from what I have seen in Mars photos, there do seem to be small aliens - and why not? There must be all kinds of sizes, shapes, and makes of aliens out there since they do not all come from Earth atmosphere and gravity. If "they" ARE on Mars, then they are probably on the Moon too and on Earth.

In the old days, we would have seen these things in the fair grounds as an attraction. Now we see it on the internet instead.

Really you know, the scientists at Stanford or any reputable university or lab should know what they are dealing with and should know how bones densify with mummification etc. Otherwise, why are they calling themselves 'experts'.

It would take some really sick individuals to take an aborted foetus and make it into an 'alien' for show. But then, humans never cease to amaze me in their abilities.

Originally posted by suz62
It was horsey manure then and it's horsey manure now. You can't shrink bones.

So you have chosen Ripley's "or not" option?

Sadly typical. I'm not one to defend Greer but it looks like anyone's uninformed or uneducated opinion holds serious debunking voodoo to the point where we're looking at a carnival promoter as being counter evidence?

I think the science resources involved in this are quite capable of taking care of themselves and cannot be "spell bound" by an avalanche of BS from Greer or anyone else for that matter. Left to do their jobs I think we can be reasonably confident in the results pending any sudden changes of conclusions reported in sync or shortly after jobs / tenure might be threatened.

This is why real disclosure is the only way forward. Until that happens all the evidence in the World regardless of who is involved with it won't amount to a hill of beans. It's just too easy to play the debunking game and this subject has a very long and storied history of successful debunking.

It's best to just look after one's own beliefs on the subject and not worry about debating it w/ the masses. People too lazy to spend the time to do research on their own will never be convinced when you see them willingly line up behind baseless claims like in this thread.

I'll take the qualified professionals, thanks. Feel free to make Ripley the center of whatever position the rest of you want to take on the subject, really.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by mikemck1976

 

Any sources as to how Ripley determined that the "oddity turned out to be a person who was chosen for a full-body “reduction” rather than just a shrinking of the head".

I'm not defending Greer's claims but it seems to me that you either choose to believe Ripley or Greer, or neither.

I agree with you, Sir. I thought you might have that kind of perspective. Yes, the original assertion that this was the result of a full-body shrinking seems a bit fishy to me, as well. It immediately stands out to me as being a result of cultural bias and not empirical evidence.

There is a condition known as lithopedion. It is more commonly called a calcified abdominal pregnancy. Some of these pregnancies last for many years. Here is a report on one which lasted 18 years.

Lithopedion

These "babies" tend to look "alien." Perhaps this is more common in that part of the world than elsewhere? That is the most likely origin, and it's a fairly well known origin at that. I've known about this condition for decades.

It's time to move on from this topic IMO. Always eliminate the obvious first. Don't give any special credit to stem cell biologists, or doctors in general, to know much outside of their field of study regardless of wherever they teach. It's really a shame that conclusions were drawn without a grounding in what was possible.

reply to post by gortex


the head is too small for a fetus of that size

SORRY

i have three kids and went to every prenatal scan FYI