What would happen if Science (big, government-controlled Science) found hard evidence of extraterrestrial life? The following case study is an example of what might happen. I say might, because at the end of the day, we can’t prove that the Atacama mummy is an extraterrestrial. In fact, if Science has its way, we’ll never know what it is.
The Atacama humanoid was discovered in 2003. It’s taken a whole 15 years for this creature to become widespread knowledge, and it’s only happened as a result of a disinformation campaign, designed to deceive and mislead the public about the specimen’s true nature.
In my opinion — and this is just my opinion — the creature is clearly extraterrestrial. Having looked at all the evidence, I am prepared to go out on a limb, and say that if the creature is not 100% extraterrestrial, then it is at least an ET/human hybrid (the result of a human interbreeding with an ET).
Call me nuts, if you like (many will), but I think you only have to take one look at the creature to know it’s an extraterrestrial (or at least part extraterrestrial). Again, that’s just my opinion, and I’m no scientist. I have a BA in Psychology (not even a Master’s degree) and that’s the extent of my scientific training. I’m no expert in genetics or skeletons… although experts in genetics and skeletons have stated that there’s no way this creature could be a deformed human fetus — which is the cover story.
If you don’t know what the Attacama humanoid is, you must be itching to know by now. The story started (or at least became known to those of us with an interest in ETs) in 2013, with the release of the movie Sirius, by Steven Greer. The following is a brief summary of the information contained in Sirius, about the Attacama humanoid:
This is how the Attacama humanoid was first presented to the world, back in 2013. Notice how the very first thing Steven Greer says is: “I don’t know what it is.” He has reiterated this many times over the years, and does so to this day. Dr Greer has never said that this is an alien/ET. It is my conclusion that this is an ET or ET/human hybrid; not Dr Greers’s. Call me a liar, if you will (I’ve been called worse); but don’t call Dr Greer one. Accuse me of bad science if you like (I’ll happily wear that, because I’m not claiming to be a scientist); but don’t accuse Dr Greer of it.
Notice also, how almost the first thing Garry Nolan says about it is that it is “obviously older than just an aborted fetus.” Five years later, Dr Nolan is saying that an aborted fetus is exactly what it is. The question we should be asking ourselves is why? In 2013, the world’s leading expert on skeletal dysplasias, Dr Lachman (who literally wrote the book on the subject), found with “absolute certainty”, that the specimen was “clearly not fetal”, and was “clearly, between six to eight years old.” The words in quotation marks are those of Dr Nolan. Why, five years later, has he completely reversed his position? I believe, if you watch the last video I insert in this post, you’ll find the answer. But first, I invite you to review all the evidence for and against this creature being an extraterrestrial (or at least part extraterrestrial).
The case for:
This is a detailed, comprehensive and up-to-date overview of all the data Dr Greer has on the skeleton:
If you want even more information (particularly about how this story first began) you might want to watch Sirius, the movie in which it first appeared. Although I believe the entire movie is extremely interesting (particularly if you have an interest in ETs); the segments on the Atacama mummy are spread throughout the movie (beginning around the 45 minute mark), so if you want to watch just the bits about the mummy, you’ll have to do a lot of fast-forwarding and rewinding. Here’s the link to Sirius:
Now, the case against:
If you’re lazy, and don’t want to do much to do much reading, you might be happy just to watch this brief summary of The New York Times article, released on March 22nd, 2018, that destroyed Dr Greer’s story:
Hmm… If I didn’t know better, I might be pretty convinced by that. But who the hell is “Joe from the Carolinas”? Are his scientific credentials any better mine (non-existent, in other words)?
Here’s the link to the original, New York Times article:
Sadly, the disinformation in this article is all that most people around the world will ever know about the Atacama Mummy, and it’s a complete distortion of the evidence. As I was reading this article, one paragraph really jumped out at me:
“Once Dr. Nolan and his colleagues received the samples, they were able to retrieve fragments of DNA from bone marrow cells without much struggle. “We could tell this was human right away,” said Atul Butte, a computational biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a co-author of the new study.”
It starts out talking about “Dr Nolan and his colleagues”, then abruptly switches to “Atul Butte” saying, “We could tell this was human right away.” Well, at least Dr Nolan has the integrity/good sense not to make a liar of himself, because in Sirius, and the Attacama humanoid video, he clearly isn’t saying, “I could tell this was human right away.” But Dr Nolan is a geneticist, and Atul Butte is a computational biologist, and I think it’s pretty significant that it’s the computational biologist, not the geneticist, that says “We could tell this was human right away.” What does a computational biologist do, anyway? Do they know more about computers, or biology? As a layperson, I have no idea, and neither will millions of other laypeople — the majority of the people — who read this article. The entire second sentence seems to have been put there just to confuse and mislead people. A computational biologist may well know more about genetics than I do, but that isn’t saying much. Last but not least, we know Dr Nolan was there at the beginning, because he appears in the videos; Atul Butte does not appear in the videos, so we don’t know that he was there in the beginning: for all we know, he’s re-writing history by making himself part of it, when he wasn’t.
But wait, there’s more… Here’s the original article, published in Genome Research Journal, that the New York Times article was based on:
So, assuming you read all that, are you now totally convinced that the Atacama mummy is the aborted fetus of a human girl? If you said “yes”, I don’t blame you. Genome Research is one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, and it’s peer-reviewed (meaning that every article written for it gets checked by a whole bunch of scientists before it goes into print). At least, that’s how the peer review process is supposed to work; but in this case, there was a breakdown in that process, as we’ll see.
But on the face of it, if you don’t know certain information (which I’ll cover below) then this journal article looks like good science, done by credible, respectable scientists. If you don’t have a degree in science yourself, you wouldn’t be able to spot the many holes in the paper’s argument; the tell-tale signs that data had been manipulated and omitted; and the scientific process not followed correctly. Any non-scientist reading this paper would probably be fooled by it. And let’s not forget: most people (who have any knowledge of the Atacama mummy at all) won’t have read this article: they’ll have only read the New York Times article — and most people believe what they read in the newspaper.
I don’t blame you if you were convinced by “Joe from Carolina”; the New York Times; and Genome Research. Together, they tell a pretty convincing story. But you still don’t have all the information. What if I told you there were not one, but two of these creatures? I’ll come back to that shortly. First, I want you to watch the final video in my argument, the one that tears the official narrative full of holes, and reveals it for the falsehood it is:
Now, let’s review the evidence presented in this video:
- The world’s expert in skeletal abnormalities says the creature was 6–8 years old when it died (therefore it could not have been a fetus).
- The radiologists who studied the specimen said it couldn’t be a fetus, because of the density of the bone material.
- There were no controls done for this study, and the conclusions were reached on the basis of “cherry picking” the data (selecting 54 mutations out of 2.7 million) to fit a pre-determined result.
- The specimen’s DNA is only 91% human. A chimpanzee’s DNA is 98% human. How can they say it’s a human fetus, when it’s less human than a chimpanzee?
- A world renowned geneticist said: “It would be headline news, if there wasone genetic syndrome found in a living specimen. That they are claiming that there was seven of them, is laughable, and implausible. The data does not support the conclusions of that paper at all.”
- If all seven of the genes (that had never been found in a human before) that caused the alleged “birth defects” had been caused by random chance mutations, the fertilised egg would not have been able to divide even once: let alone grow into a fetus.
- Dr Nolan was excited, and thought the specimen was something extraordinary, that could not be a deformed fetus (we saw this in the Atacama humanoid video), after his preliminary examination. After he was approached by Federal Agents, he changed his tune 180 degrees.
- Dr Nolan said that if there were two of these specimens found anywhere in the world, it would rule out spontaneous mutation of the human fetus.
- In 1996, a second humanoid was found in Russia, with identical “birth defects” to the Atacama humanoid. The Russian humanoid was over a foot tall. Despite being larger than a newborn human baby, the official scientific explanation was “deformed, girl fetus”.
This last point is the clincher. How can you have exactly the same constellation of rare, never-before-seen mutations (mutations so severe, they would have caused the fertilised egg to die, rather than divide) in two “deformed girl fetuses” in two separate countries, over 17,000 miles apart?
I’m no scientist, but I think that the logical conclusion, even for a layman, is that we are looking at child and adult specimens of the same, non-human species. Whether they’re ETs is impossible to prove, because as Dr Greer points out, we don’t have a database of extraterrestrial DNA to run comparisons. But the use of the exact same story (“it’s a deformed girl fetus”) in 1996 and 2018, is like a flashing neon sign saying “cover-up”.
Dr Greer outlines the reasons for the cover-up in the “Stanford Atacama Coverup” video I’ve posted above. For more details, see also my blog post: The real reasons we haven’t had Full Disclosure yet
Now, we may never know what Science would do if it found a live alien; but given the way it’s covered up these two possibly dead aliens: don’t you think it’s likely they would cover-up any live aliens they found, as well?
I think the more certain they were that they had aliens, the more certainly they would cover it up. After all, the Atacama humanoid hasn’t been proven to be an alien, and can’t be proven to be an alien. And yet, the mere possibility that it might be an alien, seems to be reason enough to cover it up.
Which begs the question: what if Science has found aliens already, and we just don’t know about it? We only know about the Atacama humanoid because Dr Greer wouldn’t let Science bury the story; Dr Greer kept bringing it to light. Because Dr Greer kept asking questions, and trying to tell the world what was happening, Science couldn’t “bury” the story; they had to “kill” it instead, by explaining it away. But Dr Greer can only shine a light on what he knows about… and he certainly doesn’t know everything. There could easily be aliens that Science knows about, that Dr Greer doesn’t.
And in that event, I have no doubt, Science wouldn’t bother to concoct a cover story to explain the aliens away… why expend effort on something that would only draw attention to what they were trying to hide? No, if they had real aliens — alive or dead — they’d have them locked away where no-one without the highest above top-secret military/scientific/government clearance would ever find them; and none of us poor, dumb civilians would ever suspect a thing.