Japan released X-rays of a gray

Really keen to share my YouTube channel content on ATS, the channel is under my same ATS username and so far all I've received is negative one line put downs. I am uploading a GENUINE ET video tonight hopefully. ALL of my content is filmed by me, so know 100% none of it is fake in any way.

These days, any visual evidence on this matter needs to be very good and clear if possible. ETs do make the footage fuzzy and blurred, I now know this for sure. They don't want to be the next YouTube whore . . . erm, I mean, star!

With so many of us filming them now, it must be hard for them to move undetected.

What if we applied the “building a ship in a bottle” as an quasi analogy.

A bottle having just one opening and through the neck to which access to the inside of the bottle space is the workspace to construct the ship.

So then…..how would a skeletal frame of bones be assembled whether correctly anatomically or not….and placed in a skin suit without any reports of access seams through the skin? Where are any stitch lines of having access to the cavity’s of a skin suit?

Even if an ancient crazy glue was used …..it would be used to join and seal openings.

Yet I see no reports of such sealing or stitching evidence.

I would look for sealed or stitched openings in the skin suit that shows signs of having had openings that where used for the access and the placing or assembly of bones.

Even Dr. Frankenstein’s monster had stitched parts….why not the mummies?



So if you think of the mummies skin suit as a bottle….did they shove the bones through the neck of the skin suit before “sealing or stitching” the head onto the neck hole? Where’s the proof of the attachment process?

If the skeletal frame was wrapped in skin after the skeletal frame was constructed, then where’s the proof of joining skin pieces together to form the body? Where are the scars on the entire body for that matter?

Do I believe the mummies to be real? Good question….for I have no answer as of yet.

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
Since the published X-rays show a bunch of misassembled human bones, I fail to see what difference the method used to apply the skin makes. In one test of a hand, the skin was radiocarbon dated to be 6000 years older than the about 1000 year old human bone, so obviously not consistent thus not a real mummy.

An observation…..

There’s a Japanese Dogu statue vague resemblance (protruding face, breast plate?)…imo.

Dogū (Japanese: 土偶, IPA: [doɡɯː]; literally "earthen figure") are small humanoid and animal figurines made during the later part of the Jōmon period (14,000–400 BC) of prehistoric Japan.

Dogū come exclusively from the Jōmon period, and were no longer made by the following Yayoi period. There are various styles of dogū, depending on the exhumation area and time period.

Perhaps the Dogu were depictions of ancient visitors in Japan’s Jomon period…

Perhaps the Dogu visited other parts of the world…and given different names by what ever cultures was there at the time of the visitations.

👽

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm just passing through, but wanted to comment on the dating differences between the skin and bones. I am a geologist and one of my focus areas is a rock called diatomite. One of the screen shots upthread stated that the mummies were covered in a white powder that can be found in a home and garden store, which I presume is diatomaceous earth, which is made from diatomite. Like you, I am fairly skeptical of these "mummies" and pretty much any purported alien remains. However, I also see a couple simple explanations for why the carbon dates may differ.

Diatomite is typically formed in warm, shallow seas from the siliceous tests of phytoplankton that live near the surface of these seas. When they die, the tests fall to the seafloor and accumulate in a disorganized ooze of the tests mixed with some sea water. Additionally, tiny carbon based plankton can live and die in the same conditions and intersperse with the siliceous based tests. Calcium carbonate also has a tendency to precipitate in warm, shallow seas and is commonly found interbedded or as impurity within diatomaceous rock along with other sea creatures that have died and fallen the the ocean floor. Over time the ooze builds up, is buried, and under pressure which allows for the ooze to solidify into a solid, but delicate, rock. Over further time, tectonic processes will raise the rock to the surface and allow human accessibility to to process it into useful products such as diatomaceous earth. There are also freshwater diatomites that form with similar processes, just not in the ocean.

All that to say, the carbon based impurities found within the diatomaceous earth the mummies look to have been covered with can skew any carbon dating results and give an artificially older date. Diatoms are pokey little buggars and can cling to porous material and are not easily washed away with something like DI water, which I suspect would be the first go-to in a lab. They are also tiny and frequently microscopic, so if cleaning was done by mere visual inspection, any impurities on the skin along with the diatomite would have skewed results. A lot of carbon dating is done at university labs which are frequently primarily staffed with undergrads and low level grad students, so my confidence in any skin samples being well cleaned is low.

One thing to consider, however, is that the reach of carbon dating is pretty much a maximum of 50,000 years and the processes I described above typically take much, much longer. I did a quick, lazy google search and found discussion of diatomite accumulations that are younger than 50,000 years, particularly one in Brazil, so this is still possible from the diatomite impurities alone.

Additionally, depending on how and where the diatomite was processed into diatomaceous earth, that leaves a lot of room for additional impurities to be included from the environment or even other geologic units.

I am not an archeologist, so I don't know if it is considered an ok practice to date using external facing samples that come into contact with the environment. As a geologist, I would recommend against it as there are too many opportunities to contaminate the sample from exposure.

Anyway, a lot of words there to say that the dating differences may be explained by environmental contamination of the external facing skin samples.

originally posted by: darmstadtiumpromise
a reply to: Arbitrageur


All that to say, the carbon based impurities found within the diatomaceous earth the mummies look to have been covered with can skew any carbon dating results and give an artificially older date.

Shrugs..

Keratin Materials

Preferred submission size: >100 mg
Minimum submission size: 30 mg

Keratin is an insoluble structural protein resistant to proteolytic enzymes. Therefore, it is often well preserved in conditions unfavorable to other sample types. The diversity of keratin materials suitable for radiocarbon dating include horn, hoof, hair, fur, feather, claws, and nails.

Like plant materials, the radiocarbon dating of keratin targets the carbon that forms the structure of the material.

Sample Selection

Keratin materials tend to be limited in quantity. Your submission of visually clean and structurally robust material is preferred, if available. Please contact us for assistance with a sampling strategy if all available material cannot be submitted.

Pretreatment

Many keratin samples are first given an organic solvent pretreatment to remove oils, waxes, greases, varnish, or preservatives. All keratinous samples then receive an acid-base-acid pretreatment to remove carbonates, humates and humic acids.

www.directams.com...#:~:text=A%20Leather%20or%20parchment%20sample,carbonates%20and%20humic%20acids%2C%20respectively.

originally posted by: darmstadtiumpromise
a reply to: Arbitrageur

A lot of carbon dating is done at university labs which are frequently primarily staffed with undergrads and low level grad students, so my confidence in any skin samples being well cleaned is low.

One. Any proof the tests in this case were carried out by incompetent individuals.

Two. If they can’t fallow procedure, then they shouldn’t be in their position.

a reply to: darmstadtiumpromise

If there wasn’t nails present for example, I assume then testing would be treated like leather carbon dating covered by the cited article.

Yeah... I felt pretty foolish. Obv fake. BUT every time you look like an ass you take that to learn something. I won't do it again! lol