It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1966 Yugoslavian Federation Alien Autopsy? Anyone?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
members.xoom.virgilio.it...

So does anyone know anything about this autopsy?
Check the link above for more pictures.


"In November 1966 in the country close to a small village called Otocek of the former Yugoslavian Federation, a flying object crashed and the extraterrestrial being of the picture above was extracted . The event was soon put under silence, pretending the crash was the result of an highly secret military .

The body, partially burned, was said to be the one of a pilot of the Air Force. They said it was deformed by flames and heat. The darkness of the night helped the military authorities to pass this thesis for believable. The extraterrestrial being was immediately taken to Belgrade, with an ambulance of the Army, and in the Capital it was assigned to a Military Hospital. In a few hours, some of the most important scientists of Yugoslavia started to examine the corpse.

Among the scientists, three were the doctors that led the autopsy: the surgeon Andrej Zobol and the two pathologists Nikola Jullic and Zoran Frederic. The three were proved to be strictly linked to the Government."






posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
That looks to me like a human mumy.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
That page and the images it contains have been discussed some time ago on ATS, but there has never been any other information about the incident other than what you read there.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Those pics are actually pretty convincing. They look more realistic to me than the Roswell alien autopsy and the skull looks a lot like this one.



This is a real skull and a lot of them have been found all over the world. Head binding theories don't explain them, since the cranial volume is far larger than a normal human and binding only changes a skull's shape not the volume. There are a lot of other differences in the orbits, jaw bone, etc. that can't be explained by binding either. Scientists use cranium capacity to classify different species of human, but have totally ignored these anomalies even though they're legitimate artifacts.

Of all the wierd crap and crazy theories out there, this is the only thing I really believe is true evidence that we've had alien contact in the past. You can see these elongated skulls in the depictions of Mayan and Egyptian rulers and we're supposed to believe they were birth defects, but a 'defect' this extreme would most likely include severe brain disorders and it's doubtful they could even survive, let alone rule a country.

It's also interesting there are absolutely no modern examples of this 'defect' but the world's population is a gazillion times larger and there should be some examples of this happening today.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Do youhave the Volume numbers?

I believe the average human skull has around 1,200 cc capacity.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
It looks to me like it's moreso an ancient body that was burned (As someone stated, mummylike)

Burn's don't cause that intense deformation like in that picture, mixed with time however, it does.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I thought mummies didn't have brains? Or atleast not ones that juicy. So if it's a hoax someone put something that looks like a brain into a mummy, burned it, then dressed up like a doctor and posed a few times.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by cownosecat
I thought mummies didn't have brains? Or atleast not ones that juicy. So if it's a hoax someone put something that looks like a brain into a mummy, burned it, then dressed up like a doctor and posed a few times.


Yeah, i don't think a mummy would have wet guts and a wet brain, the whole point of mummification is too remove these things first.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Those pics are actually pretty convincing. They look more realistic to me than the Roswell alien autopsy and the skull looks a lot like this one.



That's interesting, could be closer to the truth than a 'mummy'.

I don't think the Roswell one is real but this one seems to have a bit more realism to it.

It's suppose to be in 1966 and it does look more suited to that time when you look at the clothes and equipment which is a problem i have with the Roswell one, it just doesn't look like it suits the date it's meant to be.

Be interesting to know more about it.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Here's the source of that photo and information on the different skulls found.

www.ufodisclosure.com...

It's a good read because it doesn't jump to ET conclusions, but the skulls leave a lot of unanswered questions. They can't date them accurately but they can tell that they were adults at death, which pretty much rules out known deformities that usually don't survive childhood.



Any conjectures that what these specimens represent are simply deformations or pathological cases can be hardly substantiated. Anomalous types of growth or shapes appear from time to time in the modern human population, however, these occurences are still within the range of the given species.The largest skull documented in the medical literature had the cranial capacity of 1980 ccm, however, the shape of the skull was normal. Also, it is necessary to keep in mind that any pathological growth of the cranium has dire consequences for the afflicted individual at the early stage of the development, practically without exception. Nature is very unforgiving in this respect. All the specimens presented here were mature individuals.




edit: here's one of the skulls overlayed on your 'alien'. It fits pretty well except the rear of the skull is much larger in the autopsy photo (means the capacity must be even larger than these skulls). The other possibility is that this really is an airforce pilot from a crash and his skull shattered. Cancel that, the other photo's show it's in one piece.

[edit on 6/20/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
The photos do look very convincing, but then so did the Rosswell Autopsy until people agreed they were fake.
As for the skull a lot of ancient peoples practiced head binding to change the shape of the skull as it was thought to be more pleasing to the eye. A little like Chinese foot binding. So just because a skull looks alien in appearance don't mean it is an alien

Head Binding

Edited for spelling.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by Janus]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by cownosecat
I thought mummies didn't have brains? Or atleast not ones that juicy. So if it's a hoax someone put something that looks like a brain into a mummy, burned it, then dressed up like a doctor and posed a few times.


Yeah, i don't think a mummy would have wet guts and a wet brain, the whole point of mummification is too remove these things first.



I'd wadger that they didn't remove any organs, that is why it was juicy. I would think it was a burn murder/accident then someone buried the body somewhere, ages ago, and they just recovered it now.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janus

As for the skull a lot of ancient peoples practiced head binding to change the shape of the skull as it was thought to be more pleasing to the eye.
[edit on 20-6-2005 by Janus]


The only problem with that theory is that binding can only change the shape not the size. These skulls have a cranial capacity of 2200-2500 cc when the average human has only 1500 cc.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
If there is only one skull that has been found with a cranial capacity that large i would put that down to a one off. After all we have people now who grow to huge sizes through genetic disorders. But if there were a lot of these skulls from ancient times then i would think that worth looking at a little deeper.
Are there a lot of these skulls or just the one?



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
There's at least three of this type that have been cataloged, you can see them on the link above. I read another source that said these are so common in Peru that locals setup roadside stands to sell them. I don't know if that's true or not.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Interesting...
if it were a mummy, (a large headed version) then it would be mummified...

that thing was still juicy...
but it did look just like the large headed "head binding" examples.

to whoever said that headbinding wont result in that look, you are wrong.
(it was common practice, but to imitate what?)

yes... the cranium can be expanded by forcing the soft skull plates of a baby to stay wedged apart and grow up, instead of together...
think of it like building an igloo, but never narrowing it towards the top... eventually to put a roof on it, you will let it angle in on itself, but it is much taller than an igloo by then...

this makes for a much taller braincase (that might never grow closed at the top.)

but history of headbinding aside...
if that is a headbinding mummy, then it was an intentional fake autopsy, since they pull fresh flesh from within it....
not just a misnamed file of a mummy autopsy.

with better pictures (of the face and head), it would be able to prove or disprove... I suspect the absence of said photos proves it is a fake.
It would have been too easy to take better documenting pictures than these...and they didn't



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally by mythatsabigprobe
You can see these elongated skulls in the depictions of Mayan and Egyptian rulers and we're supposed to believe they were birth defects, but a 'defect' this extreme would most likely include severe brain disorders and it's doubtful they could even survive, let alone rule a country.


I dunno, there's quite a few people who would claim that most of the world leaders today have severe brain disorders....

Just curious, does anyone have any examples of a skull that is known to be the result of head-binding? That'd do a great deal for determining if the skulls are naturally that way or caused by human alterations.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   


yes... the cranium can be expanded by forcing the soft skull plates of a baby to stay wedged apart and grow up, instead of together...
think of it like building an igloo, but never narrowing it towards the top... eventually to put a roof on it, you will let it angle in on itself, but it is much taller than an igloo by then...




Byrd is our resident anthropologist... She's the best one to ask on this...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
to whoever said that headbinding wont result in that look, you are wrong.
(it was common practice, but to imitate what?)

yes... the cranium can be expanded by forcing the soft skull plates of a baby to stay wedged apart and grow up, instead of together...
think of it like building an igloo, but never narrowing it towards the top... eventually to put a roof on it, you will let it angle in on itself, but it is much taller than an igloo by then...

this makes for a much taller braincase (that might never grow closed at the top.)


I didn't say you can't get the same "look" from headbinding, I said you can't make the internal capacity larger by headbinding. You can even see in the photo's and diagrams that the base of the skull is STILL the same size or larger than a normal human... so how could this be headbinding which compresses the skull to make it longer and narrower?

Whenever this topic comes up, the headbinding explanation always comes out as the pat answer. Nobody questions it, even though like you said in your own quote "this makes for a much taller braincase (that might never grow closed at the top.)" That's the first sign of headbinding, the skull doesn't close. Second is the skull is smaller at the base where it's been compressed. Third is that the skull still has the same volume.

These skulls are not the result of headbinding in my opinion, but I think they're what headbinding cultures were trying to emulate. Aliens if you like.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I am with you on that...
afterall... why else would someone actually undertake a long, difficult, and painful process to reshape ones skull, unless they were trying to copy someone/something else that already looked that way...

but IMO these pics still reak of hoax... mainly due to the lack of any facial shots or "measured" shots (pics with size reference tags or rulers) which are the halmark of proffessional autopsy. I am sure that the government would have wanted much better photos for its record of the incident...

these photos might just be from a normal autopsy of a burned pilot, and they still would have had at least a few shots of the face to show where the facial damage was.

so my theory is that this was either a staged hoax...
or an extremly poorly documented alien autopsy



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join