Something Strange (pic)

Originally posted by DeepSea
Hmmmmm. Some members' great debunking skills seem to vanish to zero as soon as own "evidence" is involved.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by DeepSea]

Great, apart from the fact that you didn't provide any evidence, all you said was merely conjecture based on nothing.

Who's to say that the sloth skeleton in the museum is even the same species as this dead Sloth?

And of course it isn't going to look the same, it's decomposing, it would be stupid for you to expect a dead animal to remain the same shape forever.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by johnmhinds]

I just have to come back in here to say that if this is a Sloth and it was skinned and beaten to death then that's just funked up!!!

I find these animals to be pretty cute things and most animals are so if i saw these kids doing this i'd have to string them up and skin them alive....

Please just stop this 'skinned' crap. Anyone can see this creature has not been skinned, nor has the fur been burnt off (picture posted by other member).

Just googled skinned animals, I wouldn't dare post an image here. They are so sad and infuriating.
If you would like to compare pics, google it yourself.
The effects of skinning compared with the skin of this creature are worlds apart.

reply to post by johnmhinds

1.

Originally posted by johnmhinds

Originally posted by DeepSea
Hmmmmm. Some members' great debunking skills seem to vanish to zero as soon as own "evidence" is involved.

Great, apart from the fact that you didn't provide any evidence, all you said was merely conjecture based on nothing.

Wrong.
- Convincing evidence is already there, the original images.
- It's only your side who provided unconvincing counterevidence, which was thoroughly disproved by me and other posters like jinx880101. How about reading the thread? Or at least my whole last post.


2.

Who's to say that the sloth skeleton in the museum is even the same species as this dead Sloth?

It was just to show all sloths have real/massive skulls, unlike the pathetic donut head in the "after a few days" picture (www.abovetopsecret.com...)


3.

And of course it isn't going to look the same, it's decomposing, it would be stupid for you to expect a dead animal to remain the same shape forever.

Wouldn't it rather be stupid to post without reading the thread?

- I never stated such. On the contrary, in this post www.abovetopsecret.com... I wrote: "If it 'has since been picked apart by buzzards' why is the “skin” so undamaged for the most part? And animals devour skin.". Hence it's your side referring to dubious "evidence" showing a mysteriouly undamaged skin (chest, belly, legs), therewith claiming it's possible the skin remained intact (chest, belly, legs) although the whole flesh was eaten by buzzards etc? Ridiculous.

- Moreover I/we referred to specific points: cloth-like looking skin, missing/fake skull, very strange looking chest and pelvic region etc.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by DeepSea]

Originally posted by DeepSea

Hmmmmm. Some members' great debunking skills seem to vanish to zero as soon as own "evidence" is involved.

I never stated that the skeleton was an exact match as there's more than one species of sloth. The point is that they have a similar skeletal structure and it is to this I was pointing at.
As for your autopsy skills from a small photograph, well, I don't think CSI will be asking you for a job just yet
Perhaps instead of jumping to conclusions you should try your hand at research and provide evidence to support your theories

Originally posted by DeepSea
"If it 'has since been picked apart by buzzards' why is the “skin” so undamaged for the most part? And animals devour skin.". Hence it's your side referring to dubious "evidence" showing a mysteriouly undamaged skin (chest, belly, legs), therewith claiming it's possible the skin remained intact (chest, belly, legs) although the whole flesh was eaten by buzzards etc? Ridiculous.

While I agree that the later image of a decomposed carcass may be a gaff, I have trouble understanding how you attribute this to some kind of cover-up for genetic/crossbreed experiments and so on. There are many other, more prosaic explanations of higher probability.

Originally posted by DeepSea
No. There isn't the slightest clue for an "inbreeding". Where is any "small and ... reproducing between themselves" population? And this is not a "... physical and health defect". And, like a mutation, inbreeding cannot cause dissimilarities in such an extent. This is not imbreeding

Credentials please!

IRM

It's funny to me... How the sceptics claim we have no 'proof' with the pictures posted, when they themselves are pointing at the same source as their 'evidence'/'proof'.

Sceptics- pointing out the similarities between sloth & said creature.
The rest of us- Pointing out the clear differences between the two.

Also, when the 'skin detail' could be debated, as for distortion due to decomposition etc.
...The bone detail and differences of the skull are as clear as day.

[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola
I never stated that the skeleton was an exact match as there's more than one species of sloth. The point is that they have a similar skeletal structure and it is to this I was pointing at.

What are you talking about? It was your post (www.abovetopsecret.com...) stating the "after a few days" picture depicts the remains of the being in the original images. So THAT is what I/we compared it to. And the result is: No way. Whereas I don't think it was "your" statement, but of the ones who fabricated that picture and posted in on that website. That's why I expressly wrote to you: "Thanks for the pic/link" to make clear it didn't have to be your personal viewpoint (www.abovetopsecret.com...).

As for your autopsy skills from a small photograph, well, I don't think CSI will be asking you for a job just yet

Wrong. As soon as the producers read my posts they enthusiastically offered me a leading role in CSI. Very highly paid. But I had to refuse as I'm already under contract with Steven Spielberg.

Perhaps instead of jumping to conclusions you should try your hand at research and provide evidence to support your theories

Talking about evidence. As stated in my above post there already is substantial evidence, most probably for secret genetic experments, www.abovetopsecret.com...:
"... Most plausible explanation: The peculiar blend of similarities and dissimilarities clearly alludes to a genetic experiment/crossbreed".
So it would have been up to the "just-a-sloth" side to provide reasonable counterevidence, which they couldn't - one more time: as thoroughly explained!!!!!


[edit on 18-9-2009 by DeepSea]

You haven't got any evidence for genetic experiments or mutation.

It's the shape of a sloth.
It has the claws of a sloth.
You can see in one image some hair that looks very much like sloth hair.
There is nothing at all un-sloth-like about it.

The only thing that has happened to the sloth that makes it look abnormal is the upper layer of the skin sloughing away while it was decomposing in the water.

The exact same thing happened to the Montauk raccoon.


The exact same process happens to the skin every mammal on the planet 365 days a of the year. The only difference that if you're alive your body can create new skin cells to replace the ones that are sloughing away, when you die your body will start to decompose in the exact same way.

There is no mutation, there is nothing out of the ordinary.

---

If your theory was even true, why do you think someone was genetically experimenting on sloths, why would they want to make fur less sloths, and why would they be dumping them by a river in Panama.
There has to be some reasoning behind a theory for it to even be considered.

I don't understand the thought process behind even selecting it as an option when there could be no sensible reasoning behind it.

There is no evidence of a genetic experiment. You have 5 photographs. 4 show it after it has been in the water. Picture 5 was some days afterward. Perhaps instead of asking "just-a-sloth" side to provide reasonable counterevidence, how about you supply your evidence to show genetic experiment, and why they would do that on a sloth of all creatures.
I have supplied a picture of a skeleton of a sloth, which shows the similar limb structures. What have you supplied? An unfounded theory, more dream and wishes than factual.

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola
"I have supplied a picture of a skeleton of a sloth, which shows the similar limb structures."

Yeah, but that's all, ie all the rest appears pretty fabricated. Hence it proves nothing. As explained.

What have you supplied? An unfounded theory, more dream and wishes than factual.

WHO's dreaming????? And I'm not gonna explain it again over and over.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by DeepSea]

reply to post by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
... Credentials please!

Come on, I/we DID explain:


1. No real sloth because of (besides the missing fur):
- extremely narrow upper chest.
- eyes
- nose shape and colour.
- mouse/teeth (www.abovetopsecret.com... )
- neck form.
- the surrounding it was found in (www.abovetopsecret.com... "Why would a sloth be lurking by the rocks anyway?")
- etc, read former posts.


2. Not the thing in the "after a few days" picture because of:
- missing/fake "donut" skull
- different chest region (body & skeleton)
- different and "funny" pelvic region (body & skeleton)
- most of the skin (cloth?) undamaged
- strange shape of skin (right arm & armpit)
- etc, read former posts.


3. No mutation because: A mutation never changes ten features at the same time but only one. Probably many mutations over several generations could, but then there would be more "beings" like the one in the original pictures, moreover "bridging" sloth forms.


4. Strong suspicion of a genetic experiment because: A crossbreed is the only reasonable explanation for such a specially featured and suddenly surfacing blend of animal traits (partial sloth, partially very different).


[edit on 18-9-2009 by DeepSea]

Originally posted by DeepSea

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola
"I have supplied a picture of a skeleton of a sloth, which shows the similar limb structures."

Yeah, but that's all, ie all the rest appears pretty fabricated. Hence it proves nothing. As explained.

It doesn't look fabricated to me. Looks like a corpse, of a sloth

Originally posted by DeepSea

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola
What have you supplied? An unfounded theory, more dream and wishes than factual.

WHO's dreaming????? And I'm not gonna explain it again over and over.
[edit on 18-9-2009 by DeepSea]

How true. It's hard to explain nothing over and over.

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola

Originally posted by DeepSea
WHO's dreaming????? And I'm not gonna explain it again over and over.

How true. It's hard to explain nothing over and over.

How about reading the thread before posting?

reply to post by DeepSea


Well, DS, dome of us work for a living, so we start a reply, do some work, finish the reply then post. Too difficult to figure out for you?
How about you do some research?

- extremely narrow upper chest.
- eyes
- nose shape and colour.
- mouse/teeth (www.abovetopsecret.com... ) - neck form.

a minutes search on google brings up a picture of a narrow chested sloth.
Sloth

Now then. Lets have a look at your theory again...
It appears to be dead in the water!

reply to post by johnmhinds


Out of the four species of three toed sloth, I could only find one photo. I think it is safe to presume that the skulls would not differ very much.
Below the three toed sloth pics are those of the two toed sloths. The skulls do not differ much.

1.)Pygmy Three-toed Sloth, Bradypus pygmaeus
No pic
2.)Maned Three-toed Sloth, Bradypus torquatus
No pic
3.)Pale-throated Three-toed Sloth, Bradypus tridactylus
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a9e73db8928.jpg[/atsimg]

4.)Brown-throated Three-toed Sloth, Bradypus variegatus
No pic

Two different two toed sloth pecies, below are their skulls. As you can see, they do not differ very much.

1.)Linnaeus's Two-toed Sloth, Choloepus didactylus
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8f8ec0cde612.jpg[/atsimg]

2.)Hoffmann's Two-toed Sloth, Choloepus hoffmanni
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1b59a93ebd1.jpg[/atsimg]

If we look at sloth skulls in general, the shape is more or less long and flat.
This picture does not agree with that of a sloth. The claws do, but not the skull.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b048a5bb1e97.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]

Defeat Accepted!
Case closed.
Sceptics win this one.

Narrow chested sloth.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d277eab3b011.jpg[/atsimg]
Now if is only a minutes search on google, Why did it take us soo long and after so many posts from the member who found it?!


[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]

Originally posted by jinx880101

If we look at sloth skulls in general, the shape is more or less long and flat.
This picture does not agree with that of a sloth. The claws do, but not the skull.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b048a5bb1e97.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]

By the looks of it from the skulls supplied, you would have to turn the skull. The sharp angular part at the top of the body, looks like the cheekbone structure from your skull pictures. The dark blotches could be partial tissue remains, debris or similar.

Originally posted by jinx880101
Defeat Accepted!
Case closed.
Sceptics win this one.

Narrow chested sloth.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d277eab3b011.jpg[/atsimg]
Now if is only a minutes search on google, Why did it take us soo long and after so many posts from the member who found it?!


[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]

I originally only supplied a picture of the skeleton for limb comparison, not as an attempt to match
For you to be defeated it would need someone to win, which we haven't as I'm still hoping to find proof.

[edit on 18/9/09 by Daisy-Lola]

reply to post by Daisy-Lola


I know, read my post above..
2nd.

Edit to add-

I was under the impression that there were only two species of two toed sloth. Why is narrow chest not included? Maybe the difference in skull shape?

Wiki quote-

There are only two species of Choloepus (which name means "lame foot"[2]): Linnaeus's Two-toed Sloth (Choloepus didactylus) and Hoffmann's Two-toed Sloth (Choloepus hoffmanni). These two species are the only members of the family Megalonychidae.[3]

Am I missing something here?

[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]

Question:


If they stoned it to death, how come the body doesn't show any evidence of violance?


...because, if it wasn't stoned to death, it was dead in the water. And if was dead in the water, there goes the alien theory away.