Secrets Warehouse_13 Mandible Part 1 and 2

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I admit I was not too clear there, what I meant to say is that this is the best possible evidence that I have seen. It is not proof of alien life.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Your first link only leads to a "Not in Archive." page.

I took the liberty of compositing a still from the second youtube in the OP.


This should give us something to look at. It is hard to find a picture of it (on the internet). Another possibility occured to me; that the mandible may have been damaged prior to being given to the dentist. We have no way of knowing if it was perhaps some horrible military accident - or for that matter we have no way of knowing if it had anything at all to do with official military business. Also - how complete is the mandible? Could there be other parts missing - it does show some clear damage.

reply to post by liquidself


Thanks for the image, I can't believe that I didn't think to do that. I have paused so many UFO videos and taken screenshots to examine and experiment with but didn't think to do this one.

I can see that there is a lot of damage to the left side and that the teeth are missing there.

The thing that has me the most interested is the lack of information. I can not believe that no one is studying this. Not one single UFO or skeptic group are interested in this? I can't even find a single person debunking it except here on ATS and they simply say that they think it's fake. From what I can find this video has been around for a few years and only one person bothered to post it on youtube? Very odd, very odd indeed.

my biggest issue with this story would be that if it were something so secretive why was it disposed of right there in the dentists trash? i would have to imagine that they would have taken it with them and disposed of it properly. not just say for get about this and than leave it right there.

Originally posted by ChicUFO
I admit I was not too clear there, what I meant to say is that this is the best possible evidence that I have seen. It is not proof of alien life.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. So the tool marks don't bother you? I guess if it was broken and put back together he might have used tools to blend in the repairs, however it probably would have been better if he did as little to it as possible after reconnecting the pieces by attaching them to a wire or something like that.

reply to post by PApro


I've noticed that during the interview the dentist didn't mention any names. He says that the director was there and that he recognized one of the officers but still, no names.

I have just finished going through the first video taking screenshots of the mandible, I have ten shots at different angles. One item that is discouraging is that there are at least two different casts in the video. The doctor does mention having made copies but he did not say that he made changes to any of them.

Does anyone know the photo limitations of ATS? How many screenshots can I post without causing trouble? I'd like to post them all if I can.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


In the video the dentist says that the mandible was dry as a bone. lol.
That would mean that the bone had been cleaned, he also said that it was old. If this is an actual bone then it would have had to have been cleaned at some time. There are two scientific ways to clean bones for, lets say a museum.

The first way is to boil the bones, this will remove all the meat and organic materials but the bones can be damaged. Using utensils while cleaning them would cause the damage.

The second way is by using darmstadt beetles. (flesh eating beetles) The beetles do not damage the bone but they are mainly used to clean the bones of snakes, frogs and other smaller species.

This mandible would have, more than likely, been cleaned in a lab using tools.

OK. Air Force officers brought this in. Check. The mandible is sort of strange. There is some question as to its dentition, but the dental anthropogist that looked at it would "stake her reputation" on the fact that it was an omnivore. Check. The size of the mandible indicates that it belonged to a skull about the same size as a small dog. Check.

What, if anything, indicates that this mandible is from an "alien" other than the fact that Air Force officers brought it in? I say again, did aliens bring their pets with them?"

Pretty slim evidence.

[edit on 7/15/2010 by schuyler]

reply to post by schuyler


I don't think anything indicates that it is alien other than the dentist saying it was. His opinion doesn't prove anything. I have already said that there are two different casts in the first video and I can't tell which cast the museum expert had. The tooth on the cast in the front could never be mistaken for anything but a herbivore by anyone who knows anything about teeth. My opinion about these videos is that they are faked and this is all a bunch of BS. I base this on my analysis of the video since I can not analyze the actual dental impression or impressions.

There are two distinct impressions in the video. One impression is complete and one has an area of the jawbone missing on the left side where it would connect with the skull.

An expert in animal biology says that it is an omnivore but both casts in the video show no evidence of that. I have to ask what she was looking at.

The video claims that the impression was taken from a clean bone but there is evidence (in the video image) of a gum line.

The dentists drawing of his own analysis is shown in the first video and the drawing shows both sides of the original bone as being complete. If the cast were complete, why would there be a broken cast in the video?

.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by seenitall]

Hard to say anything without a better cast.

Doesn't look too unusual to me though. I'm a little bit surprised that she thinks its an omnivore... looks quite vegetarian to me.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by seenitall]

[edit on 16-7-2010 by seenitall]

Dr. Shara Bailey, PhD, is a professor of anthropology at NYU. This is her: anthropology.as.nyu.edu... Her specialty is dental morphology. She has compared this mandible with 2,000 primate mandibles in her collection, and says unequivocally that this is a) not a primate and b) is an omnivore. She's handled the thing and studied it extensively.

And you've decided she doesn't know what she's talking about on the basis of a YouTube video.

I think I'll go with Dr. Bailey here.





[edit on 7/16/2010 by schuyler]

reply to post by schuyler


I think that you are completely missing the point. No one is saying that she doesn't know what she is doing. The mandible in the video has flat teeth, the tooth in the back (Molar) and the tooth in the front (Incisor) are both flat on the top. If she says that the jaw is from an omnivore then I would have to say that the two mandible casts that are in the video are not what she is looking at. If the producers of this show made two mandibles, they could have easily made a third.

This entire report is, as far as I'm concerned based on the video evidence, False!

reply to post by schuyler


Your link is broken, could you fix it please.

I will add that she may have stated that the animal was omnivorous based on the shape and size of the molar but that wouldn't really make sense. I Believe that she would have considered and questioned the tooth in the front before making that statement.

I believe that I will continue to research these videos and maybe even e-mail a few people. I still find the lack of information intriguing.

EDIT:
It's ok about the link, I found a good one with her e-mail address.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by ChicUFO]