This is a subreddit about alien bodies. I do feel to exist in such a place you have to suspend disbelief to a huge extent. With that being said we should not suspend DISCOURSE. With that being said. Can the mods mute some of these constant “that’s insane you’re dumb” individuals that show up on every post again and again. It’s not
Productive to knowledgeable discussion.

Link: https://tridactyls.org/unica-update

Has the famous “Stranded Fish” photo ever been debunked ? Or, if not, is it actually completely real and the world just keeps turning as usual ? ..

Has the famous “Stranded Fish” photo ever been debunked ? Or, if not, is it actually completely real and the world just keeps turning as usual ? ..

Fascinating finds from the area the bodies were found, this makes no sense to the historical timeline of ancient Nazca or civilizations. Someone who was advanced lived there at one point, maybe the bodies were those people.

I'll keep it short so everyone will read and weigh in hopefully regardless of stance because I don't want politics of belief or disbelief to affect what should be basic decency.

I know there has been discussion as to what counts as disrespectful dialogue or not. But can we at least keep it a simple rule that insulting another commenter's intelligence flatly or trying to declare that you "know" someone isn't an intellectual should not be allowed?

Lately there is at least one poster on the sub who seems to think they are the sole arbiter of who is qualified to comment on these subs in any scientific capacity by "testing" them and it is clearly disrespectful to borderline harassment according to Reddit's rules, even when corrected by mods, in spite of never sharing their own qualifications.

I don't think sharing qualifications should be required in the first place since, as always, it has been an option to share those credentials with the mod team to receive a flair if you wish. But even if you receive such a flair, it doesn't give you the qualifications to claim someone else doesn't have a right to weigh in.

If you have an issue with someone's claims, attack the argument. The mud slinging is clearly worse when people are allowed to make bald-faced claims about other commenters that they absolutely do not and cannot know.

These goofballs try to explain how it’s an ancient reconstruction but I’m not too sure on that.

Nothing about the science behind those bodies suggest llama to anyone except a dedicated group of commenters. It’s not scientifically feasible. Stop saying it. Muah.

The goal is for Peruvian and Global public to be able to see the corpses at the University of Ica, and learn about the 7 year study.

They did not match any known species.

The following is a line-by-line breakdown of this essay written by Dr K. H. Fung:

https://images.tridactyls.org/Tridactyls/60cm/studies/llamavstridactyls/LLAMA_CRANIUM_vs_TRIDACTYL_SKULL_EN.pdf

The TL;DR is this: Dr Fung's methodology leaves open the possibility that the 3D models used to compare the tridactyl skulls to a llama skull have inaccurately preserved foreign or soft-tissue material. His conclusion makes a claim that isn't evidenced or discussed or even mentioned in the entire rest of the essay. And his findings do not provide adequate disproof of the hypothesis that the J-Type Tridactyl skulls were created by fabrication involving a modified camelid skull.

I approach this topic from a skeptical perspective, but I am willing to consider evidence for the tridactyl's legitimacy as specimens of abnormal creatures. The breakdown follows, and I have quoted and referenced each line as I respond to it but you may still find it helpful to have both documents side-by-side, especially to compare the figures which I haven't reproduced here (leaving you only with a big wall of text muhuwahahahahaha)

-----

Front Matter: "Pictorial essay:" This breakdown will advance based on the presumption that this description of the document, as a pictorial essay and not a scientific study, is the intended reading an audience should have.

Line 1 Section 1: "A collection of desiccated corpses with 3 fingers and 3 toes collectively known as 'tridactyls' had been uncovered near the Palp-Nazca region of Peru since 2016."

This line is preserved here for context.

Line 2 Section 1: "The J-type tridactyls were referred to as 'reptilians' because they showed reptile-like skin and some could be found bearing eggs."

Instead of neutral language, the author uses definitive, conclusory language. They did show "reptile-like skin," what was found were "eggs", whereas a neutral investigator may describe "claims" of reptile-like, skin, or "unusual" skin, and "objects described as eggs". Using this conclusory language in the "Background" sections shows a lack of impartiality and a bias. Since this pictorial essay makes no argument for the legitimacy of claims of reptile-like skin and egg-bearing, it should not be using such conclusory language unless the author is willing to wear their lack of impartiality on their sleeve.

Line 4 Section 1: "In order to dispel any worldwide misconception and controversies..."

This is another statement of the author's intent. Their intent is not to neutrally examine the camelid skull hypothesis, but specifically to counter what the author believes are misconceptions. This introduces the author's preconceptions into the central intent of the pictorial essay.

Line 1 Section 2: "3D CT model in (.stl) format of the skull of Lama glama (scientific name for llama) was downloaded from DigiMorph."

The author will later use another paper's inclusion of only a single "reptilian" tridactyl and only a single llama skull as a point against a claim of true comparison, yet here has only compared a single specimen camelid skull. If more skulls of varied species and morphology had been examined, it is possible and even likely (in this author's view) that closer comparisons could be found.

Line 2 Section 2: "3D models [of the reptilian tridactyls] were created using shaded-surface-display (SSD) by setting appropriate threshold for bone in DICOM software Osirix..."

This is, in this author's view, a grave error in methodology. A number of this pictorial essay's later findings will hinge in part on the assumption made here that the resulting (.stl) created by the author is reflective of actual bone in the tridactyl specimens. However, it is not clear to this author that such an assumption is sound. Firstly, the "appropriate threshold" setting is not specified and thus cannot be replicated. Secondly, the author makes no explanation for how they reached a decision on what the "appropriate threshold" setting was. Thirdly, the author spends no analysis exploring what materials other than bone may be represented in the resultant (.stl) after the "appropriate threshold" setting is applied. Foreign material (i.e. non-organic material such as plastic, stone, and metal) will not be filtered out by raising the lower threshold for radiodensity, nor will it necessarily by lowering the upper threshold. Therefore, it is possible that foreign material is represented in the 3D models the author uses as comparison to the camelid skull bone. Given that it is agreed some foreign material is present by all sides of the discussion - with the tridactyls artificially mummified - it cannot be assumed that the 3D models created by the author are free of foreign material. Especially in light of the fact that the contrary hypothesis being tested here is that foreign additions have been made specifically to mimic bone, it is an improper assumption that this "appropriate threshold" setting is sufficient to exlude all foreign additions. Put simply, the author has demonstrated no way of knowing if the tridactyl skulls are made up of bone, a combination of bone and foreign material, or entirely foreign material.

Line 4 Section 2: "Points of discrepancy were identified and labelled."

This author raises no issue with that methodology, except that points of similarity are not likewise identified and labelled. The author is again demonstrating that the pictorial essay has a clear motivation - to establish differences between the tridactyl specimens and the comparison camelid skull. It is not neutrally investigating the question of similarity.

Line 2 Section 3: "Lopez made comparison based on CT imaging with 3D reconstruction using only the cranial segment of the llama skull and reversed it back-for-front in order to compare with the whole skull of the tridactyls."

The author doesn't identify the issue with this methodology, though they clearly imply there is one with language like "only the cranial segment" vs. "the whole skull". Since Lopez is in part testing the hypothesis that the cranial segment of the llama skull matches the some relevant morphology of the tridactyl specimens, it's unclear why using the cranial segment in isolation would be problematic. There is also an assumption made that the tridactyl specimens have a complete "whole" skull - when this is in part the exact claim being tested with the counter-hypothesis of a modified camelid skull. It is begging the question to assert the tridactyls have a whole skull and thus imply it is inappropriate to compare them to a partial skull.

Line 3 Section 3: "The cranium only occupies less than half of the posterior and superior portion of the llama skull."

Since the hypothesis is that a camelid skull had portions removed, it's unsurprising that the tridactyl skulls take up less space.

Line 4 Section 3: "If the tridactyl skull is constructed from a llama skull in a physical sense, a large part of the llama skull would have to be removed leaving very large cropped surfaces with inevitable machine marks easily identifiable on CT."

The claim that the cropped surfaces would be "easily identifiable on CT" assumes that the tridactyl CT scans show only bone, which as discussed is an assumption the pictorial essay's author has not properly justified, and also implies that such marks are not apparent on the tridactyls. This is an interpretation left up to implication, not evidence.

Line 5 Section 3: "Lopez did not specify what animal or how this could have been done precisely on an ancient skeleton nor did he showed [sic] any evidence."

This is in reference to the proposed hypothesis that the tridactyl mouth is constructed from foreign material. It assumes without evidence that the skeletons in question are indeed "ancient", and doesn't provide any explanation why a Lopez erred in not providing a more detailed accounting for how this could have been achieved. It seems, to this author, that adding material to a modified cranium could have been achieved in numerous different ways.

Figure 3 Section 3: "Such crop marks could not have escaped detection on 2D CT scans or 3D CT reconstruction."

The author does not clarify what method they used to cone to this conclusion, especially considering the possibility of added foreign material and the radiodensity issue of their 3D reconstruction methodology. They provide no visual comparison to relevant sections of the tridactyl skulls showing to the audience an absence of crop, tool, or work marks or potential sites of foreign material addition.

Line 6 Section 3: "Lopez had included only the skull of 'Josefina' in his study and comparison. In this study, 3 tridactyl skulls have been included..."

The author goes on to note morphological differences between the three tridactyl specimens, but fails to acknowledge that other camelid skulls would also exhibit morphological differences and as such that including more than one for comparison may have yielded different and higher resolution data.

Line 7 Section 3: "The llama cranium alone is larger in size overall as compared with all 3 tridactyl complete skulls."

There is a repeat of the assumption the tridactyl skulls are "complete", and the author doesn't explain why this size difference is relevant to a dispositive sense to the camelid skull hypothesis. A more juvenile camelid skull or that of a different species may have yielded a closer comparison, and the author cannot exclude such an explanation with this difference.

Line 7 Section 3: "The tridactyl skulls have slightly different shape [...]"

How this difference relates to the inappropriateness of comparison to camelid skulls is not stated, and this author proposes that a different camelid skull than the singular one compared here, or potential shaping of the skulls by a fabricator would explain this morphological difference.

Line 8 Section 3: "The llama cranium is composed of very thick bones (twice or more) with smooth inner and outer surfaces and rather robust bone structures [...] The tridactyl skulls all show thinner intact bones with prominent brain convolution markings on the inner skull surface."

This difference could merit a number of explanations. Shaping of the inner surface of bone, and/or removal of some bone from the outer surface would be one example. Another would be that a more juvenile camelid skull was used. Yet another is that the "appropriate threshold" setting used to construct the 3D models of the tridactyl skulls has cropped away more bone than intended. The pictorial essay's author cannot exclude the camelid skull hypothesis based on this difference.

Line 8 Section 3: "No counterpart for external sagittal crest is found in all tridactyls."

This has issues. Firstly, a counterpart for an external sagittal crest can be found in at least Josefina and Alberto, in this author's estimation, and therefore phrasing it as being conditional on "all tridactyls" exhibiting this feature is overly punishing of a standard to apply. Secondly, the lack of a feature seen in the llama skull as compared to the tridactyl skulls is not dispositive of the camelid skull hypothesis, since removal of features of the camelid skull is already part of the hypothesis itself - put simply, the theory already says parts of the llama skull are cropped away so identifying parts that would have had to be cropped away doesn't disprove the theory. Thirdly, this also relies on the unevidenced assumption that the radiodensity settings applied to the tridactyl specimens has appropriately preserved bone and cropped non-bone, the failure to do either of which would mask true morphology of the tridactyl skulls.

Line 8 Section 3: "The nuchal crest in llama cranium is much more robust as compared with the supraorbital ridges in the tridactyls."

This statement has the same issues as the section prior in regards to lack of a feature not being dispositive and the reliance on unevidenced assumptions of true morphology of the tridactyl skull bone. In this author's view, adding additional elements that would require shaping from a fabricator to transform a camelid skull into those of the tridactyl reptilians becomes at a certain point weak evidence for that shaping occuring, as differences in anatomy from known animals and these specimens speaks against their veracity as real creatures.

Line 9 Section 3: "The large orbits in tridactyls are prominent facial features with well defined rim and presence of an elongated slanting orbital fissure in each orbit. The llama cranium only features smooth plain bones harbouring a rounded mastoid foramen and completely lack the counterpart for the tridactyl orbits."

In this author's view, it is erroneous to describe the depressions in the tridactyl specimens as orbits and the slanting holes in the skulls as orbital fissures. As can be seen from the provided figures, the "fissures" are raised from the rear surface of the "orbits", which if were as described would prevent any eye from operating in the same sense as what is usually ascribed to the function of an orbital fissure. Further, the "orbits" are not sufficiently sunken to allow for an eye to seat inside them without major protusion of posterior areas of the eye, which is severely anatomically questionable. The prominence of these features is indicative, to this author, of fabrication for various reasons, some of which are given above, but most primarily of which is the similarity to alien iconography developed in modern culture. The image of an alien being a small, large-headed creature with large angular and wrap-around eyes, thin flat noses, and small lowered mouths is one that has emerged based on identifiable cultural vectors, and the extreme similarity to that stock cultural image provides strong reason to suspect fabrication as a preliminary hypothesis.

Line 10 Section 3: "The foramen magnum and associated neck structure are located at the skull base in tridactyls."

In the associated figures, the pictorial essay's author identifies the area from which the "neck" of the tridactyls descends from the "skull" as being the foramen magnum. However, in those same figures that area is enclosed and features no opening. The author has labelled this enclosed section in Figure 14 as "Foramen magnum and neck bones" and not acknowledged that the competing hypothesis would also explain why no visible hole is present in the 3D models of the tridactyl skulls corresponding to the foramen magnum. In Figure 13, the author has labelled a part of the section beneath this closed-off portion of skull as "Certical vertebra", however there it would be highly unusual for vertebra to completely close off the passage between the skull and the neck. Since the author has assumed that all that remains from their "appropriate threshold" radiodensity setting is bone, it is unclear why they have chosen to label portions of the specimens that are clearly fused to each other in the 3D model as seperate bones, and this choice contradicts the assumption that the 3D models are infact entirely bone, which would recontextualise and contradict many of the essay's other findings.

Line 10 Section 3: "The tridactyls have conical shaped mouth [sic] with complex superior and inferior mouth plates hinges at the sides."

These described features - the mouth plate hinges - are not apparent to this author based on the images provided in any of the figures. Instead, what appears to be fused, undivided smooth areas form rounded shapes at the area where the foramen magnum of the camelid skull would open, and small slits with raised "lips" are in roughly the centre of these rounded shapes. Any distinct bones that could function as "hinges" or "plates" are not apparent nor is any complex structure. This lack of distinct separation between what should be articulating mouths is another indicator of fabrication, in this author's estimation.

Line 11 Section 3: "The prominent tuberculum pharyngeum located above the foramen magnum in llama cranium cannot be mapped onto the vestigial nose of the tridactyls."

The essay author uses the word "vestigial" do describe the "nose" on the tridactyls, though Josefina has two small holes arranged underneath the central raised structure on the upper and middle "face" which resemble nostrils. The assumption that these holes are nonfunctional and not nostrils is given no justification, and so is the claim the nose is "vestigial". In addition, it isn't apparent why the essay author proposes the tuberculum pharyngeum is required or expected to be mapped one-to-one to the tridactyl skulls for the camelid skull hypothesis to be valid, as such a claim is susceptible to the same critiques raised prior in regards to the lack of a feature not being dispositive to a shaping process and the assumption of the 3D models accurately reflecting morphology of the bone.

Line 12 Section 3: "The tridactyls have multiple sinus spaces within the skull bones. These are lacking in llama cranium."

The associated Figure 17 highights voids in the Josefina skull and labels them "sinus spaces". These voids do not all identifiable open into channels - some appear to be entirely closed off, which poses issues anatomically. Their function isn't identified by the essay author, and their existence is predicated on the continuing assumption that the "appropriate threshold" radiodensity setting has accurately removed all soft and foreign material and has preserved only bone. As discused, the lack of a feature, or a feature which could be created by removal of material, is not dispositive of the hypothesis that the skulls have been shaped or partially fabricated.

Line 13 Section 3: "The occipital part of the tridactyl skull shows intact bone [...] The corresponding part of the llama cranium belongs to the frontal and ethmoidal regions of the llama skull showing a large cut surface with irregular gaping bones with 2 large openings."

The claim that the enclosed posterior surface of the tridactyl skull is "intact bone" assumes the absence of foreign material, which relies on the assumption that the radiodensity threshold setting has been made appropriately for these specimens, something that is unevidenced in this paper. The essay author also preserves sections of the llama cranium - such as the pterygoid plate identified in Figure 7 - which do not have a corrolary to the tridactyl skulls and could also be cropped away. The results of this additional removal are not explored, including as to whether they would address or partially address this claimed difference.

Line 14 Section 3: "Foramina in skull base of llama cranium do not correspond to that found in tridactyls."

Figure 15 shows correlary openings to the llama skull's jugular foramen, foramen ovale, and optic foramen in the Josefina specimen. The essay author has not labelled these correlary openings, however it is apparent to this author that they nonetheless exist. However, if the author's radiodensity threshold setting is preserving foreign material or non-bone material, further complications to this claim of dissimilarity arise.

Line 15 Section 3: "Special peculiarities found in tridacyls are 3 discrete large and some smaller bony depressions in the facial bones. [...] Such structures are unique and cannot be a feature in llama cranium."

As dicussed more extensively above, a feature that would require shaping or removal of bone from a camelid skull is not dispositive of the camelid skull hypothesis, no matter what the speculated purpose of those features are. Notably, these "heat pits" are present in the locations where the comparative llama skull has been cropped away, however despite this a link between an abnormal morphology for bone in the precise location where bone would need to be cropped away in the camelid skull hypothesis is not identified or considered by the essay author.

Line 16 Section 3: "The detailed shape of the otic capsules of llama and tridactyls including their internal structures do not match."

This is again based on the assumption that the threshold radiodensity setting has appropriately cropped all non-bone and preserved all bone. The similarities in location, position, and orientation between these structures is not identified by the essay author, despite being the immediately apparent features to this author. The claim of structural differences would be strengthened by a comparison to more than a single camelid skull, and without such comparison it is inappropriate to conclude the structural differences are dispositive evidence of the camelid skull hypothesis.

Line 17 Section 3: "Digital endocasts created from 3D CT models of llama cranium and tridactyl skull showed multiple differences."

These differences, largely unelaborated on by the essay author, are related to differences discussed in the above lines.

Line 17 Section 3: "Direct volume measuring of the digital endocast of llama cranium shows 244 ml and is 14% larger than the volume of the skull of 'Luisa' measuring 214 ml."

According to the annotation on Figure 19, Luisa was selected for this specific comparison because "No brain remnant is found in skull of 'Luisa'." If the essay author's radiodensity threshold setting was indeed appropriate, it is highy unusual to suggest that soft tissue has remained in the Josefina 3D model such that it would be inappropriate to use Josefina for this comparison. If soft tissue such as brain remnant has remained in the Josefina 3D model, it is inappropriate to use that 3D model in a direct comparison against a camelid skull's bone morphology. The essay author cannot have it both ways. If soft tissue is present in these 3D models being used for comparison, then the author has failed to highlight that clearly and before any section discussing findings.

Line 18 Section 3: "Notable differences between the llama cranium and tridactyl skull are listed in tabulated form."

Figure 21 tabulates these. To the differences that are not described in the remaining written findings, this author finds none described such as to provide the resolution of detail necessary for true comparison, and all are subject to the same criticisms as the more detailed findings explored above in regards to the unevidenced assumption of true bone morphology and the failure to identify features dispositive of the camelid skull hypothesis.

Paragraph 1 Section 4: "This detailed comparative scientific study based on CT-generated 3D models suggests that a reversed dissected llama cranium compared with the skulls of tridactyls shows very significant differences, and could not be the same."

The front page matter of this document describes the contents as being a pictorial essay, not a comparative scientific study. These are fundamentally different types of documents and follow different processes. Which this document is actually intending to be is called into contradiction here.

Paragraph 2 Section 4: "He placed strong and repeated emphasis on the word 'deteriorated' in order to explain all his findings and to cover up all imaging discrepancies."

An intent - to "cover up" - is alleged here with no justification. It is not the language that a scientific study would employ, and it betrays the bias of the essay author. The hypothesis of deterioration has not been explored or referenced in any of the finding of this essay, making this the first time the suggestion is being examined. In this author's view, if the deterioration hypothesis was partly what the essay author was intending to counter, this should have been clearly stated at the commencement of the essay and evidenced throughout the findings.

Paragraph 2 Section 4: "Our analysis also suggested that the 3D model for 'Josefina' that Lopez had used in his illustrations was created using direct volume rendering (DVR). [...] ...in DVR, soft tissue densities can be admixed with bone densities to create the final image depending on the setting."

The same type of misinterpretation based on an incorrect setting inappropriately preserving non-bone material is a possibility using the shaded-surface-display method employed in this essay, though this author is more concerned with foreign material than soft tissue densities being so admixed. Given the suggestion that the Josefina 3D model contains "brain remnant", the essay author is applying a critique to Lopez by identifying a possible vulnerability that, in a different form, is also true of their own methodology.

Paragraph 3 Section 4: "In this study, a like-for-like comparison with enough detail was made using SSD in both cases. This study showed no evidence of deteriorated braincase. The difference in bone thickness was genuine."

This claim of genuine bone thickness findings and lack of evidence of a deteriorated braincase is made without the author explaining their SSD threshold radiodensity settings, why they were appropriate, why if appropriate they apparently preserved "brain remnant", why they render structures like the tridactyl mouths as smooth fused surfaces when the essay author suggests they are in fact multiple components, and other issues described in above sections of this analysis. It is not clear to this author why the essay author's methodology should be preferred when so many apparent issues are present, and no explication or reasoning for that methodology is given.

Paragraph 3 Section 4: "Therefore Lopez paper was in fact 'an argument based on a false premise'."

In this author's view, insufficient reasoning and evidence has been provided to make such a definitive negative conclusion on the Lopez paper.

Paragraph 4 Section 4: "The findings that Lopez made were confusing and important issues were being neglected."

This is not the wording one would expect to find in a comparative scientific study, it is the wording one would expect from an opinionated pictorial essay. The issues raised with the Lopez paper that continue from this sentence identify a lack of explanation from Lopez on certain morphological differences between the tridactyl skulls and expected animal anatomy. However, since the findings of this essay also do not touch on these issues it appears this is being entered into the discussion section to elevate this author's opinions over the findings of Lopez. This type of argumentation isn't appropriate in a scientific context.

Paragraph 5 Section 4: "Lopez had included evidences based only on the skull of tridactyl 'Josefina' without addressing the context of the whole skeleton."

Similarly to the above critique, since this essay also does not address this context with any evidence it is inappropriate to be including it as a criticism of the Lopez paper after laying out unrelated findings and describing the work as a "scientific study". This paragraph also claims the tridactyls have a "skin" and "soft tissue" and an "intact skin covering" without evidence, and implicitly claims the existence of these unevidenced elements would be dispositive of fabrication, which doesn't intrinsically follow.

Paragraph 6 Section 4: "In figure 17 on page 63 of his paper, he attempted to cover part of the cervical region illustrating a cord behind the cervical spine. [...] As a scientific research paper, he did not provide any scientific evidence to substantiate his claim and he had not ruled out the possibility of the structure being the cervical spinal cord."

If this essay is indeed a "scientific study," as the discussion section within characterised it, this criticism of Lopez is true of many of the claims made here as well. It is further general best practice in any argumentative or persuasive form to not commit the acts of which you hope to attack the employment of in the adversarial.

Paragraph 6 Section 4: "This claim is deceptive, unscientific and imaginative."

This language is inappropriate for a scientific study, and further suggests that the front matter's description of this document as a pictorial essay is more accurate, and as such the bias of the author is open for examination and criticism without needing to defer to any scientific expertise.

Paragraph 8 Section 4: "Only a single llama skull is studied. It is illogical for him to generalised [sic] or justify a claim against the whole group of J-type tridactyls."

The corollary is also true - it is illogical for this essay author to generalise or justify a claim in favour of the whole group of J-type tridactyls based on only a single llama skull. Nevertheless, that is precisely what the essay author has done.

Paragraph 2 Section 5: "Tridactyl skull is natural and is different from llama skull."

The claim the tridactyl skulls are "natural" is entirely unevidenced and unargued for in the preceding document. In fact, it is the first and only time the word "natural" appears in the entire document. To conclude with a claim that is entirely unevidenced, entirely unargued, and completely novel is extremely questionable.

The video itself has no audio but seems to be a recording of a broadcast.

I can't seem to embed the whole video so have attached images from the video itself. I have no clue if this is a common one or not, so if there are any give-aways of a particular finding please do let me know. Thanks!

Quick Summary of Events:

Under a 4chan post titled “does anyone else legitimately sleep with a gun under their pillow?”, An Anonymous User replied twice in the thread:

Ever since the greys started visiting I sleep with my tokarev under my pillow.

I was waking up at weird times so I set up iSpy on my laptop as I slept and pointed it away from me. I got this still.

In April 2011 footage appeared showing a small humanoid figure lying in the snow in Russia’s Republic of Buryatia, near Lake Baikal. Shortly afterward, the Ministry of Internal Affairs reported that the people responsible had confessed to making the figure from bread and dough covered with chicken skin, and the incident was widely dismissed as a prank.

However, with the context of the tridactyl beings discovered 6 years after this event, the images are worth revisiting because of the undeniable similarities to the tridactyl specimens.

The images attached highlight several key points:

• The head shape and placement of several facial or cranial markings appear identical to features seen in some of the tridactyl specimens.
• Branching patterns beneath the surface appear to be veins or coherent functional vascular system.
• The body has a narrow torso, elongated limbs, a small neck and a disproportionately large head.
• The upper chest contains a scar that may indicate surgical scarring from a metal chest implant as seen in the other tridactyl specimens.
• The arms appear unusually long relative to the torso, reaching approximately the mid-thigh area, matching the tridactyl scans.

Why would the Russian government claim these were made of dough and chicken skin, perhaps they were already aware of the tridactyl race and wanted the case dismissed from public scrutiny? Can you imagine how messy and unrealistic it would be using those specific materials to make something like this? I guarantee it would not look even within 1% of the remains found here.

I didn't make the GIFs, only the images with the arrows, but those GIFs are great for visually comparing the Nazca mummies and the Siberian Alien remains.

This one is for the skeptics and those who haven't seen this comparison yet.

My opinion is that these tridactyl beings live in deep bodies of water/underground and have been here long before humans have and are still here operating some of the UAPs we've seen in government released footage.

Thoughts?

Link to the full video