Bolt of Lightning as Bolt Crowned World’s Fastest Man

Image — Usain Bolt clocked a season’s best 9.77 seconds in heavy rain at the Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow, Russia, winnong the 2013 100 meter championships, with American Justin Gatlin claiming silver and Nesta Carter of Jamaica taking bronze.

Just as the Fastest Man in History won the title of the World’s Fastest Man in 2013, a bolt of lightning was photographed over the skies of Moscow, where the World Track and Field Championships were held.

It was the second time in 2013 that a lightening strike coincided with the location of a major world event.  Exactly six months earlier, on February 11th, lightening struck St. Peter’s Bascillica at the Vatican – on the day when Pope Benedict became the first Pope in 600 years to resign.

Britain’s The Guardian newspaper called the photo “an image that is almost certain never to be repeated”, the Huffington Post said the photo was “astounding”, and the Washington Post designated it the picture of the day. Irish sports site The Score went further — calling it the “coolest picture of the decade.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Full Moon Baby for Kate and William

William was born on Summer Solstice and the day of a partial solar eclipse.

Kate was born on a total  Lunar Eclipse.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In the Interest of “Disclosure”: the Full Story behind the Atacama Being

The following article has been translated into English through the collaboration of Xavier Bartlett, the Assistant Editor of DOGMACERO magazine, and Mark Grant, an independent Canadian researcher, blogger and  author of  A Tale of Two Synchronicities – Mapping Hidden Event Horizons.

Based on an earlier article written in Spanish, it concerns the full story of the now-famous ‘Atacama Being’, which was showcased in the recent documentary film Sirius.   The original piece was written by David Alvarez, an independent researcher, expert in ufology, and managing editor of DOGMACERO.   It was based on Mr. Alvarez’s interview with Ramón Navia-Osorio Villa (Mr. Navia), who had been working with the ‘Atacama Being’ for several years prior to the release of Sirius.



On April 24, (2013) the documentary Sirius premiered.  It was directed by Amardeep Kaleka (winner of a 2010 Emmy) and inspired by the work of Dr. Steven Greer and the Disclosure Project team. This film was dedicated to revealing the reality that is behind the so-called UFO phenomenon and the possible cover-up by various governments around the world, and especially the government of the United States.

This well-funded work, of excellent manufacture in the purest “Hollywood” sense, documented the work carried out by Dr. Greer and his team to uncover what governments know about alleged contacts with civilizations of non-terrestrial origin.  For years, the Disclosure Project has been working to make the international public aware of the importance of this issue.

However, to be honest, Sirius would have been ‘just another’ (well-structured and well-presented) documentary, among many existing ones, had it not included a really spectacular and unique it which – if the hypotheses insinuated by Dr. Greer were confirmed – could become definitive proof of an extraterrestrial presence on our planet from a long time ago.  The documentary presented, as a world exclusive, the mummified remains of a supposedly extraterrestrial tiny being – “extraterrestrial” I must emphasize, in opinion of the team that carried out the documentary – that was found in the Atacama desert in Chile.

The news spread quickly in social networks and the Internet, and with much controversy.  Supporters and detractors of the origin of “the being” tended to engage in highly unsubstantiated discussions.  As it happens too often in these cases, the authors of various websites copied to each other without even going to the primary sources nor without bothering to explore the abundant existing documentation.

I would like to assume that due to mere “negligence” Dr. Greer presented what he dubbed the “Atacama Humanoid” while only scarcely mentioning the person whose effort, dedication and resources ensured that this specimen did not fall into oblivion or, even worse, become a media show.  Here I refer to Ramón Navia Osorio-Villar, President of the “Instituto de Investigación y Estudios Exobiológicos” (Institute of Research and Exolobiological Studies), with headquarters in Barcelona.  It is not until the minute 26 of the documentary that Greer recognizes that “there is a man that I cannot talk about who runs an institute in another country” who enabled him to access the Atacama specimen.  This man (pictured here) is Ramón Navia.


Those who think this story is new are wrong.  Mr. Navia, who has traveled all around the world searching for evidence of the existence of this phenomenon, has been showing what he calls “Atacama anthropomorphic being”  since 2003 (i.e., ten years ago) to various scientific institutions that could certify that it is a real anomaly. The being has been submitted to several tests (x-rays, CT scans, DNA analysis… ) and studied by various professors of biology, doctors and forensic anthropologists from several universities, who have not been able to fit into currently known classifications.

DogmaCero has interviewed the real protagonist of this story, Mr. Ramón Navia, in an effort to go to the most original source. This is the true story of the “Atacama anthropomorphic being” (hereafter referred to as “the being” or “the specimen”).


“The being of Atacama is not a hoax”

I wanted to interview Ramon Navia-Osorio Villar, whom I have known personally for almost 40 years. Since a few days ago, when I called to talk about the “Atacama humanoid” (although not by that name), discussions of this strange being had garnered much attention in specialized forums, I found the perfect time to do so.

Ramón Navia was a pilot in the Merchant Navy and subsequently served in multinational information technology, then moved on to manage his own business.  He has toured around the world, sometimes for professional reasons while, at other times, for the purpose of investigating cases that related to sightings of the “unidentified”. And the first question, although recurrent, was inevitable.

DogmaCero: How do you see the current landscape of national ufology?

Ramón Navia:  A disaster.  It does not exist. Virtually nothing is going on. It is true that there are many journalists, reporters, popularizers… excellent people to consult if you ask them for information, but there are no field researchers in the field, as we used to know some years ago.

DC: How long have you dedicated yourself to the UFO research, Ramón?

RN: (deep sigh…) I really don’t know, I’ve never counted the time.  This is in my veins.  When I was a child, while my friends were reading “El guerrero del antifaz” or “Roberto Alcazar y Pedrín” [Spanish publications for young people] I enjoyed reading “Flash Gordon”: spaceships, inhabitants of other planets, distant stars… I remember, back in 1960, I was struck by one of the first cases that I could read in the press, which took place in Bahía Blanca (Argentina), in which an unidentified object was detected by the Argentine Navy in the interior of Bahia Blanca.  With the help of the U.S. Navy, they cordoned off the area and blocked any possible escape.  But then, completely inexplicably, that object disappeared.  I admit that this case became a turning point for me, but some time before I had already been interested in these cases.  I remember one of the first books I read was “Incident at Exeter” by Frank Edwards which is the first of thousands of books and documents I have read on Ufology and related topics.

DC: And how did the idea arise of creating the “Instituto de Investigación y Estudios Exobiológicos”? (Hereafter ‘II.EE.’)

RN: I belonged to the CEI (“Centro de Estudios Interplanetarios” – Center for Interplanetary Studies) where I was a field researcher.  In those times the president of this organization was Mr. Casas Huguet and the headquarters were on Balmes Street, in Barcelona (Spain).  I told the General Secretary that we needed to get a telephone line so that potential witnesses of sightings and other people with whom I interviewed could communicate with us because many people asked us for a contact telephone.  The team who managed the CEI didn’t agree and this was the trigger (along with differences about how to approach the study of the unidentified) for starting a path on our own, along with Alberto Vallès, and creating the II.EE.

DC: Why “exobiological“?

RN: Because in the society in which we live, the name is very important.  This was not “flying saucers”, which had already begun to be very discredited.  A wrong name can lead to failure.  Talking about “flying saucers”, of “gargoyles”, “chupacabras”… can give a wrong idea of the type of studies and one’s thoroughness or professionalism.  So we decided to give it the name of “exobiological”, although at that time people asked us for its meaning because no one knew it.

DC: And then you started the UFO research…

RN: Oh no!  It was much more complicated.  We wanted to do the things well, so we commissioned the design of a logo, then registered it, wrote statutes, organized all the material we had… And then a long journey began, full of bureaucratic barriers.  Finally, the official who handled our file one day told us that he had written a book that explained all that had to be done to establish and legalize societies.  He said: “If you read it and you do it as I say, you will be legalized”.  And so we did.  After some time, we presented all the documentation and it was accepted, but a last formality was missing: a technical report from the academic field so that the application for legalization could be processed as “Research Institute”.  So the entire dossier was referred to the Faculty of Biology of the University of Barcelona.

DC: When did all this happen?

RN: In1974, but, of course, the procedures were very long.  In fact, the first procedures started in 1970.

DC: And what was the attitude of the academic world?

RN. Well, we were lucky in this case.  I remember that we had an interview with Dr. Ramón Parés Farrás, a professor at the University of Barcelona who, to our surprise, was aware of the UFO phenomenon and immediately gave support to our initiative.  Interestingly, that was the beginning of our personal friendship and, in fact, he still collaborates with the II. EE. in the case of the “being of Atacama” .

DC: An incredible case.

RN. Yes, but totally real, I assure you. A case that we almost found by chance.

DC: By chance?

RN. All our research has been focused on UFOs and “on-the-ground-ufology”. When visiting various places, we have found topics that are connected to the UFO phenomenon.  I mean, the phenomenon is not only about sightings or encounters; it includes many disciplines that have a certain relationship, although perhaps not an apparent relationship, to the UFO phenomenon.

On one occasion, when we were in the desert of Atacama, in Chile, a Quaker told us he had discovered a sort of very small, extremely curious mummified skeleton.  When we saw it for the first time it impressed us very much, as it looked a lot like the humanoids identified in ufology as “the greys”.  But it was much smaller, it had a bulging skull, very long arms, almond-shaped eyes… in summary, a few characteristics that matched the general descriptions made by some witnesses of a certain type of alien.

DC: But the reason for the trip to Chile was the investigation of some cases of sightings reported in Atacama area, wasn’t it?

RN: Yes, it was.  The reason for our expeditions on the ground is always UFO research.  On this trip I was accompanied by Raúl Núñez, our delegate in Chile.  While we were there, we found out about someone had discovered the “being”. Ricardo Clotet, a local businessman of Catalonian origin, showed me some pictures that left me astonished, and later he showed it to me physically. Apparently, Mr. Clotet had bought it from a Quaker called Oscar Muñoz, who had found the specimen in a landfill at La Noria. To be most accurate: Oscar Muñoz found it, and Ricardo Clotet’s brother bought it. Then, the first thing he did was to offer it to a Chilean television station. When they presented it to me and told me the story, I saw clearly that if the Atacama being was featured on television, a media circus could follow and ultimately, the specimen might be damaged and, even worse, lost forever. My interest was not about collecting nor business at all.  On the contrary, this whole affair has had a cost for the Institute and for me personally, and is still costing us lots of money, without any commercial interest of our own.  Our interest is totally scientific, so that this issue could be known and investigated.

For the morphology of the being, I immediately realized that it was something very important that should be investigated, protecting it from any kind of show or from a collector who would keep it in a display cabinet.

DC: And then you bring it to Spain…

RN: No, no. And not for lack of will. We wanted it to enter our country by the front door,  with full transparency, so that it could be investigated by scientific and academic institutions, as it deserved.

DC: And what happened then?

RN: While we were still in Chile, Raúl Núñez showed the being to a Bolivian doctor, Dr. Raúl Artesana Sanabria, who made a first examination of the being in order to dismiss a possible hoax.  After his analysis, Dr. Artesana concluded that it was a physical, real being, and not a fraud.  Nevertheless, we told Mr. Clotet that we wanted to examine the specimen at the Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts, in Barcelona.  Mr Clotet finally presented it at the headquarters of the Royal Academy.  The first goal was to confirm the authenticity of the “being”.  And so it was examined by Dr. Ramón Parés, a microbiologist, Dr. Jacinto Nadal, Professor of the Faculty of Biology of Barcelona and Dr. Antonio Tejedo, Professor of Anatomy at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona.

DC: What was the conclusion?

RN. After confirming that the composition of the specimen was organic (not artificial or man-made), they pointed out the need for an in-depth study that would facilitate its classification, and Dr. Nadal, according to its constitution, was the first to call it “anthropomorphic being”.  This was the first contact aimed to validate the authenticity of the being and to deliver it to the II. EE. Moreover, they gave us some guidelines for the conservation of the mummy, as the environmental conditions in Barcelona are very different from the area of origin, Atacama, which is very dry and rich in nitrate.

DC: And from this moment, you started a long journey of trials and tests to find out the true nature of the being, is it so?

RN: Indeed, the being was examined by several biologists and physicians, and I noticed, with sadness, that in private they admitted certain things, but in public they said different things.  One of them told me that he would not certify his opinion because “I am paying a mortgage”.  And on another occasion I was told that it was a really weird specimen, which could not be classified within any currently known scientific types… However, the same man said in public that it was a fetus.

DC: What Institutions have examined the “being”?

RN: In the book I published at the end of 2011, “El ser antropomórfico de Atacama”, you can see the different analyses that have been conducted by different laboratories, Faculties of Biology, etc.  For example, at the University of Madrid, without going into further considerations and almost without examining it, we were told that it was a fetus, despite the fact that the skeleton is perfectly formed, its tips are fully developed, and even it has calluses on the soles of the feet. This being walked!  This fact was confirmed at the same University; however, later, when I asked them to confirm this in a written document, they refused and reaffirmed the conclusion that it was a fetus, the same thing that Dr. Tichy of the University of Salzburg told me.

DC:So, was the being also analyzed by the University of Salzburg?

RN: Yes, but previously in Berlin.  In 2005, Mr. Klaus Dona organized an exhibition in Berlin, Unsolved Mysteries (about strange objects with a difficult explanation), and we could present there the finding through his mediation.  I want to emphasize that we had no economic interest for this exposure, only asking in return that the being could be submitted for analysis in order to determine the specimen’s nature and origin.  Mr. Dona had invited two scientists from the University of Salzburg to the event to obtain a sample of DNA from the being.  When they attempted to do this, they realized that the skeleton was fragile and brittle and then decided to move it to the University of Salzburg, where they had better facilities.  Interestingly, Mrs. Cristina Aldea, in the absence of Klaus Dona, was provided to translate and was present at these meetings.  Mrs. Aldea asked me permission to photograph the Atacama being, and I accepted on the condition that the photos would not be shared nor used in advertising.  So, imagine my surprise when, soon after, we saw these photographs presented at a Conference that took place in San Marino in 2006!  Finally, the specimen was analyzed at the University of Salzburg, by the same team that had analyzed the DNA of Mozart.

DC: And they performed the DNA analysis…

RN: We provided them with several x-rays (which we had obtained in Barcelona, at the Center of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging of Dr. García Espuche), although we lost some of them.  In these x-rays we could see that the “being” had a crack in the shoulder and another in the right ear pavilion, which was probably the cause of death.  In other words, this “being” was killed by a blow.  And this rules out the hypothesis that it’s a fetus: this “being” lived between 6 and 8 years as the investigators at Stanford University later concurred in the Sirius documentary.  The specimen walked, according to the callosities observed in the soles of its feet, and it died in a traumatic way.  But finally, the University of Salzburg concluded that it was a fetus…

DC: And back to Spain, did you conduct new tests?

RN: Yes, but then our research branched out into new disciplines.  We thought it was necessary to study the environment in which the “being” had been found, from a historical and anthropological point of view. So we got in touch with the anthropologist of the University of Tarapacá (Chile), Bernardo Arriaza Torres, a specialist in the Chinchorro culture and connoisseur of the Andean peoples. The first meeting took place one night in Arica, and after a cursory review of the specimen he told us that it was a fetus with some type of malformation. The next day he went back to find us at the Archaeological Museum of San Miguel de Azapa, and it was there where he recommended us to present the “being” to a Congress of Mummies which would be held in Lanzarote (Canary Islands, Spain) in February 2007. He told he would give us his support, as he thought that our arguments against the hypothesis of the fetus deserved to be considered.

DC: And what was the welcome that you received?

RN: We talked to the organizers of the event and we were told that, provided that we didn’t make any promotion of the being in the media, we would be allowed to present a paper at the end of the Congress.  We then followed the instructions of the organizers in terms of registration and other matters, but we were shocked when we arrived at the headquarters of the Congress, at the scheduled time, and found out that the hall where we were supposed to make our presentation was closed!

DC: What?

RN. Unbelievable, isn’t it? Despite this, we insisted and presented the mummy of the “being” to the participants who were in the hotel. We were really surprised as, without an analysis nor an in-depth examination and in a poorly lit room, everyone stated that it was a fetus.  In this Conference we met Francisco Etxebarria Gabilondo, forensic anthropologist and Professor of Legal Medicine at the University of the Basque Country.  He was convinced that the specimen was a fetus and promised to give us a written opinion.  Well, in that report he stated that the “being” had an umbilical cord, when in fact this is impossible because the umbilical cord is undone by its very nature shortly after birth.  What was hanging was not the umbilical cord, but a part of the gut.  He also stated that it was a male when, later, an analysis by the University of Granada concluded that it was female.

DC: So, did the University of Granada also examine it?

RN: Yes. It was at this Congress of Lanzarote where we were recommended to do a DNA analysis of the “being”.  Dr. Miguel Cecilio Botella, Professor of Physical Anthropology at the University of Granada, whom we met in that event, offered us the possibility of carrying out the DNA analysis.  So, after a few days, we went to the University of Granada.  There were many people from all departments who were interested in the “being”.  I remember that the old Dean told us: “Be patient because science is very reluctant to admit new things”.  The same person who analyzed the DNA of Christopher Columbus analyzed the DNA of “the being”.  After a few months, Dr. Juan Carlos Álvarez told us that it was a female mummy corresponding to the Amerindian race, and several other things of less significance that I am not at all in agreement with because the “being” has nothing to do with Amerindians: 13 cm, with a crest, the length of the limbs, the size of the watershed of the eyes…

DC: You said that, along with these studies, you started a line of research that provided information about the environment in which the specimen lived, right?

RN: We came into contact with a Colombian researcher, Gilda Mora, who opened my eyes by telling me that he had news of these beings, which had existed at the time of the Spanish conquest of New Spain and that, even today, there are references of them at a place that is very difficult to access called “El cerro de los enanos” (The Hill of the Dwarves), in Colombia.  These stories speak about a civilization of tiny beings, about 35-40 inches, who live high in the mountains.  And that fits with the mummy of the specimen we have, because it’s a young being, measuring just 14 centimeters.  And we also know that skeletons shrink a little through the process of mummification.

DC: But science is settled on the hypothesis of the fetus.

RN: Unfortunately, it is so, at least in public.  On one occasion Dr. Parés told me that if we obtained a second being, then there would be no doubt, and science would have to reconsider the hypothesis that this was a single fetus.  So in 2008 we organized a second expedition, but this time not to document possible UFO cases but for the purpose of finding a second “being” that would confirm that we were facing a challenge which we had to study in depth. Certain information led us to Pachica in the Atacama desert, a place far from where Oscar Muñoz found the first mummy.  Pachica is a small village of modest houses and friendly inhabitants.  They led us to the place where, as we were told, they had found another very similar corpse in a vessel, in the way the gentiles used to be buried.

DC: Who are these gentiles?

RN: When we documented the geographical environment in which “the being” should be located, we came across the testimonies of the oral traditions of the Aymara ethnic.  We have talked with leaders of the Aymara people who have no doubt that these beings exist and are part of the so-called “pueblo gentil” who lived with the Aymaras.  They lived separately but existed and were respected. This people inhabited the area that is currently in the South of Peru, Bolivia and northern Argentina and Chile.  Apparently, with the arrival of the Spaniards, many of them were killed and the survivors looked for shelter in the mountains.

DC: And could you find some trace of these beings?

RN: Unfortunately not, although I have the feeling that we were close. In 2005 there was an earthquake in the area of Tarapacá.  We expected to find a burial site in the mountains, where a landslide had occurred, but despite our efforts, we could not find any tomb. We talked to an Aymara leader, Alejandro Capetillo, a chemical engineer by profession, who told us about the existence of some terraces where these beings grow maize.  We also talked to an Aymara Indian who referred us to another place inhabited by those beings, but it was very difficult to access.  Unfortunately, we had to take our flight back to Spain and didn’t have enough time to get there.  That was a pity because I am convinced that with a little more time we would have been able to locate a mummy of another one of these “beings”. It remains a pending issue.

DC: What role plays Dr. Steven Greer in this affair?

RN: The first time I talked to Dr. Greer was in Sitges (a town near Barcelona), as a result of the Congress of EXOPOLITICS, in summer of 2007.  I invited him to visit the center of the II.EE. and it was there where I showed him the Atacama anthropomorphic being.  His reaction after his first observation was to tell me that it was not human.  And he is a doctor!  He didn’t come back to see us again until September 2012, when he flew from United States to Barcelona to examine again “the being” and film it.  Some weeks earlier we had had a long telephone conversation, mediated by a South American lawyer as translator.  The feeling I had was that Dr. Greer intended to document an article, but I didn’t think that he would come back to Barcelona, as he had shown little interest since 2007, when he first saw the “being”.  Finally, at the end of summer 2012, he returned with Dr. Bravo and his team.  Then we went to a Radiology Center to make x-rays and CT scans, and extract DNA from the specimen.

DC: And from those elements, Dr. Greer and his team produced the documentary of Sirius Disclosure, is it so?

RN: Exactly.

DC: And with the perspective that you’ve gained from this experience and the long way done, what is your opinion about the nature and origin of the “being”?

RN: I believe that we have something very important here. And those who have carried out analyses and studies from different scientific sectors know this, but they are afraid to confess it publicly.  I am really surprised that there is no further interest by the academic establishment in initiating an in-depth investigation.  It’s like something that frightens them.  We try to be very careful, avoid advertising and proselytizing of any kind.  We are focused on our issue: the research of the UFO phenomenon wherever it may be.  It has been very recently, as a result of the documentary by Dr. Greer, that this matter has gained significant relevance.  And what I regret most is the fact he has labelled that “being” when we actually still don’t know for sure its nature.  Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to dub it “the Atacama anthropomorphic being”?  Because ultimately, so far we just know that it is a being of human appearance found in the Atacama desert.

DC: But don’t you think that it really may be a humanoid, as Dr. Greer describes it?

RN: What I think is one thing and what I can say with certainty is something else.  I think that, with the evidence we have and the experiences that I have been able to get from my contacts in my various trips to the area, we could indeed be dealing with a specimen of a race that came to Earth in ancient times.  We do not know what could have happened, but for unknown reasons they may have been caught without the possibility of return and took refuge in the Andes (maybe because the weather and pressure conditions resemble their place of origin) where they reproduced and formed a type of highly discreet social organization. Interestingly, these beings – according to the references that we have obtained both in Chile and Colombia– are nocturnal. That is what I believe.  What I can say is that the being is real, of an organic nature and an anthropomorphic appearance that does not fit any known human type.  And we have a long way to go in terms of research.

© David Alvarez 2013 – David Alvarez is an independent researcher, expert in ufology, and managing editor of DOGMACERO, a digital magazine focused on exploring alternative views in History, Science and Society.  The original article in Spanish was published in the 3rd Edition (May-June 2013) of the digital publication DOGMACERO:


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dr. Steven Greer responds to initial media reaction of the ‘Atacama being’

In this video Dr. Steven Greer comments on the little being featured in his recent movie, Sirius.  Greer is one of the leading voices in the ‘Disclosure Movement’, which alleges that the governments of the world are aware of aliens and UFOs and need to tell the public about what they know.

This video sounds like a direct response to the media’s initial reaction to the ‘Atacama’ being, which dismissed it as being a human fetus or dwarf.  Both of these claims are clearly refuted by two men at Stanford in this video.  The being may not be alien, but it if is human, it may have less in common with normal humans than do Chimpanzees (our closest relatives here on Earth).

ImageIn this video Greer speaks with a PhD from Stanford, who in turn quotes a Stanford professor who is apparently regarded as one of the world’s leading authorities on bone anomalies. What follows is a summary of key points in the video.  You can click on the image  to see the video.

Garry Nolan PhD Stan school medicine – featured throughout the video.
Ralph Lachman – Stanford Professor – World’s leading expert in bone displaisurs (anomalies) – Co-founder and co-director of the International Skeletal Dysplasia Registry at Cedars-Sinai author of the textbook, Radiology Of Syndromes, Metabolic Disorders And Skeletal Dysplasias.

Summary of Lachman’s findings as presented in the video – see Letter to Nolan below:

If this is human, it has a constellation of evolutionary mutations that have not been seen before.  Of all the unique characteristics visually present in the specimen, none are coupled with known symptoms bone-related anomalies.

The Atacama being is clearly not fetal.  Growth plates at joints in legs are consistent with 6-8 year old being.  Definitely not a dwarf.

If this is human, we seem to be looking at a six inch human that lived for six to eight years with a vast array of unique genetic mutations.  It seems to have survived under extreme conditions in a desert in northern Chile.  Estimated by various sources to be several hundred years old.

Nine percent of genetic material is unmatched to humans – a 91% match.  We are 99.5% the same as Neanderthals, and 96-97 the same as Chimpanzee, our closest relatives.  This was checked on a computerized run three times at Stanford.

This amounts to 2 million base pairs of genetic material that needs to be reviewed. The remaining mystery points in three directions, according to Greer.  The 9 percent difference could be due to computer error, could be junk DNA, or it could point to genetic information that accounts for this beings differences to normal humans.

Follow up:  Greer says that similar beings have been found in Chile and Puerto Rico as well as a seemingly slightly older one in Russia.  If these beings turn out to be very similar or have about the same genetic differential as the Atacama, it becomes more likely that they of the same group of beings.


Letter from Lachman to Nolan

Dear Dr. Nolan,

Thank you very much for the opportunity to examine the radiographic images of this specimen.

I have examined in the course of my career many skeletal and other pediatric bone anomalies and dysmorphias. This specimen does not fall under any known, to me, class of disorders or syndromes. As I told you during our last meeting (when I formally went over the images in preparation for the formal report) — there is no known form of dwarfism that accounts for the anomalies seen in this specimen. Most interestingly, based on knee epiphyseal standards, the specimen appears to be 6-8 years old. While there remains a possibility this latter result is due to some form of unknown progeria (rapid aging syndrome), in my opinion this is a low probability.

In many respects the proportions of the limbs and extremities are normal. The major abnormalities appear to be (1) the size of the specimen, which is not in accordance with an apparent age of 6-8 years, (2) mid-face hypoplasia (underdevelopment of the jaw), and that the specimen has only 10 ribs (humans normally have 12).

I look forward to your genetic analyses of the specimen. I have listed for you at the end of the report a number of mutations of which I am aware that are known to affect the skeletal regions that show mutations in the specimen. While none of those mutations are known to cause the anomalies observed, they are provided as reference points in your continued examination of the specimen.

Good luck with your work on this.

Best, Ralph Lachman

Post Script:  Nolan’s statement one minute into the video: “It’s actually interesting, I have not had a person who I have shown the thing to that has not been absolutely fascinated.  But it’s only when you want to talk about it slightly openly that suddenly everybody shuts down.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Harvard Neuroscientist claims he visited Heaven during a one-week Coma – Dr. Eben Alexander, a Harvard neurosurgeon, nearly died four years ago when a ferocious E. coli meningitis infection attacked his brain and plunged him deep into a week-long coma. Brain scans showed his entire cortex — the parts of the brain that give us consciousness, thought, memory and understanding — was not functioning. Doctors gave him little chance to live and told his family that if he did survive he’d probably be brain-damaged for the rest of his life.

…Against all odds, Alexander woke up a week after being stricken…. Deep in coma, his brain infected so badly only the most primitive parts were working, Alexander claimed he experienced something extraordinary: a journey to Heaven.

“In every sense, of the word that’s what my experience showed me,” Alexander said…”I know this is not a hallucination, not a dream, not what we call a confabulation,” Alexander said. “I know that it really occurred, and it occurred outside of my brain.”

Here’s a short video.  The link above leads to a lengthier article and video.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Mind-Matter Interaction Research – Princeton University

Researchers at one of the USA’s more prestigious universities have presented evidence suggesting that observers can bend certain outcomes that would otherwise be random.

Since the studies were conducted by researchers at Princeton University, one might think that the results are worthy of serious consideration. However, mainstream academia has thus far refused to peer review the findings.

Video | Posted on by | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Tebow’s 316s – Choreography, Chance, Or…? – In the course of my investigation into macronicity, I have found lots of evidence that this phenomenon occurs in the world of sports, where unusual episodes or key plays often display evidence of intelligent design.

On that note, I would like to invite the reader to watch this ten-second video before we proceed.  It marks the start of a recent and very memorable American National Football League game.  It is an intriguing part of the picture I am about to describe that was overlooked by a blown away American media.   One might even think of it as a sneak preview of things to come.

And here’s what followed….

The game I refer to was played in early 2012,  before tens of millions of Americans who watched the first round of the National Football League playoffs.  On that day the Denver Broncos played the Pittsburgh Steelers.  The game ended on the first play of overtime. That was when Denver’s quarterback, Tim Tebow, threw a pass to Denaryius Thomas, who ran it all the way into Pittsburgh’s end-zone, for a game ending, game-winning touchdown.  Here’s a video clip of this play, which made headlines around the USA.

A sensational ending, indeed.  But at this point we see no hint of anything especially unusual.   That appeared in the game’s final statistics, which is why this story captured the American public’s imagination.  With that game-winning pass, Tebow finished the game having thrown for exactly 316 yards. He did so with 10 completed passes, for an average of 31.6 yards per throw.

These numbers were striking to many American football fans because, while playing in college at the University of Florida, Tim Tebow, a devout Christian, made nationImageal headlines for wearing John 3:16 on his face during games.  For the record, John 3:16 reads as follows:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

It was Tebow’s connection to John 3:16 which made this cluster especially intriguing.  Given the reputation he acquired nationally during his university years, it is not a stretch to say that Tim Tebow was somewhat synonymous with ‘John 3:16′.  (Any Google search of the two terms in association should quickly confirm this.) So, to some, it seemed as if the Denver – Pittsburgh game was choreographed, at least in part, to play up the ‘John 3;16′ reference, which was so strongly related to Tim Tebow.   And there is other evidence to suggest that this interpretation was further encouraged.

The Denver – Pittsburgh game was seen by the largest ‘wildcard’ playoff game in 24 years.  At the time of the stunning conclusion, the audience share was exactly 31.6.

During the game, there was only one interception (which is when the other team catches an errant pass).  That ball was thrown by the Pittsburgh quarterback, which began when the Steelers were in a ‘3rd and 16‘ situation.

And, by game’s end, the Steeler’s had held possession of the ball for exactly 31.06, thirty one minutes and six seconds. See the stats sheet here.

Tebow  wore his famous John 3:16 moniker on his face (pictured above) when he won his second straight national championship, in a game played exactly three years before the Denver – Pittsburgh contest – to the day.

These correlations are both relevant to Tebow and highly improbable.  Those who suggest otherwise would be hard-pressed to find other NFL games that prominently display so many ‘316’ clusters.  So, unless one is completely closed to such suggestions, it may very well seem reasonable  that aspects of this game were designed to reference John 3:16… and perhaps Jesus, since he is the ‘Son’ referred to in this well known biblical phrase.

And speaking of Jesus, the player that Tebow passed to on that final play, was Demaryius Thomas, born on Christmas.

At this point a straight-up question can be asked.  Can we say ‘for sure’ that this epic game-ending play was choreographed and timed to unfold as it did by Jesus or God’s angels?  This writer think that’s  plausible, but that we cannot say this is true ‘for sure’.  If this game was actually was designed by some higher force or forces, we still really have no way of knowing who that might have been.

But we can know certain things.  Such as,  the next day ‘John 3:16′ became the most searched term on Google.  Likewise, certain conclusions  based on the evidence seem reasonable, if not inevitable, (if these associations were designed):

We are considering the handiwork of an agent who has the ability to determine total and average passing yards  (316 total yards, 31.6 average).  This agent has the ability to determine audience viewing share to an accuracy of at least one tenth of one percent (31.6).  The agent has the ability to time two football games in order to create a desired association (the 3-year anniversary of Tebow’s MVP performance in the college national championship game).  The designer(s) has the ability to determine who receives a particular pass (Thomas), the time of possession to within one second of accuracy (31:06, Pittsburgh) and the starting point of a choreographed interception (3rd and 16).

Since these things defy human expectation, known laws of cause and effect and because they are based on rock solid evidence, one can reasonably entertain the suggestion that a kind of ‘supernatural’ event took place before a very large television audience on January 8, 2012.  To say this might be supernatural is not necessarily hyperbole for another reason:  We are describing a setting where human beings compete (rather than cooperate) in producing particular outcomes.   Is there an agent that is capable of imposing its own agenda in such settings?  Perhaps some sort of other causal principle, other than chance,  is in play here.  As the examples add up, however, it seems less necessary to assume that these kinds of events ‘must’ be due to chance.

Interestingly, during the game a cloud formation resembling a halo formed over Denver Stadium, as shown here and reported by the Huffington Post.  Of course these things happen sometimes by natural causes.  But that doesn’t mean we should assume that all natural causes are random, especially when talking about synchronicity, which often is regarded as supernatural occurrences that appear as normal events.  And those who come to that conclusion often do so based on an event’s perceived improbability.   And so the better question to ask is this:  How often do clouds like this appear over football stadiums during games?


According the the Huffington Post article: “Mark Neuman-Lee, an attendee of the Steelers/Broncos game and photographer of the “Mile High Halo,” tells HuffPost he’d never seen the ring prior to yesterday’s NFL upset. Two season pass ticket-holders also told HuffPost the halo seems to be an anomaly.”

That being said, it would appear as if the ‘Halo’ came to be for a mundane reason.  One poster noted that it was almost certainly due to fireworks, which go off at Denver Stadium every time the Broncos score a touchdown.  Someone in the same discussion says that air conditions have to be quite ideal to generate an image like the one above, but that this can certainly happen.

It’s nice that we can discuss agreed upon facts.  As ‘contemporary mysticism’ macronicity offers a number of advantages over its ancient counterpart.  Nothing is lost in translation.  The evidence is direct, its existence is not open to debate.  I think that many of us would agree that if this account were written in the New Testament, many people would conclude that it had to be a work of fiction, concocted in order to attract followers, since the correlations are so unlikely and  ‘to the point’ of Christianity.  This kind of explanation never applies when it comes to public events like this, since they occur in the present.

Of course, it could be that the results were due to luck.   We should always be mindful of this.  But  the chance explanation may seem even less likely when one sees how this game fits into a larger picture of other NFL games where other strange things occurred, or where there were ‘key’ plays that exhibited comparable design.  This is what I refer to as ‘relational design’ and I go into the wider NFL discussion in my book.

Understanding ‘relational design’ is very much like considering an entire evening at a card game table.  Say that in the course of an evening an unusual number of very unlikely hands show up in the course of a poker game.  Not only does this occur, but when one views the hands from another angle,  the strange hands turned out to be the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 11th, 13th, 19th, 23rd, and 29th ones, of 35 total hands.  These are all prime numbers.  The fact that the hands would occur on prime numbers only is so improbable that it suggests those hands were meant to be viewed as a set.  Say that the very unusual hands came up at the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 16th and 32nd hands.  This produces a doubling sequence, adding another layer of improbability which is in turn correlated to each improbable event, connecting them, so to speak.  This ‘other’ layer is relational design.

On this blog I present other examples where relational design is seen to occur in relation to anomalous or macrosycned events associated with  911, the deaths of some famous US presidents, one of the biggest sporting events in US history, and the recent papal succession.   And in the course of my research I have found that anomalies and events that contain evidence of intervention display relational design surprisingly often.

This was most certainly the case in the example we are considering in this post – that final play of the Denver – Pittsburgh NFL game.  When I first looked in to this game I happened to find a very curious video, concerning an event that took place on the first play of the same game.

Denver’s kicker, Matt Prater kicked off.  The ball sailed around 70 yards and hit the uprights, then bounced back and landed on the 20 yard line.  That would be exactly where the ball would have been placed anyway.

To those who don’t know the game of American football, the situation is like this.  Imagine a professional kicker being charged with the following task.  Place a rugby ball upright on a prop, on a soccer field, halfway between one goal and the centre line of the field.  Then boot the ball all the way down the field towards the other goal, so that the ball hits the crossbar AND bounces back so that it settles on exactly the 18 yard line (where the outer boundary of the goalie’s box is).

This is equivalent to what Matt Prater did at the very start of that sensational Denver Pittsburgh game.  It was the kind of thing that very few of the most hardcore football fans would see in a dozen lifetimes of watching games every weekend.  Yet it  just happened to start at the front end of a game that ended so improbably that America took notice.

Not only was where the ball landed relevant to the game of football, (in having landed on the very line where the next play would begin),  the same location was also relevant to that extraordinary final play, since that final pass by Tebow came on a play that also began on the 20 yard-line.

So, was Matt Prater’s kick a sneak preview of things to come? It’s an interesting question, given how extraordinarily improbable both of these plays were.  Don’t they say that hindsight is 20-20?

One last time, here’s the video  of Matt Prater’s kickoff.  And here’s the other clip one more time, from the play that ended the game.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment