EXTRATERRESTRIAL MUMMY FOUND IN EGYPT

Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:13 am » by **Noentry**

willease666 wrote:
Noentry wrote:The Allvoices.com link is the only link on the net with that pic, I cant find anyone else with that pic linked to this story.
Could cast that pic into question.
Do you have another link of just the allvoices.com one?

Really?

http://english.pravda.ru/archive/2010-09-16/

Good find
When I go to the source page at the bottom of the article I cant find the story.
Kinda weird if you ask me.
not saying your wrong just pointing out discrepancies.
:flop:

Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:17 am » by **WillEase666**

Fuck it, I give up. Believe what ever you want Noentry.

Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:23 am » by **Noentry**

willease666 wrote:Fuck it, I give up. Believe what ever you want Noentry.

Thanks bro. So in other words what you are telling me is I am

Upload to Disclose.tv

Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:49 am » by **WillEase666**

Noentry wrote:
willease666 wrote:Fuck it, I give up. Believe what ever you want Noentry.

Thanks bro. So in other words what you are telling me is I am

Yes I am.
Be happy, the moderators didn't put this thread in the hoax section.

Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:29 am » by **Noentry**

willease666 wrote:
Noentry wrote:
willease666 wrote:Fuck it, I give up. Believe what ever you want Noentry.

Thanks bro. So in other words what you are telling me is I am

Yes I am.
Be happy, the moderators didn't put this thread in the hoax section.

Why would that bother me?

All you have proven is the pictures being shown on the net for this story are unreliable.
Nothing more.
Some reports of the article show different pics.
But the story itself is still not proven a hoax.

Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:40 am » by **Iwanci**

If we think through the logic here fellas..

1/ There is a story + 2/ Pics coroberating the story are not reliable = 3/ Story unreliable

Why would someone go to the trouble of writing a story and posting fake evidence/proof?

Sorry but me is thinking :bullshit:

on this one... I think the mummy may well be a child with deformities nothing less nothing more.

my two cents at any rate

Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:41 am » by **WillEase666**

Noentry wrote:All you have proven is the pictures being shown on the net for this story are unreliable.
Nothing more.
Some reports of the article show different pics.
But the story itself is still not proven a hoax.

Whatever dude. It's disinformation no matter how you want to slice it.

Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:34 am » by **WillEase666**

Cia212 wrote:
willease666 wrote:I hope this will satisfy the need for proof of a hoax...

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... remodeling

P.S.

Crushed it!

Noentry the nut can't stand the FACT that this was a hoax. How typical... :vomit:

Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:56 pm » by **Noentry**

willease666 wrote:
Cia212 wrote:
willease666 wrote:I hope this will satisfy the need for proof of a hoax...

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... remodeling

P.S.

Crushed it!

Noentry the nut can't stand the FACT that this was a hoax. How typical...

Noentry the nut cant stand the fact?
Will, no skin of my nose.
And what is typical?

We are here to look at the available evidence and make a call.
And from all available photographic evidence it would seem fake.
I have already from the 2nd page mentioned they could be a deformed child.
I have never said this story is 100% real.
I have just investigated the possibly's.

Noentry wrote:
So far this story looks good.
Could be a badly deformed child.
I would like a DNA test done on it.

hydrocephalic child

The earliest mention of this story is in 2003, no pics were released for this story.
The photos have been added later by other news outlets many years after the event. :think:

The article found by Imnottheone :clapper:

Imnottheone wrote:Here's a link that will shed even more light on the subject. Scroll to pp.46-47 and you will find the original article in the Weekly World News

http://books.google.com/books?id=QvMDAA ... ek&f=false

I am just following up a DTV news story, dont bother me either way.
I aint got nothing to prove.

Fist time you ever called me a name directly, a Nut.

Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:18 pm » by **Noentry**

Iwanci wrote:If we think through the logic here fellas..

1/ There is a story + 2/ Pics coroberating the story are not reliable = 3/ Story unreliable

Why would someone go to the trouble of writing a story and posting fake evidence/proof?

Sorry but me is thinking on this one... I think the mummy may well be a child with deformities nothing less nothing more.

my two cents at any rate

Iwanci your two cents is always welcome bro. :flop:

1/ The original story is from 2003.

2/ yes agreed.The original news article had no pics, they were added many years later.

3/ The rest of what we see on the net was put up in 2010 and 2012, agreed the newer articles are very inconstant in their reports.

I think the issue here is this story was realised in 2003.
In 2010 the media picked up the story and sensationalised the original reports, with unrelated photos and broad, unsubstantiated and contrasting descriptions of the original mummy.

If you read the original realise it never gave a physical description, so the physical descriptions have been added later.

The 2010 and the 2012 articles are not the real. And are for all intents and purpose, fakes.
The original 2003 is the only real record of this event and that has not been proven a hoax at all.
:cheers: