|Recently, a woman in
Australia woke up one morning to find a mysterious cross-shaped
wound scratched into her skin. After further investigation, she
realized that something had left smudgy fingerprints all over her bedroom
Like all rational human beings, she
immediately contacted a UFOlogist, Barry
Taylor. We could say that this is "getting some
answers" as much as throwing gasoline on a fire is putting it out.
But we won't.
Here is an image of a set of
fingerprints, followed by Mr. Taylor's description:
are FOUR  ‘Digits’ in this print. They are long, slim and
delicate in nature when you compare their length in relation to their
width. But overall, the prints are still small compared to a Human hand
print. There is a broader ‘joint pad’ at the bottom, and a narrower
upper ‘joint pad’, tapering to a point. One strange thing associated
with all five  sets of prints, is that there is no print of the
‘hand’ or ‘main pad’ that the ‘digits’ are attached to, just
the extended ‘digit’ print.
Notice the broad spacing between the base of the ‘digits’, indicating
a much broader ‘hand’ or ‘pad’ than would be expected, in relation
to the long narrow ‘digits’.
Mr. Taylor's first question is this:
WHAT MADE THESE PRINTS?
Good question. I think I can
answer it: a human being.
Next, Mr. Taylor makes an erroneous
Two D.N.A. swabs were taken, showing NO
Human D.N.A. present. So they are not Human prints.
That's really not a good deductive
argument. Not all human fingerprints have DNA on, in or near them.
If there were no DNA on these prints, it is not evidence that they are not
human. None of the research I've done on fingerprints (which,
admittedly, isn't much) mentioned anything about DNA being derived from
them. For DNA to be found requires a measure of human remains, like
a fingernail, hair, blood, semen, etc.
All the other evidence points to the
fingerprints' nature as human.
Application to the mirror was said to be
by a wet or damp ‘thing’, non Human, non reptile, non mammal, but
there was CANINE D.N.A., but the prints were not made by a dog.
Hmmmmm... you can tell they weren't
made by a dog by looking at the image; that isn't much of a revelation.
But Mr. Taylor seems to deny that the prints are human solely on the basis
of the lack of human DNA found on the prints. That is not good
The Family do own a dog, but the pads of
the dog are nothing like the mirror prints...Another thing, the prints
were made from an ‘oily’ secretion from what ever made them, that is
why they are on the mirror.
These two facts taken together make
it pretty obvious to me what happened: a human being at the house somehow
handled the dog (I believe the act of petting the dog would
qualify) and then smudged the mirror with his/her fingers. It is
entirely possible that an alien did invade the woman's home, leave
a scratch on her arm, and then take time to pet the dog.
The mysterious scratch is obviously
some attempt at linking the finger prints with abduction phenomenon (on
the part of the woman in question, or one of the researchers involved).
Unfortunately, mysterious cuts are also not evidence of abduction.
In fact, I'm not all that certain that abductions have evidence.
It would appear that this story is an
example of a good mind working harder than it needs to. The woman
had a scratch she didn't remember receiving, noticed fingerprints on her
mirror, and her complex, intelligent brain made out a connection when
there was no need for one. I have found that a good number of
paranormal "sightings" and "encounters" are a result
of this very logical phenomenon. Most of the time, simply finding
simple explanations for apparently unrelated evidence is the best way to
think these things through.
RETORT - Go to Barry Taylor's Response!
All images and italicized text are ©
2000 Barry Taylor