You claim this thing cannot "walk" but walking seems like a human or at least Earth-concept. Does that mean it cannot swim either? Or could this thing walk on a planet with 10th of the gravity of Earth? Hard to disprove something which we don't even fathom.
I understand that this thing has no human joints. It has joints like insects do. Have you seen a praying mantis walk? How can it do that without a hip?
There's nothing earth-dependent about it, this is a problem in mechanics. It doesn't have a ball-joint to provide 2 degrees of freedom, it has bones clearly evolved to have a just a single degree of freedom, and then they're not mounted in matching sockets, they simply cannot function as joints to walk on. There's no way that evolution would select this structure, as it's so suboptimal almost everything would out-compete it. No matter the gravity.
They're also clearly not evolved for swimming, so that's irrelevance - everything in the sea would outcompete them. There's a chance they'd be a very popular prey, though, as they'd go nowhere in a broth of their own bean soup. And even if swimming was relevant - even fish have ball joints for the motions that require two degrees of freedom. Which should be no surprise, as their pectoral fins are homologous to tetrapod forelimbs.
And you really can't be claiming that arthropod limbs don't have coxae? Again, unsurprisingly, two degrees of freedom.
You don't need to know anything about biology to know that this is an amateurish fake - as I say, it's a problem in mechanics. Treat yourself to some lego technic, and just try to build something with the same "articulation" (as I said above, the most troublesome parts won't even articulate, it's so amateurish) as this, and see if you can get it to do anything useful.
Apologies, but that seems to leave you in a position where claims about the mummies being aliens are not falsifiable because the believer can always say "Well, aliens are weird, probably, maybe they evolved bones strictly analogous to human or monkey or chicken bones*, but they grow them with broken off ends to make the length match from one side to another, and maybe they don't need joints that work or a rib cage that expands. Because they are aliens. So they could literally be made of plant-based DNA that mimics mucilage you might use to glue a fake together, and have all sorts of weird features, because: aliens, weird, etc." There is no possible anomaly or error, however egregious, that can't be hand-waved away by your hypothetical True Believer by using the "aliens could be anything, they don't have to make sense" defense.
If that is the position to be argued, then there is no point in discussing the mummies. They are clear, obvious, amateurish fakes, as shown in various ways in this thread, but one could always argue that maybe weird space aliens look like obvious amateurish fakes!
So I guess that leaves still on the table discussion of things like provenance (largely lacking here) and the reputation of the presenter as a known serial hoaxer. But a committed hand-waver can hand wave that away as easily as the physical evidence of the mummies. (If I had a dollar for every purported believer who assured me that Maussan is not a hoaxer, I could have a Happy Meal for dinner tonight, and buy one for you and one for Maussan and get change back!)
So not sure where we go from here, in terms of convincing your hypothetical person who does not want to be convinced and hand-waves away evidence.
You've provided links to an article in ResearchGate in which the references are all in the early nineteenth century, except for mentions of people who create gee-whiz-look-at-this-great-discovery YouTube videos which depend for their viewership very heavily on credulity but very little on science. I strongly disagree with your statement, because we don't have to prove what it is. The claim is debunked by disproving what they purport it to be.
Keep in mind that I believe no sane person should believe this might be an alien. I am not talking about my assumptions here, but trying to stick to facts, like I would convince a believer. We need to consider their views.
We could argue if what you said is a proof or not but there is no point. Because it is not. The question is: Did the mummy really "calcify" 1000 years ago? Because then we can rule out modern tampering. Maussan is not a crook or hoaxer, just naive.
They also claim these very terrestrial bones are like bird bones, being hollow. That would be really easy to debunk. Was that debunked? I mean they claim these are hollow bones, you claim they are human (child?) bones. This would be the fastest debunk in history, and we still argue after months. This is not right. This is not how science should deal with this, especially if this is a fake, a hoax.
I have no clue. I literally never seen an alien. I have no clue what part of it is curious and what part is illogical. All I know is that people already claim it is debunked because of a llama skull. And a few funny bones.
Yes, we don't know if the bones are hollow or not. Why? Because the people that are in possession of the remains have yet to show any proof of it. Why is that? I know that real scientists try really hard to prove their theories, and if I thought I had found proof of a new humanoid species (alien or not) I would do everything I possibly could to get that theory validated by the most respected scientists in the field.
But then again, I haven't been involved in several previous UFO hoaxes, touted a bullshit "miracle cure" for COVID (oh and all other viral infections as well, how convenient) so maybe my next step after getting a hold of them in 2017 and getting immediately lambasted by scientists accusing me of peddling hogwash would be to do nothing other than trying to make a quick buck on ufo-related things, not letting anyone remotely credible near the remains and then unveiling them again at a congressional hearing about UFOs now that UFOs are hot shit again (what a coincidence!), and then lie about the tests done at the university I sent samples too (a university, which, by the way, I have forced by contract to not allow to disclose the actual results they have). It could very well be the absolutely best way forward to prove these weren't human remains cobbled together with some animal bones.
Though, if I were serial hoaxer, you know how I would get a lab to give me a really old date for something I had? I would simply send them some material that I knew was that old. Now, I don't have access to 1000 year old human remains, because I'm not a grave robber, but I could potentially carve a little alien figurine out of 500 year old wood, claim I found it when working in the forest (I mean, I have found undocumented cultural remains before that way, though just maybe 200 years or so old) and then send a really really small piece to a lab to get my 500 year old date for the figurine while also not letting anyone who could be remotely seen as an actual expert anywhere near the actual object. I could also add some claims and say they were backed by the scientist that did the C14-dating, because I know that in all probability my initial claims would get much more exposure in the media than their refutation of them. Which is why there are many more articles about alien mummies being shown in the Mexican parliament than there are about UNAM saying "he's saying some clearly untrue shit, also all we did was carbon date the 0.5 g sample of tissue he brought us, we never saw or handled the rest of the remains in any way, but we can't divulge any details about the carbon dating because he won't let us".
As for what is illogical:
-The creature as displayed could hardly even have moved in life. It lacks key anatomical features (as you've been told) to do so. Even if we disregarded the fact that it has a body plan reminiscent of hominids (and was clearly constructed to look like an upright bipedal terrestrial species just like us) and was purportedly buried on land, it wouldn't be able to swim properly either.
-If we take the mummies at face value (remember, they are mummies. Those are purportedly calcified remains, tissue as well as bones) then we would also have to accept a burial rite that included, for some reason that you cut up the body and rearranged some of the bones in a way that seems to be completely random, and then sewed it back together again. Of course, this could maybe also explain why those anatomical features seem to be missing, maybe they took them so that if the dead were raised they wouldn't be able to exact their revenge on the living.
As for the panspermia: it is a fringe belief for a reason. DNA is not very hardy in space. For that particular theory to work in this example we would have to make several extremely unlikely assumptions:
1. That DNA from another solar system would somehow end up in space to be transported by some object (say a comet or errant asteroid).
2. That said object would somehow be a perfect container to keep the DNA from degrading over the very, very long journey to our solar system. Even for the shortest distance (Alpha Centauri, 4.344 light years away) at the fastest speed I could find for a comet (Encke, 250,000 km/h according to wikipedia), it would still take 18753 years (according to wolfram alpha) for the object to reach Earth if it traveled in a straight line.
3. That said object would leave its own solar system in some way, which as far as we know, very few objects seem to do.
4. That said object would happen to hit Earth, a planet with liquid water.
5. That the properties of the object, that had thus far protected the DNA from degradation from the cold, radiation and finally the impact on Earth would then, somehow allow for a release of the DNA into the ocean.
6. That the DNA in question would either
a) contain quite a few genes that then also somehow made it into the human genome, mostly untouched by billions of years of evolution while also still being present in the alien DNA in its original solar system (so, untouched by evolution there as well I guess) or
b) that would miracously have evolved in both humans and the aliens independently.
7. That an intelligent species incapable of functional locomotion but capable of interstellar travel evolved in that same solar system that our original DNA came from then traveled here, arrived a 1000 years ago and some of them died and were buried in a cave, and finally
8a) that the burial rituals of the aliens involved removing some of the bones from the hands and fingers, mixing them together in a cup or something and then trying to put them back again like some sort of bizarre 3D puzzle where it actually didn't matter that much that you got the pieces in the right place or
8b) they were buried by humans who did that to their bodies for some unknown reason.
All available evidence points to these mummies (as the ones before, no matter if these are new forgeries or not) being fake. No being like them is found in the fossil record and they are also recent enough that there would probably be accounts or at least myths about contact with them, as well as other archeological findings related to their culture, since clearly they had burial rituals and were thus quite "advanced" so to speak. The theory that they come from another solar system is extremely unlikely, not backed by any evidence at all, not to mention our current understanding of physics that would make interstellar travel for biological beings at-best a gigantic multigenerational undertaking spanning thousands of years. They are anatomically incorrectly put together, they do not make biological sense the way they are presented. The guy who has them has lied about similar things in the past. This time he lied about the university backing his "findings". He makes a living out of ufology and other woo bullshit and is obviously more interested in the money than the truth. Like all other hoaxers and crackpots, whether they purport to be ufologists, cryptozoologists, alternative medicine purveyors or free energy engineers he keeps everyone who could actually directly disprove the hoax as far away as possible from his stuff and accuses those who point out the obvious, glaring problems with his claims of trying to silence him and the truth in some grand conspiracy. If only he could get some more funding from us, the average joes, he could then have his very credible ufology pals do more opaque "tests" instead of, I don't know, pay some actual experts to look at it.
As others have said, the actual experts (except for those at the university that he claimed corroborated his wild claims who had to respond for obvious reason) are disinclined to answer because it would take a lot of time and effort to do it in a proper, scientific way. Why waste precious time on this when they can just take one glance at the headline (or, if they are feeling generous, at the x-rays) and see that it is bullshit? And, like most people I presume they know that it is almost impossible to convert someone who has decided to believe in far-fetched conspiracy theories very wholeheartedly, whether it be climate change denial, Illuminati, Nessie or alien mummies, and that the effort they would need to put in would absolutely not be worth it. Especially not when all it would take for most of them to keep believing would be for someone they see as a true authority to tweet that you're paid by the deep state and is of course covering their tracks.
Also, in this case, we are talking about a hoax so obvious that even most people in the UFO subreddit knows its bullshit. It is so debunked that anyone who still believes in it has problems with reality on the level of flat-earthers and are probably in need of a good therapist more than they are of a good debunker.
Apologies, but that seems to leave you in a position where claims about the mummies being aliens are not falsifiable because the believer can always say "Well, aliens are weird, probably, maybe they evolved bones strictly analogous to human or monkey or chicken bones*,
If the theory is that these are alien mummies then we cannot argue about conclusions only true to Earth. Claiming that "it would hardly walk" is not really a debunk because there are planets with weak gravity or a liquid surface for example.
Claiming that nature already produced such a thing, so this other thing HAS to be that thing is not proof. There is for example convergent evolution, the environment on this planet "forced" 5 different species to evolve into a crab. Because it is an effective animal. This is called carcinisation.
I think the best way to debunk it is looking at how it would pick up energy from the environment (we call this eating), because that is universal. No matter what planet or universe this thing might be from, it still needs energy intake.
What we see as a mouth leads directly into the brain actually. There is no jaw, throat, yet there seems to be an anus-like exit point. I think the only way to debunk these things currently (without doing more tests) is to prove that they cannot take in energy.
You don't need to know anything about biology to know that this is an amateurish fake - as I say, it's a problem in mechanics. Treat yourself to some lego technic, and just try to build something with the same "articulation" (as I said above, the most troublesome parts won't even articulate, it's so amateurish) as this, and see if you can get it to do anything useful.
Bugs have joints which are not bones. They are soft tissue. Can you prove this creature does not have a soft tissue working as joints? It is much easier to prove it cannot eat than to prove it cannot walk. It has legs, but no connection from mouth to the body.
You've provided links to an article in ResearchGate in which the references are all in the early nineteenth century, except for mentions of people who create gee-whiz-look-at-this-great-discovery YouTube videos which depend for their viewership very heavily on credulity but very little on science. I strongly disagree with your statement, because we don't have to prove what it is. The claim is debunked by disproving what they purport it to be.
Yes you are reading it right, the two documented fetuses would shake up 2000 years of scientific consensus. If anyone cared enough to check if they had a genetic defect or physical force causing it or not. Who cares, right?
Yes, we don't know if the bones are hollow or not. Why? Because the people that are in possession of the remains have yet to show any proof of it. Why is that?
Well they did prove it with CT scans. Those bones are hollow. Too bad almost every bone is hollow on Earth, even human. Elephants or mammoths are an exception. The structure of the bone does not seem like a bird, I think it is close to a mammal.
You don't have to debunk panspermia, it is just a theory. Not mine either.
As others have said, the actual experts (except for those at the university that he claimed corroborated his wild claims who had to respond for obvious reason) are disinclined to answer because it would take a lot of time and effort to do it in a proper, scientific way.
Bugs have joints which are not bones. They are soft tissue. Can you prove this creature does not have a soft tissue working as joints? It is much easier to prove it cannot eat than to prove it cannot walk. It has legs, but no connection from mouth to the body.
You missed my point. My point was that your claimed difference in mechanical limb behaviour, independent of biological heritage, in an arthropod was false - even the arthropods have joints that articulate like ball joints and have (at least) two degrees of freedom like mamalian hips. They're even called "coxa", whose other meaning is "hip". That's why I mentioned "coxae" above, they're important. And you don't even seem to have noticed their mention in the image you include - an image that proves my point.
And I don't need to prove that it has no soft tissue to work as a suitable joint, because it's already been proven that it has rigid bones abutting that do not and cannot act as that joint where that joint should be. You can't argue them away as spandrels - they are the largest single bits of the thing - and they are clearly made up of things that have evolved to work as joints. Yet they are *not even correctly articulated*. *Everything* is wrong with them. Amazingly, however, other "joints" are even worse - some bones have been snapped to fit, and lack the joint part. This isn't biology we're looking at - this is sloppy butchery.
I guess it's a matter of individual opinion- to me, they've been comprehensively debunked here, in terms of claimed origins, local and historical context, anatomy and physical composition, even though (in the latter two fields) we are largely relying on information made available by the claimants or by people the claimants have chosen to look at the "mummies".
But it's interesting to continue to examine the "alien mummies", so we have a clearer picture of how and why they were constructed, and to be able to challenge similar fraudulent claims more effectively in future.
It's rare that there's (eventual) universal agreement amongst people who initially disagree about contentious issues.
For instance, my personal belief is that people who advocate a flat Earth are so obviously and egregiously wrong it's a waste of time to pay attention to their claims- they're impervious to evidence or reasoned argument. For any practical purpose, a flat Earth has been comprehensively debunked. But there are still people who believe/ claim to believe in a flat Earth!
Luckily, there are Metabunkers (and others) who are prepared to examine new claims made by flat earthers, and their work means that "evidence" for a flat Earth doesn't go unchallenged, and reasoned counter-arguments exist which might help some people at risk of being seduced by bunk to draw a more informed conclusion.
I'm by no means sure about the llama skull claim either, but showing that a llama skull isn't involved doesn't add credibility to the alien mummy claimants.
Some people noticed the resemblance between George Adamski's Venusian scout ship and components of brooder heaters used to keep newly-hatched chicks warm. Turns out that the scout ship wasn't built from a brooder heater- but that didn't increase the chances of it being a Venusian spacecraft. (It was actually a lantern lid as per my avatar).
Evidence for any of this?
Biological samples are DNA-tested every day, around the world, with results of great accuracy.
This applies to novel and unidentified samples.
If the "mummy" owners submitted samples to a lab that can't provide reliable results, then why?
There are three mummies; one could be donated to a reputable pathology department at a leading university (or perhaps run by a trusted state agency or contractor). Preferably, in light of the results from "local" investigations so far, in the USA or a Western European nation or a country with a similar academic environment. Not Russia.
But this hasn't happened. It's as if the mummy owners don't really want to find out the facts about their "finds" from a reliable source.
Maybe not, but others can, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_system_of_insects
Earth's atmosphere can't support an organism the size of the mummies if it has insect-type respiration
(much larger insects and arachnids lived in the Carboniferous when atmospheric oxygen was maybe 35%, although this figure is contested).
There is an interesting anthorpological debate going on, and coincidentally about Peru. I am sure you seen pictures of ancient Peru locals with elongated heads. For a long time scientists assumed it was achieved by applying pressure to the skull in infancy. There are records about it too, so it was actually a thing back then.
Yet researchers claim to found a fetus in a pregnant mummy which has an elongated head.
On viewing the drawings, you wouldn't have to be a professor of obstetrics to realise that a live delivery would have been unlikely. We only have Tschudi's word for it (and the testimony of his contemporaries, viewing his drawing) that the drawing represents a foetus found in utero, not an infant. (Edited to add: And this "foetus" has teeth).
As far as I know this claimed finding has not been repeated.
If it is a foetus: sadly, foetal and congenital skull malformations are not unknown, and can be as radical in their appearance as they are (usually) deleterious to health. An example would be cyclopia, where the foetus develops with one centrally-placed eye, or two eyes in a single centrally-placed orbit.
(Invariably fatal AFAIK; details and appearance are distressing, I would gently dissuade any image search).
Like Tschudi's foetus, the rare phenomenon of cyclopia has been used to support fringe theories, e.g. that the mythological Cyclops was real; or (by terrorist group ISIL) that a newborn with cyclopia is the Al-Masih ad-Dajjal, an evil one-eyed figure in Islamic teachings: ISIL used photos of affected neonates from Bolivia and India, claiming that they were an Israeli child.
Elongated Skulls in utero: A Farewell to the Artificial Cranial Deformation Paradigm?, Igor Gontcharov, January 2015,
published on the website (not a peer-reviewed journal) Ancient Origins, https://www.ancient-origins.net/about-us,
quote,
We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with alternative perspectives.
Igor Gontcharov has no professional qualifications in archaeology, anthropology, biology, medicine or forensics.
Or anything like any of those. There is no evidence that he has, in person, examined the physical remains he writes about.
His CV is attached as a PDF, below.
Other than Tschudi's drawing, his evidence consists of historical instances of children with cranial deformation, which are long-accepted and understood: cultures practicing artificial cranial deformation start the technique used in early infancy, when the skull is most plastic.
Deformation usually begins just after birth for the next couple of years until the desired shape has been reached or the child rejects the apparatus.
The claim that perhaps there was a population of humanoids with the mummies' features (including a congenitally elongated skull), like so many "ancient astronaut" or "lost civilisation" type theories, is dependent on us ignoring whatever we do know about the beliefs and culture of the people who actually lived in that area at that time (link to an earlier post of mine)
As far as I know (which isn't much) the Nazca people didn't make representations of anything resembling the "alien" mummies,
although they made plenty of characterful representations of people and animals
Pinched from a @NorCal Dave post, "Josefina's eggs":
The eggs vary, very substantially, in shape. I know bird's eggs tend to be distinctive (and relatively uniform) for each species, but I don't know if this is true of all egg-laying vertebrates.
They're very radio-opaque.
Mendel posted this X-ray of a chicken with egg, and compared the mummies' eggs:
The bones in the Josefina X-ray appear fairly translucent; whether hollow or not we might expect the "edges" of the bones (where bone is in the plane approx. perpendicular to the image, so the x-rays are travelling further through bone than if the bone were parallel to the plane of the image) to be as radio-opaque as the egg (excepting the visible border of the egg).
Some birds with eggs, click to enlarge:
Reptiles with eggs, click to enlarge:
Compare with a python that's swallowed golf balls, and a python that swallowed a fake stone or ceramic "egg":
you claim this thing cannot "walk" but walking seems like a human or at least Earth-concept. Does that mean it cannot swim either? Or could this thing walk on a planet with 10th of the gravity of Earth? Hard to disprove something which we don't even fathom.
I understand that this thing has no human joints. It has joints like insects do. Have you seen a praying mantis walk? How can it do that without a hip?
That is somewhat fallacious reasoning. A ball joint literally demands both a ball and a socket. A ball without a socket is mechanical nonsense. There's no reason for the ball to even exist in the absence of a socket, as it is the entirety that makes up a rotational fulcrum. Arguments about other planets or environments are irrelevant. A ball joint without a socket is as mechanically useless as a piston without a crankshaft.
I am sorry but that "database" of genetic markers is not really reliable. These "bean" and "cow" indications are basically statistical anomalies. The program tried to find the closest relative, just liek how the covid virus was linked to pangolins and snakes. Before bats. Totally useless assumptions. We know now that pangolins had nothing to do with it, they just have a somewhat similar attribution of certain markers, which is more common than it seems just because of the huge amount of a narrow GTAC code every living thing has.
Agreed. It goes to provenance and providence. A legit archeologist would have noted a possible rearrangement of bones when the sample was discovered. As it seems no legit archeologist was involved in the "discovery" of these mummies, it leaves open the real possibility that the rearrangement happened at a later date. Like in some dude's mummy workshop.
The point is that, in this particular case, my son and his wife are exactly the type of experts that can look at these mummies and see that they are an assemblage of random, mostly human bones in a vaguely bipedal humanoid arrangement. They think the X-rays look like random human bones arranged in a non-human way.
You claim this thing cannot "walk" but walking seems like a human or at least Earth-concept. Does that mean it cannot swim either? Or could this thing walk on a planet with 10th of the gravity of Earth? Hard to disprove something which we don't even fathom.
I understand that this thing has no human joints. It has joints like insects do. Have you seen a praying mantis walk? How can it do that without a hip?
And as other have pointed out, it can't, nor can it swim. And it can't walk like an insect because it doesn't have an insect's exo-skeleton, it has a vertebrate's internal skeletal structure. A praying mantis does not need a hip to walk, because it does not have an internal skeleton, nevertheless @FatPhil has shown that insects do have a range of motion to their exo-skeletons that is analogous to internal skeletons. Something this critter does not have. As @JMartJr pointed out earlier, the idea that it's "alien" and not subject to any earthly requirements is akin to saying, "its magic" or "God did it".
If it's so alien that it doesn't need earthly vertebrate bone joints, then why is it made up of earthly vertebrate human bones?
I respectfully disagree. The original claim, by Maussan and his cohorts is that this is an alien mummy. It is of alien origin and is not of this earth. A quick glance shows to the proper experts these mummies are an assemblage of random earthly non-alien human and possibly earthly non-alien animal bones in a bio-mechanically nonsensical arrangement. The ball is back in Maussan's court.
There is no need to PROVE what exactly was cobbled together to create these gaffs. The burden of PROOF is on the serial huckster Maussan to PROVE these are alien in an open and peer reviewed manner.
Well, that's the problem with this oxymoronic phrase. It's all fringe and no science. Few, if any legitimate scientists are going spend more than a few minutes on these mummies. It's a waste of time and energy to try and convince a small minority of people that will accept whatever a charlatan like Maussan trolls out.
For further comparison, a snake that swallowed an actual egg, just for those who want to compare swallowed with swallowed. Snakes that eat eggs tend to crush them pretty quickly and disgorge the shell, so a real egg does not tend to last as far down into the gut as a stone egg does, hence it is still very near the head.
Quite different situations, but I'd bet they're quite different types of eggs. Reptiles generally lay soft-shelled eggs in large numbers, and the leathery "shell" acts more like bubble-wrap around a whole collection of things in a big sack, while birds' eggs are hard-shelled, and are more like a, erm, hard shell, which works fine in the one-at-a-time tube-like conveyor-belt of a bird's reproductive system. (I've been told by a farmer that ostriches can have 5 to 7 eggs on the go at any one time, spaced a day or two apart.) Reptiles of course aren't generally incubators, they'll bury and leave their eggs (more r-selection), while birds sit on theirs (strong K-selection) so their rigidity is useful.
Well those eggs seem a bit transparent, you can make out details behind them, pretty similar to the examples posted in the thread. I am afraid this contradicts the stone-egg theory.
Somehwere along these tweets he explains how mapping a genetic code takes years and dozens of people. I am not sure why people think it is easy. One of the biggest genetic expert saying DNA is not the easy way to debunk.
Q: I'd wager it's pretty tough to hoax 120gb+ of DNA sequences and I imagine anyone with any experience in the field would be able to spot fake sequences pretty quickly. If you mean collection method and it's truly 30% unknown, well how does that happen?
A [Nolan]: Same way it happened with the Starchild skull I showed to be human, and the conclusions it was alien were withdrawn. Contamination from any of a number of organisms (fly maggots, bacteria, fungus) that have never been sequenced, degraded DNA, etc., etc. There are SO MANY WAYS sequencing can go wrong, or we don't have the databases for it. That doesn't mean it's alien.
The presence of "earth-like" bones and "earth-like" body shapes speaks to a terrestrial origin. But those body parts all evolved as functional within the organism, and (as previously discussed) when arranged in a way that they would NOT function leads to the inevitable conclusion that they are crude fakes. They are, in your words, "like in cartoons"
However, the necessities of a "power source" (food and oxygen) and a means of reproduction are certainly not unique to earthly creatures, and if and when we discover aliens, we would expect some similarities in that respect ....but they're not found in these samples.
An expert should post a paper with their findings. I welcome discussion but you expect me to take this argument of "my dad works at nintendo" at face value.
There are several very good reasons why a particular expert would not have published such a paper. One is that they haven't been given access to the things, and can't depend upon a video presentation for information. Another is that they simply don't pass the "smell" test, and serious scientists wouldn't waste their time on these things.
(Tongue firmly in cheek) I have always understood that the tooth fairy took teeth AWAY, rather than being involved in installing them. So the debunking of the tooth fairy is not really relevant here.
That is not the claim. The claim is that the bones have been assembled to make the mummies, proved because you can see that some of them are upside down compared to the same bone on the other side of the same mummy; because you can see that some of them are broken off at the end because if left intact they would have been too long; because you can see that they do not articulate to make functional joints at all in many cases; because you can see cases of recognizable bones from one part of a skeleton inserted in another part of the "mummy" where it does not belong -- all of which is consistent with being faked by incompetents, and is inconsistent with being an actual mummy of an actual living thing. Mischaracterizing that as just "claiming 'that the bones look weird'" is getting close to a straw man.
And no, relying on the massive evidence of a hoax to come to the conclusion that there has indeed been a hoax is not "a more similar approach to the hoaxers and not like scientists." Hoaxers ask us to disregard the evidence that gives the trick away, they don't expose it, share it, and ask us to examine it and follow where it leads.
(Edited to close a quote previously left unclosed.)
It does look faked even on a low-res picture of an x-ray or CT scan. Yet there are people with credentials claiming it is still legit. Do they want to earn money with a hoax? More than likely. Can we disprove them by looking at their own low res xray? Does not seem like it. The hoax is still going on. I think until newspapers namedrop a credible scientist disproving it with data, this hoax will go on.
I mean I see the pics and they do look fake but thats all I can say for sure.
Food for thought: If aliens come to Earth and they try to tell what humans are like based on egyptian mummies they would make false assumptions. During embalming a lot of organs are taken out and stuff are put in their place. And I guess on an alien website some reptilians would argue that these mummies certainly could not live in a sulfuric sea because they don't have beaks. Not sure if some arguments in the thread made more sense.
But I can go full tinfoil hat. Debunk this theory with that hand pic:
Aliens visit Earth since a long time, they make clones to do certain tasks which involves getting close Earth biology for example. These clones are supposed to only live for a short time to do the work and then perish. Generally the environment they are in is an advanced craft with a liquid in it to absorb shocks. They operate the craft with brain waves. Some have an accident, humans found them and tried to put them back together, then they buried them in a mine. Would the mummy-creature be able to serve a purpose like that, to live outside the concept of evolution as an imp?
That hand does not prove that this creature did not live. It proves that it did could not play tennis. Or someone mixed some bones up. This is why I say we need to debunk it by telling what it is, not by what it couldn't be.
I started my first post in this thread explaining this problem and how hoaxers can exploit it. This is why I dislike people claiming "that bone looks weird" and acting like it was debunked. I'd say this is a more similar approach to the hoaxers and not like scientists.
That is not the claim. The claim is that the bones have been assembled to make the mummies, proved because you can see that some of them are upside down compared to the same bone on the other side of the same mummy; because you can see that some of them are broken off at the end because if left intact they would have been too long; because you can see that they do not articulate to make functional joints at all in many cases; because you can see cases of recognizable bones from one part of a skeleton inserted in another part of the "mummy" where it does not belong -- all of which is consistent with being faked by incompetents, and is inconsistent with being an actual mummy of an actual living thing. Mischaracterizing that as just "claiming 'that the bones look weird'" is getting close to a straw man
When the aliens are made up of Earth origin skeletal parts like finger bones and vertebra (in their wrists?) that developed in "Earth-like evolutionary steps" then a comparison to how those same Earth originated parts function, or don't function in this case, seems logical.
If it's alien with totally alien joints and a totally alien reseparation system and an alien reproduction system, why does it have a non-alien Earth-evolved bones? If it had some sort of unique alien-ish bones maybe this argument would work.
That hand does not prove that this creature did not live. It proves that it did could not play tennis. Or someone mixed some bones up. This is why I say we need to debunk it by telling what it is, not by what it couldn't be.
That is the classic pseudoscience request to prove a negative. I claim Bigfoot is real, it's now YOUR burden to prove it does not. Prove there is NO Bigfoot. You can't, I can't, nobody can. One cannot prove a negative.
It flips the burden of proof and when dealing with people using this argument, discussions can only go so far. I drove 60 miles through the woods yesterday and can say there were no Bigfoots. But that doesn't mean one wasn't hiding behind a tree as I drove by or that there wasn't one sitting on a log hundreds of miles from where I was. The true believer can always say "You only showed that you didn't see a Bigfoot, you can't prove there are no Bigfoots." Same with your argument here. No, we can't prove this thing never lived, we can only say it's highly unlikely. If you choose to believe that leaves the possibility of this being an alien, then so be it.
And I think the repeated insistence that someone prove "what it is", is misguided. As you yourself have admitted, even us lay people can discern what it is. It's a random collection of mostly human bones in a non-functioning arrangement. That's what it is. Was it assembled by an indigenous culture for some reason? It doesn't really matter in this case, because that's not the claim being made. The claim is that this is an alien. The fact that we can all see this is an unworkable collection of random, mostly human, and non-alien bones is enough.
And will continue to go on regardless of who looks at it, that's why no legit Antro/Archy person is going to waste time with it. Consider these 2 scenarios:
Gary Nolen, an alien true believer, claims to have shown that the supposed alien remains of the Starchild were in fact human. He did the DNA analysis and showed it to be human and somebody withdrew the claim of alien, though it's not clear who:
Yet on The Starchild Project website, they still "don't rule out" the alien possibility (bold by me):
The Starchild Skull is a 900 year old bone skull found in Mexico in the 1930s. It is most famous for the attention it attracts among alien enthusiasts, who believe it may be at least partly alien. (It should be noted that the Starchild Project does not assert it is an alien, however we do not exclude this possibility entirely.)
So, Nolan, a UFOlogist, showed the Starchild was human and the promoters of the Starchild said "yeah, maybe".
Secondly, check out the documentary Behind the Curve, about flate-Earth true believers. In particular, some of them spend a lot of money and significant amounts of time recreating experiments that they feel were faked to show the earth is a globe. They "do their own research" so to speak:
In the film, flat Earth advocates carry out experiments to test the hypothesis that the Earth is flat, the results of which confirm that the Earth is a globe, and so are discarded.
I did not expect anyone to debunk it because I only tried to get a point across with the example.
Most problems mentioned in the thread can be explained away. I am not saying the explanations are realistic or likely, but even one possible explanation means that the mummy is not yet debunked. If a guy claims "the mummy is not real because of X" and then I can make up a possible explanation for "X" then the mummy is not yet debunked.
When the aliens are made up of Earth origin skeletal parts like finger bones and vertebra (in their wrists?) that developed in "Earth-like evolutionary steps" then a comparison to how those same Earth originated parts function, or don't function in this case, seems logical.
Well maybe stop doing it mate. I clearly said we need to prove a positive: that this creature is part of Earth's fauna. You even quoted me:
"This is why I say we need to debunk it by telling what it is, not by what it couldn't be."
You are literally arguing for us to prove what it "couldn't be" so actually proving a negative. Wow.
some ad hominim attack on Garry Nolan, this guy cannot even spell his name but at least now they understand that I was right and Nolan is not touching the DNA because it takes a long time and it is unconclusive
It feels like it took you a few replies to deny what I claimed about Nolan and then you start telling me the very same thing what you denied like I wasn't the guy who told you about it just a few hours ago
Most problems mentioned in the thread can be explained away. I am not saying the explanations are realistic or likely, but even one possible explanation means that the mummy is not yet debunked.
See, that's where we don't agree.
Metabunk doesn't deal in speculative explanations.
We don't consider the question, "could the pyramids be an alien artifact?"
We consider the claim "the pyramids are evidence of ancient aliens", analyse it, and reject it.
That's a debunk.
Nobody can disprove that aliens built the pyramids, but whoever believes it does so without evidence.
Now insert "Peruvian mummies" for "pyramids".
Sure, aliens could've assembled them 1000 years ago from bean paste and assorted bones and egg-shaped rocks, but there is not a shred of evidence that they did.
And that's the issue debunked.
If you want to believe, we won't stop you.
When you claim you don't believe because you know, that's when we look at your evidence.
I think by now you should be aware that this forum HAS a good many people who are credible scientists in a number of relevant fields. But when the forgery of a body is this bad, very few legitimate investigators have an interest in the task of debunking, and when the possessors of the mummies won't let unbiased scientists get close enough to collect data, it's simply not going to happen. You're demanding what you're not going to get. And the hoax, like so many others before it, will go on anyway whether or not it's debunked in the press, because True Believers seem to be remarkably fact-proof.
It's MANY parts of earth's fauna and flora, crudely assembled and not "A creature". @Curious George showed that all the way back in post number 6, and here we are at post 220-something still trying to get you to read that evidence.
Yeah, but on "chat" or "rambles" we can debunk theories, right? Well, only theories that are bunk in the first place. However, one has to enquire about the motivations of posters who want to post theories that are bunk in the first place...
Teeth that have erupted before/ near birth are called natal teeth. They're relatively rare, but by no means unknown.
When it occurs, it's usually one or two teeth, often the centre mandible incisors. Not a full dental arcade.
Note, Tschudi never claimed that the "foetus" was anything other than human, albeit a human with a congenitally elongated head. And the "mummies" have no teeth, so no link there.
While I personally believe that the Tooth Fairy is a folkloric being, unlike the Peruvian mummies I haven't seen photographs, X-rays or a DNA analysis which are amenable to debunking; nor did the people who assured me of her existence have a track record of fraudulently cobbling together human remains (as far as I know). And she always delivered.
Totally agree- the point I was trying to make (maybe not very competently) was that X-rays of eggs "in situ" in a variety of birds and reptiles aren't as radio-opaque as Josefina's Clara's eggs, which seem to be made of denser material than her bones...
...which might make ovoviviparity rather difficult, not to say hazardous.
The X-rays of pythons who have swallowed golf balls/ ceramic eggs were to show "eggs" with a similar level of radio opacity to Clara's "eggs".
However, it's almost academic; having a small, square foramen magnum and a spinal cord exterior to the spinal column would be a constant threat to life (if we assume the "creature" could nod or turn its head).
Not to mention the diagram of a female "alien's" reproductive system, where the "specialists" concerned forgot to include gonads. If memory serves, in the UK schoolchildren are expected to be able to sketch male and female reproductive systems from the age of 11 or 12 (early key stage 3). With gonads.
But we're not looking at the hand in isolation. It's just one part of a considerable body of evidence, starting with the track record of the claimants, that strongly implies that the "mummies" are hoaxes, and were probably deliberately constructed as hoaxes. And that the original hoaxers, and some of the "experts" who have been asked to study the mummies, probably have a poor grasp of biology.
(1) They've had them for six years. (I'd somehow missed that fact earlier).
(2) There isn't an "alien genome" or "unidentified genome"; there are sections of genetic material from a variety of terrestrial organisms. Including bean plants and humans. There is no reason whatsoever to believe, based on the evidence from the studies solicited by the mummies' custodians, that the sections of retrieved DNA are from, or are primarily from, a single organism's genome. There is no reason to believe that any unidentified material is anomalous.
But most scientists have rebuked claims that the bodies are from another world, with a number saying they are more likely to be mummies made up of various earthly beings.
-By chance I found a Russian site, Antropogenez.Ru, which discusses the mummies.
Sadly, in recent times I've become a bit wary of Russian websites in general (and anthropology/ history sites in particular),
but the article here looks unproblematic. Their in-house chaps review the mummy X-rays, coming to conclusions that parallel some of the discussion here.
We think that no further comments are necessary here. We are dealing with a case of crude forgery. The evidence for this has been clearly laid out by our experts. A total lack of any archaeological context as well as the person who made the find being unwilling to reveal the original location of these objects further corroborate these conclusions
I've got screengrabs of the article for those who might be reluctant to visit a Russian website; click to enlarge:
In passing, and off-topic, I'm sure many of us look forward to the day when we can visit Russian websites and chat with Russian scientists, science enthusiasts and debunkers without the caution perhaps necessary at present.
It's MANY parts of earth's fauna and flora, crudely assembled and not "A creature". @Curious George showed that all the way back in post number 6, and here we are at post 220-something still trying to get you to read that evidence.
Well you mentioned that the only person who actually proposed and investigated the llama-skull hypothesis later disowned the conclusions. He was a russian "scientist", not sure how the greeks come in, I have not seen a paper by greek scientists regarding a llama skull.
It's clear you haven't read this thread in its entirety. The paper that concluded it's a llama skull has been mentioned and quoted from several times, including in the post of mine you replied to above. The authors are José De La Cruz Ríos López (a "biologist" who appears to be nothing more than a lab technician) and two Greek scientists . No Russians were involved in the writing of the paper. Despite putting his name to the paper, Lopez continues to promote the mummies as real.
To be more exact, he disowned the proposal, not the conclusion. He could not disown the conclusion because the study he published never concluded that it is a llama skull. Actually there are more counter arguments in the paper than pro-arguments. (AFAIK its about a llama brain cavity instead of an entire skull but even that needs two added bones to make the new shape and that would be easily debunked with MRI data which we supposedly have now).
Then nothing can ever be debunked to that standard. Somebody can disregard evidence and insist on nonsense being real and never be persuaded. If that is your standard, then you are wasting your time and, I'm starting to feel, ours. There is no such thing as proof that cannot be refuted by making up stuff -- on this or any topic. If that's your standard, it cannot be met.
The claim that these are genuine alien mummies is thoroughly debunked. All the evidence shows them being fake. While it is still, and always will be, possible to believe they are real by making up objections to the evidence, or just ignoring the evidence, the debunking of the claim of real alien mummies is about as complete as it could possibly be. They are not.
So, where does that leave us? A debunk can only go so far, especially with the limited amount of evidence presented, and there will always be a "yeah, but..." from the dedicated true believer. Just as you did here.
Recall the famous Alien Autopsy film from the '90s. After insisting for years that it was genuine in the face hoax allegations, the creator eventually resorted to a "yeah, but...". Yeah, I created the film with actors and props, but it's not a hoax, it's a recreation of a genuine film I saw that was too damaged to present:
In the documentary, Eamonn Holmes repeatedly refers to the film as a "fake," while Santilli patiently insists it is a "restoration," maintaining it is a "reconstruction" of an actual alien autopsy film he viewed in the early 1990s, that subsequently deteriorated.[9]
As is often the case, the "yeah, but..." excuses drift further and further from the original claim making debunks increasingly difficult. That's the point. Your speculation about genetically engineered beings with mixed up human bones possibly living in a liquid solution, is not what Maussan and his crowd claimed. They claimed this was a non-Earth origin space alien.
Same with Santilli's fake alien film. There is no need to debunk the film, he's admitted to creating it and no one can debunk the "original genuine" film, because it no longer exists.
I guess I don't understand what your asking for. A thorough examination of all the evidence in a proper paper in something like The American Journal of Physical Anthropology? It's never going to happen.
Maussan and his colleagues did not present their claims or findings in a proper peer reviewed way so they're not going to get a proper peer reviewed analysis. Maussan, a lab tech from Peru and some sort of medical Dr. from the Mexican Navy presented these mummies as real space aliens on a pay-per-view show in 2015 and in a slightly different vain before the Mexican congress. The dubious Carbon-14 dating results are secret and part of an NDA. This is not science.
As you admitted, the x-rays and CT scans make it painfully obvious what these are. Side-show quality Gaffs made with random bones. You and anyone else can come up with a litany of "Yeah, but..." objections to these explanations. At some point it becomes pointless.
You say you believe them to be fake. Ok, I'll take your word for it. If you want to prove them more fake than you already think they are, have fun. If you want a legit anthropologist to examine them and prove them fake, it's not going to happen, they don't care about Maussan and his claims. If you want someone to debunk every possible "Yeah, but..." scenario, it'll never happen. Believers are going to believe.
Hello. I recently became interested in this "alien mummy" claim and I did some research that I don't see in here, so I want to give my contribution. Specifically I want to address the "llama skull" theory that's been discussed. I've seen multiple claims around the internet dismissing the conclusion from experts that these "alien skulls" could be modified mammal skulls (like from dogs or llamas).
The major points of contention seem to surround the paper titled "Applying CT-scanning for the identification of a skull of an unknown archaeological find in Peru" (https://www.researchgate.net/public...ull_of_an_unknown_archaeological_find_in_Peru). I've seen it said that one of the authors of the paper has retracted his conclusion. This has been used to dismiss the entire claim.
However there are at least two other experts who have made the same claim at different times, based on their own analysis (not relying on the previously cited paper). One of them says that he got a sample of these "alien mummies" to study directly.
I used semi-automatic segmentation to make a digital cast of the braincase (endocast). It is not exactly the brain, but it fairly accurately reflects the external morphology of the brain in most species. In this case, the endocast shows the typical morphology of a mammal. It has obvious olfactory bulbs, optic, trigeminal and hypoglossal nerves, cerebral hemispheres, inner ears (auditory nerves), cerebellum and spinal cord. The curious thing is that the anatomy of the brain is contrary to the anatomy of the skull: the olfactory bulbs and optic nerves are located in the back of the skull instead of being located in the nose and eyes where they would be useful. The inner ear is located in a mouth that does not have teeth and leads to the canal that houses the spinal cord. My conclusion is that the people who made this mummy carved the back of an animal's skull to create a face and removed all parts of the original skull except the brain case. Comparison with the most common domestic animals in South America suggests that this skull was that of a llama, whose endocast anatomy perfectly matches that of Luisa.
The use and abuse of both animal and human remains – including well-preserved Nazca human mummies – have been proven by our careful observation of public images of the Nazca Alien Mummies and through research done on a few samples that reached, through a voluntary donation by a ring’s regretful member to the local police and studied by forensic archaeology expert Flavio Estrada. As noticed, the scammers’ circle has kept access of the remains to themselves, disregarding the experts’ committee offer to study them if surrendered to the authorities. Complete assessment of the manipulated anatomy of the constructs or dummies reveals the use of dog and probably llama skulls turned around so that pseudo-orbits have been carved in their occipital bones, use of a mixture of hand and feet phalanges to lengthen the purported tridactyl fingers. In some cases, these phalanges were glued together – with an instant synthetic product and a mixture similar to papier maché – in wrong anatomical positions.
The expert considered that these samples are the same as those presented in the Mexican legislature. "Those heads that I reviewed have the same structure, composition, design and style," he assured.
I hope this helps shed some light on the issue, and puts to rest the idea that the "llama skull" theory (really it should be "mammal skull" theory) is unsupported by experts. Even if the paper by Lopez was retracted, we have here two separate experts who reached the same conclusions.
Most problems mentioned in the thread can be explained away. I am not saying the explanations are realistic or likely, but even one possible explanation means that the mummy is not yet debunked
Every time a theory has a problem and an excuse (*) needs to be invented to 'explain it away', the probability of the theory being true is automatically multiplied by the probability of the additional hypothesis being true, which is always lower than 100%, and often much lower. So any additional hypothesis decreases (possibly by a lot) the probability of the thoery to be true.
That is to say: 'explaining away' facts does not come free for the theory, at all!
Read this piece about 'explaining away' facts, and see where it leads...
Carl Sagan once told a parable of someone who comes to us and claims: “There is a dragon in my garage.” Fascinating! We reply that we wish to see this dragon—let us set out at once for the garage! “But wait,” the claimant says to us, “it is an invisible dragon.”
Now as Sagan points out, this doesn’t make the hypothesis unfalsifiable. Perhaps we go to the claimant’s garage, and although we see no dragon, we hear heavy breathing from no visible source; footprints mysteriously appear on the ground; and instruments show that something in the garage is consuming oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide.
But now suppose that we say to the claimant, “Okay, we’ll visit the garage and see if we can hear heavy breathing,” and the claimant quickly says no, it’s an inaudible dragon. We propose to measure carbon dioxide in the air, and the claimant says the dragon does not breathe. We propose to toss a bag of flour into the air to see if it outlines an invisible dragon, and the claimant immediately says, “The dragon is permeable to flour.”
See? Even the most absurd theory can be 'defended' by just 'explaining away' facts. And this helps in distinguishing good theories from bad ones, because good theories don't have many facts which need to be 'explained away'.
Most problems mentioned in the thread can be explained away. I am not saying the explanations are realistic or likely, but even one possible explanation means that the mummy is not yet debunked. If a guy claims "the mummy is not real because of X" and then I can make up a possible explanation for "X" then the mummy is not yet debunked.
That is not the standard here. Please take the time to read the Posting Guidelines. The explanation has to be more than possible. Here, we exam claims of evidence.
Article:
General Guidelines (for new threads, and any other post)
Don't Post Debunked Bunk - Check first to see if something has been debunked. Don't post it unless you can counter the debunks.
Back it up - with links and quotes from reliable source.
Be honest - Just go where the facts take you. Don't try to frame something towards a particular point of view.
Be polite. This actually is a rule. See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/politeness-policy.1224/
Be Concise. Do not write long rambling posts with multiple asides. Focus on a single claim.
Quote from Links. Links should not require clicking on in order to understand the post, so extract relevant excerpts and include them in your post. See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/metabunks-no-click-policy.5158/
Don't Paraphrase. If you want to say what someone said, then quote them exactly. Do not paraphrase what they said.
Don't hint or give "clues". Speak plainly. Don't make people guess what you mean. Avoid Promoting Bunk. Don't post links to something unless it's being taken seriously by people open to reason. Very marginal claims are best ignored - don't give them traffic.
Be sensitive. Don't post photos of dead, injured, or grieving people unless there's a good reason. Imagine they were your relative, how would you feel about their photo being posted in this context?
Use English. This is an English language site. Do not use other languages unless needed while discussing the translation of something.
Avoid Humor and Sarcasm. Everyone likes a chuckle, but not everyone recognizes humor. It gets in the way of communication. Just say what you mean.
Nice find! Just to add a few notes to your excellent post.
We have actual Peruvian specialist weighing in on Maussan's mummies and saying what everybody already knew. They are fakes. Here are a few of Moreno's other academic publications:
ESTRADA MORENO, Flavio
2012 "Principles of Forensic Archaeology".
Archaeological
29: 53-70. National Museum of Archaeology-Anthropology and History of Peru.
2013 "The Long Road to Death: Notes on Treatments pre y post deposicionales de ca-in contemporary cemeteries in Peru".
Archaeology and Society
26:395-406.Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. FilePeru.
Forensic anthropologist Flavio Estrada Moreno, member of the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences of the Peruvian Public Ministry, who investigated the samples, explained to EFE Verifica that they are "armed dolls" built "to give that tridactyl, alien appearance, with large heads and three-fingered hands.
This could be verified through radiology, infrared spectroscopy, comparative osteology and histology tests, he explained, which "revealed that they were elements assembled with animal bones and human bones glued with synthetic rubber." In addition, no cells were found, only plant fiber, rubber, glue and oils.
As well as the bio-mechanical argument many have made in this thread:
He stressed that "there is no atomic harmony or evolutionary logic" and that these "beings" would never have been able to walk, "or even stand with those types of flat, broken, stuck, poorly executed joints."
In addition, the idea that these aliens are at least 1000 years old is dubious at best. The institute that performed the Carbon-14 testing only says that what ever sample they were giving was dated to ~1000 YA, but they had no control over the sample and have totaly disavowed what Maussan is saying (bold in the original):
Maussan said that these "dissected bodies" of "non-human beings" were found "between the cities of Palpa and Nazca (Peru) in 2017", and that according to the UNAM, "who carried out the carbon 14 analyses, these beings have around 1,000 years old"
However, the UNAM Institute of Physics categorically denied these claims , and clarified that its carbon-14 tests only determine the age of the samples, without confirming their origin.
"The LEMA (National Laboratory for Mass Spectrometry with Accelerators) disclaims any subsequent use, interpretation or misrepresentation made with the results it issues,"
Julien Benoit, that did the digital endocast of the brain, showing that it was likely that of a llama, has a PhD and specialized in endocasting mammalian brains for his dissertation:
External Content below from here, bold in original:
From his paper on the mummies, he notes that most of the research done on them was funded by the Gaia TV channel for Maussan's shows that appeared there:
Much of the publicity of the tridactyl mummies is due to the extensive coverage he gave them in his program Tercer Milenio, social networks, television appearances and UFO congresses. But above all, the collaboration with the American production company Gaia – a sort of esoteric Netflix – which financed much of the investigation and launched a pay-per-view series (Unearthing Nazca) on the case in 2017. According to the annualreport published by Gaia, the content of that year contributed to the increase in subscriptions and to close 2017 with revenues that reached 28.3 million dollar
Benoit then breaks down Maussan's main team of experts (edited here for brevity):
However, it is paradoxical that the particularity shared by all the professionals assisted by the promoters of the case is the lack of experience in the scientific analysis of mummies. Regarding some of them, it is necessary to limit the previous research and collaborations that cemented the affinity with Jaime Maussan and Gaia.
Konstantin Korotkov, Russian inventor, writer and researcher with a PhD in Technical Sciences (personal web). He is leading the investigation of the case for the North American production company Gaia, for which he has collaborated sporadically since 2007. He attended the working table organized by former congressman Armando Villanueva where he was presented as a professor at the ITMO University of St. Petersburg, the enigmatic thing is that his name does not appear on the faculty of that university
José de la Cruz Ríos López, Mexican biologist, graduated from the Autonomous University of Campeche [1] in 2015 (personal web). It also supports the research that Jaime Maussan presented five years ago at a paid event called BeWitness. Where slides of an alleged "specimen of unknown origin" were analyzed; A short time later, several media outlets showed that it was the mummified body of a two-year-old boy found in Mesa Verde National Park, USA (1, 2, 3).
José de Jesús Zalce Benítez, surgeon, graduated from the Naval Medical School in 2005, with a master's degree in forensic medicine from the University of the Army and Air Force [1]. His presentation was one of the most controversial in BeWitness, that day he ruled that the boy's mummy did not match"any of the characteristics known as human".
Hence, the paradoxical peculiarity mentioned above is a work by contrast: the almost four years that the research has been carried out has lacked personnel versed in physical anthropology, archaeology, paleoradiology, taphonomy and, in general, experts in the study and conservation of mummies.
In addition to noting that none of Maussan's people are experienced in relative fields for the research they are doing, Benoit appears (the translation is a bit vauge) to points out they never published in scientificly accepted way, rather Maussan presented the results on a web site:
Likewise, it is incongruous that this supposedly great finding has been dismissed by the international scientific community, and that none of the studies carried out – for more than three years – have been published in indexed journals. In contrast, the dissemination of these analyses has gone without any academic scrutiny in The-alien-project.com (1, 2) —The Extraterrestrial Project, in its English translation.
Benoit points out, aside from a story by a "Mario" who claims to have found the mummies, there is NO providence for them and nothing similar in the archeological record:
There is no greater reference to the funerary context than the word of Marius. There is no archaeological context
, nor record of pre-Hispanic remains that have been subjected to this unique mummification technique.
When the fiscalinspection of the site pointed out by Mario, which is located within the polygonal of intangibility of the area inscribed on the world heritage list of the Nasca lines, no archaeological evidence of funerary characteristics was found. In addition, the file states that the alleged site of the discovery was built recently, probably "as a result of mining activity"
I'll have to call it quits here, but I urge those still wanting to understand these hoaxes to read the paper. He has an extensive list of various respected organizations declaring them fakes over the years. It' simply not in question, unless one is a diehard Maussan fan and believer.
Thanks for your kind words NorCal Dave. I just want to point out that you've misattributed some of the content of the article to Benoit. He is interviewed in the article specifically about the CT scans. He is not the author of the whole article and some of the quotes you've provided here are not by him, but by the author of the article (who seems to go by "Luca").
Thanks for your kind words NorCal Dave. I just want to point out that you've misattributed some of the content of the article to Benoit. He is interviewed in the article specifically about the CT scans. He is not the author of the whole article and some of the quotes you've provided here are not by him, but by the author of the article (who seems to go by "Luca").
It seems to be about Luisa, the mummy Maussan confirms to be fake. He publicly apologized for that hoax according to a lot of comments by mexicans I saw. Was Luisa presented during the hearing? That would be pretty stupid from the hoaxers.
Also I get the feeling reading posts here that people on this forum believe their opinion is on the level of a proof when it comes to debunking which is not really constructive.
