How the hell are they not debunked?
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).
I am sorry but that "database" of genetic markers is not really reliable. These "bean" and "cow" indications are basically statistical anomalies.
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.
Can you tell me how insects breathe?
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.
Well, Johann Jakob von Tschudi (1818-1889) claimed to have done so, and the evidence is his drawing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_von_Tschudi
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,
External 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.
External Quote:
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.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation
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:
They don't look like this, for sure.
And these are hard-shelled eggs for laying.
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":
