Mendel
Senior Member.
"Authentic bodies" means that they weren't manipulated, except as necessary to mummify them.
It contradicts the upside-down fingerbones and mechanically non-functioning joints and immovable jaw and backwards brain.
Alien Bodies at a Mexican UAP Hearing
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
It contradicts the upside-down fingerbones and mechanically non-functioning joints and immovable jaw and backwards brain.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I agree that that is what you or I would like it to mean, but communication has two-parties. I'd like them to be a bit more explicit in asserting specifically that there's none of the complained-about jiggery-pokery, and that if any of them are found to be true, they will withdraw their claim.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
It's possible they're hedging their bets so they have an "out", but I think the name of the game is being obtuse, inconclusive, and therefore eternally unresolved so that it's always possible they could be formerly alive NHI. That's why they constantly ask for more research when it's clearly unnecessary given the smoking gun errors that prove they're constructed.
They know they are fakes because they keep hiding Josefina's hands, and because they keep not having actual mummy experts examine them.
They are failing to address the possibility that these are recent fakes, because being ancient, even if constructed, is the only way to make the metallurgical results mysterious. So one aspect of the bet-hedging could be that if and when they have to admit they're constructed, at least they can persist with the possibility they were made with NHI help (using tech unknown 1000 years ago) and/or are based on actual aliens witnessed by the humans who made them (which is Ronceros's conjecture that I described above).
Exposing the chop shop that made them could be the only way to destroy the faith of mummy-believers, although of course there will always be more mummies from new chop shops, probably made with increasingly good skill. I look forward to seeing one with correctly oriented bones, a radius, fibula, wrist and foot bones, working joints, internal organs that make sense, a skull that's not identifiable as a Terran animal, and with comfortingly inconclusive DNA throughout the body.
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member
It's growing increasingly clear how an idea like "non-human biologics" can arise from deeply bad analysis by people who know how to throw together sciency vibes and terminology to pass off their work as being high quality and coming from experts. The issues with the bones seem clear but the DNA analysis also sticks out to me.
"The DNA was sequenced by legitimate genetics labs."
"The reads were catalogued in the US's NCBI Sequence Read Archive, a reputable tool."
"The sequence matches to known species were analyzed by SRA and they produced the phylogenetic tree showing non-human and unknown reads."
People unfamiliar with these concepts may see statements like these that are technically true, and think this supports the notion that the samples were reliably found to come from organisms not of this world, or from the future, or whatever else people have proposed. They throw out comebacks like "Are you saying you don't trust NCBI?" or "____ lab/university is reputable and they did the DNA sequencing". But it's just flat out not true that these support the arguments relating to ET, or even to unknown species at all. And Maussan's experts know it's not true, and I have to assume Maussan knows it's not true because any expert he talked to will have told him that. These sorts of arguments to me seem to be crafted by people who know they are misleading their audience because they're tailored to be technically true while at the same time omitting or conflating just enough to be intentionally misleading.
"The DNA was sequenced by legitimate genetics labs."
"The reads were catalogued in the US's NCBI Sequence Read Archive, a reputable tool."
"The sequence matches to known species were analyzed by SRA and they produced the phylogenetic tree showing non-human and unknown reads."
People unfamiliar with these concepts may see statements like these that are technically true, and think this supports the notion that the samples were reliably found to come from organisms not of this world, or from the future, or whatever else people have proposed. They throw out comebacks like "Are you saying you don't trust NCBI?" or "____ lab/university is reputable and they did the DNA sequencing". But it's just flat out not true that these support the arguments relating to ET, or even to unknown species at all. And Maussan's experts know it's not true, and I have to assume Maussan knows it's not true because any expert he talked to will have told him that. These sorts of arguments to me seem to be crafted by people who know they are misleading their audience because they're tailored to be technically true while at the same time omitting or conflating just enough to be intentionally misleading.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Have we explicitly explained this?
This analysis says, "homo sapiens 3.18%", so is it only 3.18% human DNA? Probably not, because the graph is a tree. If we go back from homo sapiniens via homininae, hominidae, ... , to metazoa, we are at 10% of DNA that could belong to any multicellur animal (including all animals you don't need a microscope to see). What this means is that the analysis found DNA snippets that could belong to any animal, but because no other animal species was identified, they're probably from human cells. We know that 3.18% of the DNA snippets can only belong to humans, but 10% can only belong to multicellular animals, including humans.
Go further up the tree, via ophistokonta to eukaryota 58.98%. These include the human snippets, but also the viridiplantae/phaseolae/phaseolus vulgaris aka garden beans. At that point in the tree (or further up) is where the algorithm would sort the snippets that human have in common with garden beans (and other eukaryota). But if we subtract 58.98%-47.95%-10.24%=0.79%, we see that that's less than 1%. The rest of the DNA snippets in this part of the tree is either specifically bean or specifically animal/human, with no overlap. So we can say that 47.95% of the DNA in this sample is probably bean (42.89% is definitely garden bean) and definitely not human.
There are 27.93% unidentified reads. What does that mean? The DNA analysis works on snippets of DNA. That's done because, for one, old DNA isn't intact anyway, the long molecule strands are broken with age; and, for two, it's part of the process. So there may be snippets that are very short—so short that you can't identify where they go. Take, for example, the number pi=3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233... . If you only had a short snippet of pi, like 446, you couldn't determine where it belongs, but a longer snippet, like 596446, would be unique in this part of pi (it appears again much later in the number). So, with DNA, these unidentified reads are most likely not from some hitherto unknown organisms from the Peruvian jungle, but simply from deteriorated DNA snippets that are too short to put them in a single place on the phylogenetic tree.
So why is there so much more bean than human DNA? Do beans have more DNA than we do?
Actually, bean DNA has ~600 Mbp (million base pairs), while humans have ~6 Gbp, that's ten times as much. Then how is there so little in that sample? The reason may well be that the human DNA is much older and more deteriorated, while the bean DNA is fresh: exactly what you would expect if a counterfeiter assembled these mummies from old (grave-robbed) human bones and fresh bean paste.
And that's what this DNA analysis is evidence of. Not aliens, but fakery.
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
The Pi analogy was a very insightful one. Perhaps I can over-stretch it to show some of the other ways that things can go right, and also go wrong?
Let's say you've found 4709 and 7093 segments, but no other *709 or 709*. So you feel pretty confident that 47093 is a substring of your number. And sure enough:
pi=3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233...
So you're right - you have a good 5-digit match for Pi? Alas not, you still can't do an identification as Pi, because:
e=2.7182818284590452353602874713526624977572470936999595749669676277240766303535475945713821785251664274274663919320030599218174135966290435729003342952605956307381323286279434907632338298807531952510190115738341879307021540891499348841...
(Statistically, this wasn't freakish, I'd say it was >>70% likely.)
I didn't need to snip the whole comment...
That is an interesting extension to Mendel's analogy, and no doubt could be extended to other transcendental and irrational numbers. (That's an exercise for another time.) For most laypeople, the science and statistics behind genetics and DNA sampling is in another galaxy from their normal knowledge, as is the knowledge of deeper mathematical concepts. A large part of the difficulty lies in making the information accessible to the general population in a manner that is clear and concise.
This is the gap that the likes of Maussan inhabit, fooling most of the people most of the time, knowing that the Debunks are fair and valid, but not highly visible to, or widespread in, the mainstream view.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Another possible analogy (I think yours is closer to reality, but some folks' eyes glaze over when somebody starts to talk about math.) So lets assume we are trying to find out what sort of stuff a store sells (to stand for what sort of organism) by looking for a list of product numbers they sell (to stand for snippets of DNA code -- a list of all the product numbers would describe exactly what the store sells, but all you have is bits of the list, alas.) And, as luck would have it, we find that exact number, 47093.
A quick Google search, though, shows us these products:
From that, we are not sure at all what kind of store we have, but could say there is a fairly good chance it is not a grocery store, pet shop or clothing boutique. It is more likely to be some sort of hardware or business supply store. (Analogous to saying the mummy DNA has fragments matching "Metazoa.")
If we found enough product numbers, including some longer ones that are more unique to a specific product, we might be able to say with some certainty what the store was. But if those more unique numbers definitively showed, say, a board game from Parker Brothers, a replacement power transformer for an industrial lathe, flea shampoo for dogs and a 15 gallon container of mayonnaise, it might start to look like somebody is fooling with us, and the product numbers list was put together from a bunch of different, unrelated, stores.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Ann K
Senior Member.
I had to laugh, as I was just making a shopping list before I go out to my local Marc's store. It has groceries, it has garden supplies, it has party materials, it has cookware, it has hardware, and given the fact that it carries overstocks and things that fell off a truck, I'd be willing to bet that it has had all the items you've mentioned at some time or another.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I'm not really doing math, I just needed a number with a lot of digits. I could've used a book, like the King James Bible, for example, and then played a game of "what part of the bible is this snippet from", where short snippets like "thus and thus" are not unique, but longer excerpts can be placed reliably. And basically the genome database is the bible, and they really tried to find which kind of organism the snippet indicates, and if there's not enough unique DNA text, it won't work.
@FatPhil's example suffers from the problem I kinda glossed over in mine, in that it's likely that every possible snippet from the decimal expansion of pi is also in the decimal expansion of e, and that no longer means anything in the DNA situation we're discussing, because DNA is large but finite. So a book like the bible (or perhaps a library) would've been a better example.
I wanted to piggyback on discussion regarding the University in question, the now-former University Rector Jorge Legua, and the new set of 11 researchers involved in the most recent hearing.
A couple days after the 11/7 hearing, Jaime Maussan shared what he claims is an "official" confirmation of authenticity of the bodies by San Luis Gonzaga National University:
Source: https://x.com/jaimemaussan1/status/1722771873153405069?s=20
@jaimemaussan1(translated):
Translated, the document claims to confirm the authenticity of the bodies "from a biological point of view." It is signed by 11 researchers, all who claim to have examined the bodies, including now-former Rector Jorge Legua. The document features the university's letterhead. At this time, this document has not been published by any official channels associated with the university; no tweet, webpage, or announcement from the University itself exists regarding this document found at the google drive link.
I cross-referenced the 11 researchers and their university ID numbers with the most recent lists of faculty/staff at the university. The most recent list is from September 2021 and it contains all faculty ID numbers. 8 out of 11 researchers from the google drive document appear on the university's list of personnel at some point in the year 2021. The three researchers who do not appear in 2021 are:
In addition to not being able to connect these three researchers to any recent list of faculty, these three also do not appear to be listed in what looks like the university's current directory of teachers on its homepage. This directory can be navigated using the 'Facultades' (faculties) button, and selecting an area of study. It stands to reason that these three researchers have not taught at the university in awhile. It would seem strange that former teachers are involved in an "official" scientific determination by a University they no longer work for...
Shortly after the release of the above letter, news broke that now-former University Rector Jorge Legua was "fired," feeding into the idea that a grand conspiracy is underway to silence research into a previously undiscovered, egg-laying species of humanoid!
Source: https://twitter.com/jaimemaussan1/status/1722722200237621469
@jaimemaussan1 (translated):
Digging further though, it is evident that the dismissal of Jorge Luega was the result of an appeal process that ruled in favor of Ana Maria's return to her post as Rector. Note that this change in personnel was formally announced by the University, unlike the "official" scientific findings of the 11 researchers that was only released through someone's personal google drive account, with no connection to San Luis Gonzaga National University.
According to a story published by LaRepublica.pe - Jorge Luega took over Ana Maria's role in May of 2023, arguing that he was next in line for the position given his seniority over Ana Maria as a faculty member at the University. Jorge Luega was given the position, and Ana Maria filed an appeal to the National Superintendency of Higher University Education (SUNEDU) - arguing that Human resource documents establish her as a member of faculty longer than Jorge Luega.
Wilber Huacasi, Larepublica (translated): https://larepublica.pe/politica/act...aria-kuroki-jorge-moreno-unica-sunedu-1540098
Given that the University has still not endorsed the findings of those 11 researchers, and that at least 3 of those researches do not appear to have taught at the school for a few years, the university's decision to remove Jorge Luega, even if as a result of using their letterhead to endorse these findings, is completely understandable. Plus, his position was clearly already being contested in an appeal filed by Ana Maria months ago. This is conjecture on my part, but when you also factor in the university's documented history of struggling to maintain accreditation for a few years now, surely such a pseudoscientific stunt that is the study of apparent hoaxes can't possibly look good for them either.
Adding all of this to the downright condemnation of this stunt from archeology students and faculty of the school...Not to mention the lack of any archeologist involvement in these findings despite the school's offering of archeology as an area of study.... It looks to me like Maussan and gang are desperately trying to create the facade that this is some kind of official study by the University, but they don't exactly have the University on their side.
A couple days after the 11/7 hearing, Jaime Maussan shared what he claims is an "official" confirmation of authenticity of the bodies by San Luis Gonzaga National University:
Source: https://x.com/jaimemaussan1/status/1722771873153405069?s=20
@jaimemaussan1(translated):
His tweet includes a link to a document hosted on google drive, the file's owner is a guy named Jesús Alberto Tlaxcalteco. From what I can gather, Alberto Tlaxcalteco is not associated with San Luis Gonzaga National University in any official capacity, nor did he use a university email address to upload the file. Rather, he is someone who was involved in organizing the recent hearing on the behalf of Maussan: https://twitter.com/admpubmx?s=21&t=f0Godr57pK9GApYGZl4DoQExternal Quote:
Translated, the document claims to confirm the authenticity of the bodies "from a biological point of view." It is signed by 11 researchers, all who claim to have examined the bodies, including now-former Rector Jorge Legua. The document features the university's letterhead. At this time, this document has not been published by any official channels associated with the university; no tweet, webpage, or announcement from the University itself exists regarding this document found at the google drive link.
I cross-referenced the 11 researchers and their university ID numbers with the most recent lists of faculty/staff at the university. The most recent list is from September 2021 and it contains all faculty ID numbers. 8 out of 11 researchers from the google drive document appear on the university's list of personnel at some point in the year 2021. The three researchers who do not appear in 2021 are:
1. Dr. Irvin Zuñiga Almora - Surgeon / Dental Surgeon - ID No.: 41851715 - Based on Irvin's public linkedin profile, he hasn't taught at the university since 2005, and I was able to find faculty documents that list him at the university in the early 2000's, but nothing recently as of yet.
2. Dr. David Ruiz Vela - Forensic Doctor / Plastic Surgeon - ID No.: 09180332 - I found his linkedin but I haven't found anything connecting him to the university recently. Notice that his and Dr. Irvin's ID numbers are significantly different from the rest? I suspect that this may be because like Dr. Irvin, he probably has not worked at the university in some time. Definitely not in 2021.
3. Dr. José E. Moreno Gálvez - Radiologist - ID No.: 21545391 - I cant make out whether the name on the letter is Jose or Jorge, but either way the surname is definitely Moreno Galvez, and I haven't found someone with that name with any connection to the university in any month of 2021.
In addition to not being able to connect these three researchers to any recent list of faculty, these three also do not appear to be listed in what looks like the university's current directory of teachers on its homepage. This directory can be navigated using the 'Facultades' (faculties) button, and selecting an area of study. It stands to reason that these three researchers have not taught at the university in awhile. It would seem strange that former teachers are involved in an "official" scientific determination by a University they no longer work for...
Shortly after the release of the above letter, news broke that now-former University Rector Jorge Legua was "fired," feeding into the idea that a grand conspiracy is underway to silence research into a previously undiscovered, egg-laying species of humanoid!
Source: https://twitter.com/jaimemaussan1/status/1722722200237621469
@jaimemaussan1 (translated):
In this tweet, Maussan attached a screenshot of a document appearing to confirm the dismissal of Rector Jorge Legua, and the reinstatement of the Rector who preceded him - Mrs. Ana Maria Kuoki. I ran this screenshot through Google Translate:External Quote:
Digging further though, it is evident that the dismissal of Jorge Luega was the result of an appeal process that ruled in favor of Ana Maria's return to her post as Rector. Note that this change in personnel was formally announced by the University, unlike the "official" scientific findings of the 11 researchers that was only released through someone's personal google drive account, with no connection to San Luis Gonzaga National University.
According to a story published by LaRepublica.pe - Jorge Luega took over Ana Maria's role in May of 2023, arguing that he was next in line for the position given his seniority over Ana Maria as a faculty member at the University. Jorge Luega was given the position, and Ana Maria filed an appeal to the National Superintendency of Higher University Education (SUNEDU) - arguing that Human resource documents establish her as a member of faculty longer than Jorge Luega.
Wilber Huacasi, Larepublica (translated): https://larepublica.pe/politica/act...aria-kuroki-jorge-moreno-unica-sunedu-1540098
There seems to be some controversy as to who has been with the university longest, but ultimately SUNEDU determined that Ana Maria started with the university in March 1974, while Jorge Luega started in June 1974. Ana Maria won the appeal, and Luega was dismissed on November 7th 2023.External Quote:
Given that the University has still not endorsed the findings of those 11 researchers, and that at least 3 of those researches do not appear to have taught at the school for a few years, the university's decision to remove Jorge Luega, even if as a result of using their letterhead to endorse these findings, is completely understandable. Plus, his position was clearly already being contested in an appeal filed by Ana Maria months ago. This is conjecture on my part, but when you also factor in the university's documented history of struggling to maintain accreditation for a few years now, surely such a pseudoscientific stunt that is the study of apparent hoaxes can't possibly look good for them either.
Adding all of this to the downright condemnation of this stunt from archeology students and faculty of the school...Not to mention the lack of any archeologist involvement in these findings despite the school's offering of archeology as an area of study.... It looks to me like Maussan and gang are desperately trying to create the facade that this is some kind of official study by the University, but they don't exactly have the University on their side.
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Can't find an industrial lathe replacement transformer on Amazon (lots of general transformers, no idea if they could be jury-rigged to work) , biggest mayonnaise I can find in a cursory search is 6 gallons. *
So I could win that bet by being all literal and stuff!
But Yeah, point take, I was thinking in terms of a a brick-and-mortar store because I am old and think in those terms. Anybody wanting to use that analogy elsewhere might tweak the wording accordingly.
*That's 30 pounds of mayonnaise! Being just home from a routine colonoscopy, I did NOT need the image of 30 pounds of mayonnaise in my head just now!
And if mods find that inappropriate (I can't judge, I'm groggy) I apologize and feel free to delete it!
Ann K
Senior Member.
When in college I worked a summer job in the kitchen of a resort hotel. Massive quantities of foodstuffs are a thing I'm familiar with ...such as the day that a three-foot-tall vat of cooked spaghetti fell off the truck as it was being delivered from the main kitchen to the hotel!That's 30 pounds of mayonnaise! Being just home from a routine colonoscopy, I did NOT need the image of 30 pounds of mayonnaise in my head just now!
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Absolutely, that's why I wanted to provide muliple directions to go in. To be honest the maths is pretty tawdry, few people are convinced by just numbers, I'm just glad that the first 150 digits of both constants were sufficient to show a technically non-wierd apparent wierdness. (what's weird is the paucity of 4-digit overlaps - the number of 5-digit overlaps os basically spot on.)
Mendel
Senior Member.
If you were using 150 digits, then P(5 digits match) is approximately 1-(99854/100000)^146=19.2%.
P(4 digits match) is approximately 1-(9853/10000)^147=88.7%.
Since you found a 5-digit match, you have at least two 4-digit matches.
Thd approximations assume no repetitions of combinations.
P(4 digits match) is approximately 1-(9853/10000)^147=88.7%.
Since you found a 5-digit match, you have at least two 4-digit matches.
Thd approximations assume no repetitions of combinations.
Skalman
Senior Member.
So, UAPMAX (or well, Steve Sprague since he seems to be the only person involved with it), has several interviews published with a source who claims to be close to AARO.
He hasn't gotten any pushback on the mummies on twitter, which doesn't surprise me, though it surprises me that he included it at all given the fact that almost no one seems to have fallen for that particular hoax. Especially since Sprague himself seem to be wary of his source (that he was the one that contacted), writing stuff like this about it (link goes to the first article with the insider):
It seems like one critical question about the upside down finger bones or the previously proven fakes from the same source would have been enough to expose the source as not that trustworthy, but no. Other than that, the interviews are very entertaining reading, written in a theatrical style that makes it look like something lifted out of spy thrillers or the X-files.
*It says November 8th on the webpage, but his tweets about writing and posting looks to be from the 9th, which I chalk up to twitter showing me the date and time of my own time zone and not his.
This disclaimer is from the interview posted on the 8th of November*, where the part that is relevant to this thread is this exchange:External Quote:
External Quote:
He hasn't gotten any pushback on the mummies on twitter, which doesn't surprise me, though it surprises me that he included it at all given the fact that almost no one seems to have fallen for that particular hoax. Especially since Sprague himself seem to be wary of his source (that he was the one that contacted), writing stuff like this about it (link goes to the first article with the insider):
External Quote:
It seems like one critical question about the upside down finger bones or the previously proven fakes from the same source would have been enough to expose the source as not that trustworthy, but no. Other than that, the interviews are very entertaining reading, written in a theatrical style that makes it look like something lifted out of spy thrillers or the X-files.
*It says November 8th on the webpage, but his tweets about writing and posting looks to be from the 9th, which I chalk up to twitter showing me the date and time of my own time zone and not his.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
That is an utterly terrible question. How would anything apart from "yes" be a correct answer to it?
Skalman
Senior Member.
I mean, technically, you're right, but I think we all know what's implied from the context, though it does of course leave the "out" for both parties to say they/I meant real as in "real physical objects that exist".
Mendel
Senior Member.
It's not a quiz, it's an interview. Questions are used to get the guest to say interesting stuff, and it worked.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
It leaves the opportunity for future selective quoting framed in a way that it implies a terribly wide range of things.
For example, do you approve this sentence: "Even Mendel from Metabunk has admitted that UFOs are real."?
Can someone post that to r/ufonuts/, and see what the response is?
Mendel
Senior Member.
That's not a quote, selective or not.
As the interviewee, never give short answers. Make sure your answers can stand alone, then the question does not matter.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
An irrelevant detail - I never called it a quote, so denying that is shouting at the wind.
I asked a simple question. You evaded. Is that because you can see where this can lead no matter if you answer "yes" or "no" (the only two admissible answers to a yes/no question, unless you're going to head down some "that depends on how you're going to interpret the response" direction, in which case my point is hopefully made.)
I disagree. Answers to questions Can often only be understood in the context of their question. If you want answers to questions, ask direct questions, and hope for direct answers. If you want story-telling, then ask open-ended questions inviting story-telling, but don't be surprised if you don't end up going in the direction you wanted. Whichever is chosen, it's 100% the *interviewer's* responsibility to direct the interview, not the interviewee's.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
Thanks for this. The source apparently doesn't know that the DNA is so degraded, this sort of splicing is surely impossible to ascertain. One might conclude Victoria's native DNA was spliced with mung bean, perhaps.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
I wrote to Dr Mary Jesse in October with no response, then prompted her 2 weeks ago and she wrote back. She appears in Gaia TV's Nazca Mummies series episode 5, starting at [10:00], as a radiologist analyzing the scans of Alberto and Josefina. I think this was filmed in 2017. I can't link directly to the episode but her analysis has been clipped and tweeted here:
Source: https://twitter.com/Jehoseph/status/1711414467484082367
You can see she's examining tiny images, not the full-size x-rays that Antropogenez would be sent in 2019 (two 3000x4000px jpgs). Those thumbnails are topograms - 2D x-rays made with the CT scanner, also called "CT scout view" - preliminary images used to define the scan range of the full CT scan.
I asked if she'd seen the full-size x-rays, where it's clear Josefina's fingerbones are mixed up, and I sent this color-coded image from Scientists Against Myths to illustrate the point.
She told me:
She reiterated:
I asked again if she'd offer an opinion about the implications of the fingerbone situation. She gave me a ridiculous answer:
A reminder that Maussan & co. must know that Josefina's hands are a problem because they keep hiding them when her x-rays are presented. Two examples - from the 2023 Mexican hearing and the 2023 livestream scan of a different mummy:
Nor can I find the full-size x-rays on The Alien Project website.
Source: https://twitter.com/Jehoseph/status/1711414467484082367
You can see she's examining tiny images, not the full-size x-rays that Antropogenez would be sent in 2019 (two 3000x4000px jpgs). Those thumbnails are topograms - 2D x-rays made with the CT scanner, also called "CT scout view" - preliminary images used to define the scan range of the full CT scan.
I asked if she'd seen the full-size x-rays, where it's clear Josefina's fingerbones are mixed up, and I sent this color-coded image from Scientists Against Myths to illustrate the point.
She told me:
I sent her the full-size x-ray of the hands and asked her if in her opinion it showed "her hands (at the very least) have been constructed?"External Quote:
She reiterated:
The implication here is that she told GaiaTV her analysis was not scientific because she didn't have enough information, and that they cut this out. Her analysis was presented IMO as a scientific opinion from an expert that the mummies are real.External Quote:
I asked again if she'd offer an opinion about the implications of the fingerbone situation. She gave me a ridiculous answer:
The main point here is that she asked for the data necessary to make a scientific analysis and wasn't given it. However I was dismayed to say the least that she'd skirt one simple question which anyone with basic knowledge of anatomy could answer looking at the full-size x-ray. I asked if she signed an NDA but she didn't answer that. Maybe the NDA prevents her admitting to the NDA.External Quote:
A reminder that Maussan & co. must know that Josefina's hands are a problem because they keep hiding them when her x-rays are presented. Two examples - from the 2023 Mexican hearing and the 2023 livestream scan of a different mummy:
Nor can I find the full-size x-rays on The Alien Project website.
Attachments
Mendel
Senior Member.
You're a stranger on the Internet, she doesn't know if what you're sending her is even authentic.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Plus she's been burned once already -- I don't really think we can blame her for being cautious about touching the stove top again.
NoParty
Senior Member.
I agree and would also cut her some slack. That said, she's still absurdly evasive for my taste.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
The stove is not hot. It's as cold as cold hard facts.
The document Maussan and his team are trying to spread lacks of value. The UNICA authorities signatures currently lack of value. Plus, that document states that it contains the signatures of 11 professors. That's not true. One of the ex rector of the univesity and the others don't belong to the university at all:
The legit authorities already stated that the university itself NEVER analized those bodies and everything that was presented by those people, the statements were made in a personal capacity and do not represent the university. This can be verified in the UNICA website, because the so called 'research' never appeared as one of the researched that university ever made... Everything points for long that this was a sort of agreement between 4 professors and the promoters.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
I'm afraid I'm going to call BS on this, gentleman. (On the presumptuous assumption you are all gentlemen.)
Dr Mary Jesse didn't indicate to me that the x-rays weren't of Josefina or that I was tricking her somehow. She could have easily checked, and in fact, under more public circumstances than a GaiaTV episode, her reputation would've depended on checking. Instead, she gave me a gaslighty answer.
She's a professional who agreed to go on camera talking about allegedly extraordinary images. She was likely paid for it. Fair enough if she was frustrated by not having full access to data, or was edited badly (it seemed she hadn't seen her own final edit), or regrets it.
But in talking about it now, she had an opportunity to be sensible and scientific. I ended up essentially pleading with her to go with the truth for its own sake, which I'd have thought is the line she as a scientist, and any skeptic, would take:
Which led to her reply:External Quote:
Of course she's not obligated to examine the x-rays, research whether they were genuine, or give any opinion or be further involved. But that doesn't mean she gets "let off the hook" for making that decision, given she voluntarily got involved in the first place and we are stuck with her "analysis" being touted as evidence of aliens.External Quote:
So - gentlemen - maybe there's something else going on here? Something that sets Dr Mary Jesse apart from others who involved themselves in this hoax? A lesson to be learned by skeptics? Because I don't recall others associated with this hoax being given such leeway when they accept money to promote a scam and then refuse to take accountability afterwards.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I can confirm I am a man -- but no gentleman would ever be so presumptuous as to be the one to categorize himself as a gentleman, and so I cannot do so.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
ETA: I'm a she.
FTR it's very very hard for a woman to call out attractive women in this space (I'm referring to the broader UFO/paranormal space). Very hard. But that's a discussion for another thread.
And I'm not saying that misguided gentlemanly behavior is what happened here, but I do think it's a possibility.
FTR it's very very hard for a woman to call out attractive women in this space (I'm referring to the broader UFO/paranormal space). Very hard. But that's a discussion for another thread.
And I'm not saying that misguided gentlemanly behavior is what happened here, but I do think it's a possibility.
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
What was she doing previously if not giving an opinion and being involved?
Mendel
Senior Member.
The idea is that she regrets it and no longer wishes to be involved.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
That's certainly possible and I would think likely, but I am reminded of Dr. Travis Taylor. We've found evidence that he was trying to get into the UFO/alien n media circuit back in the '90s. In later years he ended up on various TV shows including Ancient Aliens before landing on Skinwalker Ranch iwhere he's the resident expert that posits all kinds of fringe stuff.
In that respect, I agree with @Charlie Wiser and @FatPhil that, if one wants to participate in these endeavors, one needs to be ready for a bit of blow back. If Dr. Jesse wants to participate with Massaun and his various hoaxes, some may call them out on it. IF Dr. Jesse was caught off guard with how she was interpreted that's a legit complaint, but she could express her reservations about.
Granted, Charlie is a nobody on the internet to Dr. Jesse, but a simple generic "I didn't know what was really going on, and I wouldn't do it again check out the movie ScienceFriction", type of answer I think we would say OK, that happens.
That a scene that's very heavily "dude centric" used an easy on the eye lady expert seems a bit more suspect.
Neil deGrasse Tyson was asked about this hoax few days after the first audience in the Mexican Congress. He mentioned the mummies hoax exposure to criticize the lack of evidences in the American audiences... This made Jaime Maussan to post everywhere that Neil deGrasse Tyson supported the 'research' of these mummies.
Past week Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about this hoax. He's clearly not interested on it, but doesn't believe in the story that Maussan and others promote in internet.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8F7U2JqDE
Past week Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about this hoax. He's clearly not interested on it, but doesn't believe in the story that Maussan and others promote in internet.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8F7U2JqDE
Is this the best place to pick this up and continue this discussion, or is a new thread required? Mick told me off last time. Sorry, accuracy…Mick provided me guidance last time. Regards UAP Files Jimmy
Similar threads
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
Thread '"Active Social Engineering Defense" and "Large Scale Social Deception"'
- Mick West
Replies: 22