Alien Bodies at a Mexican UAP Hearing

What do you see on this pic which makes you think you can conclude more than the 3 experts who actually authored the paper?
Llama (green) faces left, Josefina (yellow) faces right.
20231026_060445.jpg

The skull/braincase is round on one side (yellow), flat on the other side (green), and has an opening at the base (red). These features make its orientation easy to identify in all of the pictures of the report, including the pictures where the many similarities of these two bones are pointed out.
20231026_060622.jpg
 
This shows which end is which, from the post above. The flat end is Josefina's "face".

1698282506844.png

This guy said "the mummy is facing down". I called him out on it.

I posted a black and white ct scan picture about the mummy's cranium's lower part.

You used it in your post. You claim the mummy is facing down. So the face of it is at the bottom of the picture.


Now he is telling me the flat part is the face. We can all see the picture. Flat part is facing up.

So now confirms he was wrong, the skull is facing the right way. Up. As the entire body. See? So easy to debunk hoaxers.


I will address the other unscientific posts here as soon as you people admit the conclusion does not come from the paper but from some laymans on the internet. As soon as you admit that you people made the conclusion and not the paper, I will debunk your ideas which lack a basic understanding of anatomy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I posted a black and white ct scan picture about the mummy's cranium's lower part.

You used it in your post. You claim the mummy is facing down. So the face of it is at the bottom of the picture.

What the makes you think that man? Really? What? This is literally putting theory above facts.

(obviously the mummy is facing up)
Now he is telling me the flat part is the face. We can all see the picture. Flat part is facing up.

So now confirms he was wrong, the skull is facing the right way. Up. As the entire body. See? So easy to debunk hoaxers.
20231026_120837.png20231026_060622.jpg

I have a feeling @Jedlik is ignoring me.
 

Attachments

  • 20231026_060445.jpg
    20231026_060445.jpg
    103.9 KB · Views: 55
Charlie Wieser, you looked at a CT scan and told me the skull is facing down.

I told you it is facing up.

Then you told me it is facing up.

In less than a day you claimed two contradicting things. You also proved the skull is facing the right way. And your reaction? You think I am a troll. How am I the troll?

About the pictures other people post here:

The paper decided that "if one is convinced that the finds constitute a fabrication, one has to admit at the same time that the finds are constructions of very high quality and wonder how these were produced hundreds of year ago"

As you can see they could not even prove that it is a fabrication. That is their theory but they did not prove it. The problem is that only 3 details are not in the place, the details you lot already quoted. Yet the other parts look fine. This obviously hints the skull was made from more than one parts. At least that is what we assume. Can we prove it? No. Did we conclude that? Of course not, since we cannot prove it.

The problem with the skull is that the bottom part looks facing the right way. There are issues with the top part. The theory is that it is made of more than one parts. But to prove it we have to find signs of adhesive, seams or chemical reactions. No such thing is visible: "At the availableresolution of the CT-scanning, no manipulation of Josephina’s skull can be detected."

So you can show me pictures but without an experts conclusion, those pictures mean nothing.
 
Charlie Wieser, you looked at a CT scan and told me the skull is facing down.
please use quotes (mark text and use the "reply" pop, or use the reply button), it's unclear what you are referring to

there are pictures with the skull facing down, and pictures with the skull facing up

The problem is that only 3 details are not in the place,
that's demonstrably false, the lopez paper shows two dozen details

The paper decided that "if one is convinced that the finds constitute a fabrication, one has to admit at the same time that the finds are constructions of very high quality and wonder how these were produced hundreds of year ago"
they proved it's a fabrication, they couldn't prove when it was fabricated
 
Charlie Wieser, you looked at a CT scan and told me the skull is facing down.

I told you it is facing up.

Then you told me it is facing up.
Please quote me saying the skull is "facing down", whatever that means.

In less than a day you claimed two contradicting things. You also proved the skull is facing the right way. And your reaction? You think I am a troll. How am I the troll?
I did not contradict myself. The flat end of the skull is and always has been Josefina's face, and it is also the back of a llama skull. If you think I ever said anything different, you misunderstood.


The paper decided that "if one is convinced that the finds constitute a fabrication, one has to admit at the same time that the finds are constructions of very high quality and wonder how these were produced hundreds of year ago"

As you can see they could not even prove that it is a fabrication. That is their theory but they did not prove it. The problem is that only 3 details are not in the place, the details you lot already quoted. Yet the other parts look fine. This obviously hints the skull was made from more than one parts. At least that is what we assume. Can we prove it? No. Did we conclude that? Of course not, since we cannot prove it.

The problem with the skull is that the bottom part looks facing the right way. There are issues with the top part. The theory is that it is made of more than one parts. But to prove it we have to find signs of adhesive, seams or chemical reactions. No such thing is visible: "At the availableresolution of the CT-scanning, no manipulation of Josephina’s skull can be detected."

So you can show me pictures but without an experts conclusion, those pictures mean nothing.
Before we deal with all that, you haven't yet admitted that the Conclusion of the paper (not to mention at several places within the paper) states the skull is a llama skull attached backwards. You may not agree with that conclusion, but it is the conclusion presented in the paper.
 
As you can see they could not even prove that it is a fabrication. That is their theory but they did not prove it.
The clearly state it was a llama braincase:

The “archaeological” find with an unknown form of “animal” was identified to have a head composed of a llama deteriorated braincase.
Content from External Source
 
Charlie Wieser, you looked at a CT scan and told me the skull is facing down.

I told you it is facing up.

Then you told me it is facing up.
The scan shown between 5.55 and 6.25 does show the skull facing down. This is also what the guy tells:
anterior at the bottom, posterior at the top. (around 6.15)

In the scan from 6.25 it does show the skull facing upwards.

Which way is the skull in the left pic face?
So in that picture the "Alien" is facing downwards so the "Face of mummy" is indeed at the bottom and the back at the top.
 
This you?

Which way is the skull in the left pic face?

:D
That depends which way up you hold the photograph, yes? The screenshot of the guy pointing at the CT scan shows it the other way up, but in both cases the anterior/front/face of the mummy's skull is correctly labeled. And that is the back of a llama's skull.

What matters is the labels.

I seriously don't understand why you're having a problem with this.
 
That picture shows the mummy facing up. This is not up for debate. I took the screenshot from a video where a radiologist scrolls through the entire scan. You can tell from the femurs up to the skull everything is facing up, the mummy is lying on its back in the scanner. They even show the mummy lying on its back in the scanner.

You edited my picture, added a text saying the bottom part is the "face".

Now you claim you never did that? Really? I just quoted the picture from your comment. What are you trying to convince me now?

Which way is the base of the cranium facing compared to the body? Front or back?

The scan shown between 5.55 and 6.25 does show the skull facing down. This is also what the guy tells:
anterior at the bottom, posterior at the top. (around 6.15)

In the scan from 6.25 it does show the skull facing upwards
Nope. How would that even work? Did the scanner mirror the image or what?
 
That picture shows the mummy facing up. This is not up for debate. I took the screenshot from a video where a radiologist scrolls through the entire scan. You can tell from the femurs up to the skull everything is facing up, the mummy is lying on its back in the scanner. They even show the mummy lying on its back in the scanner.
How the mummy is lying on the scanner is completely irrelevant. You can scan anything from any angle - makes no difference as long as you know what you're looking at on the scans.

Anterior means the front of the mummy. Posterior means the back of the mummy. Same as how any anatomical features are described in any animal. The "A" on the scan means that's Josefina's face. The "P" on the scan means that's the back of her skull.

In this screenshot, the flat end of the skull is labeled A for anterior. That is her "face". The rounded end of the skull is labeled P for posterior. That is the back of her skull.

1698319447486.png

A few seconds later we are shown the skull in the opposite orientation. Now the flat end is pointing down because they flipped the image. Doesn't matter. The flat end is still the front of her face. The anterior. The rounded end is still the back of her skull. The posterior.

1698319560833.png



Which way is the base of the cranium facing compared to the body? Front or back?

This question makes no sense. If you mean: which way is the posterior of the skull facing compared to the body, then if she was a living being and the skeleton has not been tampered with, the posterior of her skull by definition aligns with the back of her body like every other living creature. That's how the terminology works. It's how the doc in the above video is using the terminology because he's assuming the skeleton represents an intact living being.

However, if her skull is a backwards llama braincase, which the morphology proves is the case, then the posterior of the llama's skull aligns with the mummy's anterior, with the flattened areas on the posterior of the llama skull forming her "eyes".
 
Nope. How would that even work? Did the scanner mirror the image or what?

The operator did in fact flip the image using the software, as you can see in this screenshot compared to the one in my previous post. Here, the mummy's face is "facing down" on the screen - but that doesn't mean the mummy on the scanner bed was facing down. The flat end of the skull, which has been defined as Josefina's face, is still by definition the anterior.


1698320505451.png
 
Just as a matter of clarification: I never said this, which @Jedlik attributed to me:

You claim the mummy is facing down...
This guy said "the mummy is facing down".

This single misinterpretation of how I and others have been referring to the orientation of the CT scans seems to have led to Jedlik drawing various conclusions, culminating in the accusation they are talking to trolls.

I never said the mummy is facing down. I never thought or said or implied the mummy is facing down on the scanner bed (not that it matters if it was).

Some screenshots show the CT scan of the skull upside-down. I hadn't realized that this fact - along with the use of the anatomical terms anterior and posterior - was causing a problem in Jedlik's understanding of the conversation in this thread.
 
They should publicly release the DICOM files so others can look at them
If they have not done that yet, I am fearing this is all just an attempt to keep this whole mummy thing a "mystery".
Of course I cannot prove it, but it all reeks like horse menure to me if they are not willing to send scans or prints to others with more knowledge.
 
The operator did in fact flip the image using the software, as you can see in this screenshot compared to the one in my previous post. Here, the mummy's face is "facing down" on the screen - but that doesn't mean the mummy on the scanner bed was facing down. The flat end of the skull, which has been defined as Josefina's face, is still by definition the anterior.

https://www.gaia.com/video/update-6-bodies-evidence

6:15

The radiologist calls the part close to what you call "face" the anterior flossa.

The radiologist calls the part near the back of the skull the posterior flossa.

As you can see the only expert so far thinks the skull is facing the right way.

This is a video evidence of -based on your own conclusions- that you are wrong.

If they have not done that yet, I am fearing this is all just an attempt to keep this whole mummy thing a "mystery".

They released the dicom files, just not to laymans. Just look at this thread... Only researchers recieved them obviously. The study you guys talk about was based on the dicom files. I personally know someone who was also offered the dicom files. Not sure if he accepted because just like every other researcher, he does not have the time and resources to post a paper about it.
 
the conclusion does not come from the paper but from some laymans on the internet. As soon as you admit that you people made the conclusion and not the paper, I will debunk your ideas which lack a basic understanding of anatomy.
The conclusion that the skull in question is a backwards mammal brain case was presented by two separate experts, quoted in my first post in this discussion.

Here is a link back to my comment for reference:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/alien-bodies-at-a-mexican-uap-hearing.13163/post-304266

Twice now you've insisted that it's only a layman opinion, but that is factually incorrect. Even if the paper you are looking at was completely retracted, it remains an expert conclusion.
 
I already posted proof that the cranium is facing the right way. At this point it is proven.

The opinion of people on a forum is not relevant if the anterior fossa is in the front of the skull.
 
https://www.gaia.com/video/update-6-bodies-evidence

6:15

The radiologist calls the part close to what you call "face" the anterior flossa.

The radiologist calls the part near the back of the skull the posterior flossa.

As you can see the only expert so far thinks the skull is facing the right way.

This is a video evidence of -based on your own conclusions- that you are wrong.

Once again, and I already explained this, the radiologist is describing the skull as if it is part of an intact alien mummy. He is not assessing whether or not it's a backwards llama skull. Josefina the mummy has been assigned a front and a back according to her humanoid appearance, and he's using the same terminology while talking about her scans.
 
The skull is clearly inserted into the mummy backwards, with the flat posterior of the llama (or similar animal) skull presented as a flat anterior mummy face. But for the sake of argument let's assume for a moment that you, @Jedlik, carried the day and did indeed convince everybody here that the skull is not a llama skull inserted backwards, but is something else, as yet unidentified. OK...

What then? The mummies are STILL fake, as proved by the inverted bones in the hands, the inconsistency in how many bones are in the forearm, the insertion of rocks to appear to be eggs, the upside down bones in the thigh, the broken off bones where one would have been too long, the vertebrae inserted into the wrist, the DNA test revealing mostly bean DNA, etc. This is given circumstantial support by Maussan's history as a serial hoaxer, with a past history not only of general UFO and paranormal hoaxes, but even specifically hoax mummies. They are thoroughly debunked as hoaxes.

So I don't understand your fixation on the skull.

This is the end of the line for you trolls.
Ahh, now I begin to understand.

But if you sincerely believed youwere being trolled, the best response would always be
dont feed troll.png
I know it is hard -- I struggle with it myself! But I'll try to remember in the future.
 
The misunderstanding is because you don't know the anterior flossa is a part of every mammal's skull. The radiologist is proving that the skull is facing the right way.

The radiologist points to the cranium close to the face and calls it "anterior flossa". That is the part of your skull which is close to your eyes.

Then the radiologist points to the cranium close to the back of the mummy and call it "posterior flossa". That is the part of your skull which is close to your ears.

The anterior flossa is in the front of your head. Like your face. The posterior flossa is in the back of your head.

So when we look at a CT scan where a skull's "anterior flossa" is facing the face of the mummy or it's ribs or hips then we can be sure the skull is aligned well. The skull is facing the right way.

Everything else in this thread is just a hoax. This is a proof.

Also if you open the scientific paper we talk about you can also see the anterior and posterior flossa facing the right way, so it is impossible that they concluded that the skull is backwards. Literally impossible.
carried the day and did indeed convince everybody here that the skull is not a llama skull inserted backwards

What then? The mummies are STILL fake,

The question is: can we prove it?

So far we only got farther from this agenda.
The skull is clearly inserted into the mummy backwards, with the flat posterior of the llama (or similar animal) skull presented as a flat anterior mummy face.
Clearly he says. Lol.

Too bad the paper concluded that the bone is one piece. This entire thread is wrong and I proved it. You can fight science, you can report my posts but I still proved you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Also if you open the scientific paper we talk about you can also see the anterior and posterior flossa facing the right way, so it is impossible that they concluded that the skull is backwards.
IN THE PAPER:

sometimes they are talking about or showing a regular llama.
sometimes they are talking about or showing josephine.

so it is confusing.
Obviously JOSEPHINE'S skull is facing the right way, it's her skull.
but the LLAMA skull part they used (theory) is BACKWARDS.

i didnt watch whatever tv show you guys are showing screenshots of, and i couldnt care less about whether Josephine's skull is a llama skull or not, i'm not willing to do the necessary research to try and determine if their "llama skull" theory is correct or not.

BUT IN THE PAPER , they obviously think it's a backwards llama skull as they are studying her face against the back of a llama skull.

Screenshot 2023-10-25 211305.png
 
@Jedlik dont quote this way, that is in part why what you are claiming is so confusing to every reader but you.
1698333252270.png





highlight a portion of speech and use the little reply pop up button
1698333313960.png
 
If all the evidence (much of it re-stated & re-explained many times) in this thread is characterized as unproven, by you,
then it appears that you might cling to that position regardless...
Yes I know, people claim there are a lot of proofs against the mummy. But no expert claims that, especially not on paper, only these people on a meaningless website.

I took the best example. I took the example which had a paper written about it. I read the paper and immediately noticed the base of the skull is not backwards. Then I noticed the paper does not even claim that, only you peepz.

This was a great example how people believe hoaxes. Is the skull backwards? No. Does the paper claim it is backwards? No. Who claimed it is backwards? Some randos on this forum.

We could do the same thing with every "proof". As long as we look at them from a scientist's standpoint, you will see that what you call proof is nothing more than pattern matching based on layman ideas.

I have publications. I know what it takes to prove something. And I know just enough of anatomy to tell: This fake is good. Oh wait, let me quote the paper!

if one is convinced that thefinds constitute a fabrication, one has to admit at thesame time that the finds are constructions of veryhigh quality and wonder how these were producedhundreds of year ago (based on the C14 test), or eventoday, with primitive technology and poor meansavailable to huaqueros, the tomb raiders of Peru.

As you can see, we, the experts agree on one thing. If this mummy is fake then it is faked very very well. Sure, people can point to a few funny bones like they understood what the issue is with them, but there is a reason why there are no papers about it.

For example if you would turn 1 of your fingers 90 degrees it would show up in an xray like something you put in there the wrong way.

I included a picture. If you look at the phalanxes in the forefront of each pic you will see that the picture taken from above shows a bulging end, but when you take an xray from the side that bulging almost completely "disappears" since it is a 3d shape. It is possible that a finger ends in a bulge from an above perspective but does not end in a bulge in a side perspective.

This is why I laugh at people who "know" what bone they see on the mummy x-rays: there is no way to tell with one single 2d image. Everyone who claims they "know" what bone belongs to what animal is a fraud.

Of course if the creature was alive and not complaining about pain in the hand, then we could conclude that someone replaced his bones. But hundreds of years after death, after most of the bones show a great deal of damage, concluding anything about a 2d image seems ridiculous.

Also please stop spreading the Bean DNA theory, that is not a product of sequencing. It is like sending the data to 23andme. They just tried to find similarities. Also note that humans share 70% DNA with beans. Almost all of them are inactive genes btw.
 

Attachments

  • c267861aa7572786589181b83bc760_big_gallery.jpeg
    c267861aa7572786589181b83bc760_big_gallery.jpeg
    129.6 KB · Views: 50
Last edited:
you will see that what you call proof is nothing more than pattern matching based on layman ideas.
actually it is the alleged experts in the paper who are pattern matching. they are matching the skull patterns to a llama head.

a lot of proofs against the mummy. But no expert claims that, especially not on paper,
if you think your paper people are 'experts', then they do claim it is a llama head. ergo experts do claim it.

And I know just enough of anatomy to tell: This fake is good
is that a rando opinion?

Sure, people can point to a few funny bones like they understood what the issue is with them,
bones being upside down in one hand but not the other, isnt exactly rocket science .

As you can see, we, the experts agree on one thing.
wait...you're an expert? an expert who doesnt know the word "fossa", and an expert who can't manage to cite sources properly or figure out how to use the reply button? i'm skeptical of your claim.

is english a second language for you? i'm not trying to insult you, but that might explain a lot of your contradictory language.
 
I read the paper and immediately noticed the base of the skull is not backwards. Then I noticed the paper does not even claim that, only you peepz.
Again, this is untrue. Estrada and Benoit have separately made the conclusion that the skull is a backwards brain case.

Is there some logical reasoning behind your repeated disregard/denial of this fact? It's fine if you want to argue that they're wrong, or if you think they're not real experts or have some other objection. But I'd like to have a respectful discussion about it, which is impossible if you continue to ignore the facts presented.
 
The misunderstanding is because you don't know the anterior flossa is a part of every mammal's skull. The radiologist is proving that the skull is facing the right way.

The radiologist points to the cranium close to the face and calls it "anterior flossa". That is the part of your skull which is close to your eyes.

Then the radiologist points to the cranium close to the back of the mummy and call it "posterior flossa". That is the part of your skull which is close to your ears.

The anterior flossa is in the front of your head. Like your face. The posterior flossa is in the back of your head.

He labels the fossae that way because Josefina has been assigned a posterior and an anterior based on her external appearance: an apparent "face" with "eyes", along with the direction her feet are pointing (etc), are the reasons why that aspect has been called her anterior. Therefore, the fossa behind her eyes has been labeled the anterior fossa.

However, comparing her scan with a human skull, there are some analogous structures that show the skull is backwards. For example, the bow shape I've highlighted here is part of the human anterior fossa, but on Josefina it's labeled posterior. If that radiographer had used the morphological features of the skull to identify the fossae, he'd have realized the skull is backwards. Instead he labeled them according to Josefina's assigned front and back - in the same way the CT scan is labeled A and P for her face-end and rear-end respectively.

1698369094747.png
 
off topic removed

Good to see some active and vigorous debate here re. "The Mummies".

I just want to add that we should all be sensitive to the cultural significance of these objects. I prefer to call them "cultural artifacts" as they have been confirmed to be pre Hispanic by the government of Peru.

A lot of debate appears to be centered around the idea that these are Lama brain cases. But most people are using 2D images to make their points. Seems a 3D image would be better at proving one way or the other if these are Lama brain cases. Also would be pretty simple to get a sample of the brain case and run DNA testing on it to check if it has Lama DNA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just want to add that we should all be sensitive to the cultural significance of these objects. I prefer to call them "cultural artifacts" as they have been confirmed to be pre Hispanic by the government of Peru.
I think it's important to separate the cultural significance of these objects from the hoax. One or more of the mummies (for example the one named "Maria") appears to be a nearly complete human corpse that was mumified by the Nazca.

Since I have the chapter from "The Handbook of Mummy Studies" I'll copy another pair of quotes (bolded by me) to explain the theory in better words than I could write:
Available imagery shows remains that could be divided into two groups: the first one is composed by about a dozen fully stretched, slim plaster figurines, ranging on children’s sizes, with big heads and large eye sockets, all of them sporting three equally stretched fingers and toes. X-ray plates revealed crude anatomical inconsistencies, such as the use of carved animal skulls or the addition of upside-down phalanges, and even child’s long bones to elongate reassembled fingers and toes. The second group, to the trained eye, was unmistakable: they were pre-Columbian Andean mummies, naturally dehydrated and flexed in their typical sitting position, but totally divested from their funerary bundles, elaborate multilayered fabric cocoons that both helped to protect the bodies and, typically, left imprints in their skin. This second group shared with the first two characteristics: First, their white coloration, as if they had been caulked with a plaster looking substance – released information by the producers later conceded the substance was diatomite, a fossil white sand readily available in the Nazca area. Second, these mummies also presented three fingers and toes in their hands andfeet. They also shared large eye sockets and lacked ears. Observing these pre-Columbian Nazca dwellers could not be sadder. There was no doubt: these people’s remains had been mutilated.
And later in the chapter:
Most of the assembly appears covered by a coat of dusty white diatomite powder which is otherwise inexistent in the Peruvian archaeological record. Nevertheless, despite its supposedly ancient age, the coat is perfectly clean, and as seen on images posted online by the producers, it is detaching very easily, revealing the true dark color beneath, characteristic of Andean mummies. Moreover, over some protruding parts of the bodies, such as the knees, imprints from the original textiles wrapping the sitting cadavers, are visible. Where are the textiles? The inconsistencies and fabrications of this assembly are just grotesque.
This chapter was written by G. Lombardi (a journalist) and C. Rodríguez Martín (an anthropologist and mummy expert).

The existence of this white powdery diatomite is a unique feature of the "alien mummies" that does not appear in actual Peruvian mummies, according to this expert I've quoted. This is an indication that the mummies were modified at a later time to add the white powder. I would speculate that perhaps it's a side-effect of their assembly, or it's meant to hide indications of tampering.

(edited to fix copy-paste errors in the quotes)
(edited a second time because I got the book title wrong)
 
Last edited:
Hi wow. I am allowed to post on this but I can't post on the 29-palms case...

Good to see some active and vigorous debate here re. "The Mummies".

I just want to add that we should all be sensitive to the cultural significance of these objects. I prefer to call them "cultural artifacts" as they have been confirmed to be pre Hispanic by the government of Peru.

A lot of debate appears to be centered around the idea that these are Lama brain cases. But most people are using 2D images to make their points. Seems a 3D image would be better at proving one way or the other if these are Lama brain cases. Also would be pretty simple to get a sample of the brain case and run DNA testing on it to check if it has Lama DNA.
There are problems. Firstly, "be sensitive to cultural significance" doesn't square well with "get a sample of the brain case". That's just a comment. More importantly, as I understand it the actual physical artifacts are jealously guarded by Maussan and the others who have a vested interest in NOT investigating further. They make money off presenting these as "aliens", and don't want to be debunked.
 
More importantly, as I understand it the actual physical artifacts are jealously guarded by Maussan and the others who have a vested interest in NOT investigating further. They make money off presenting these as "aliens", and don't want to be debunked.
Archeological forgery dates back well over 100 years.
Article:
Archaeological forgery is the manufacture of supposedly ancient items that are sold to the antiquities market and may even end up in the collections of museums. It is related to art forgery.

In recent times, forgeries of pre-Columbian pottery from South America have been very common. Other popular examples include Ancient Egyptian earthenware and supposed ancient Greek cheese. There have also been paleontological forgeries like the archaeoraptor or the Piltdown Man skull.

The page has a list of examples.

I'm quoting this because Maussan's behaviour reminded me of a case like this.
 
It is not easy to argue they have anything to hide because the government of Peru wants the specimen back. Even if they are fakes, an entire country's government is considering it a property of said government.

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/09/15/6503860e46163ffd718b45e3.html

Please note that these peruvians think they are legit mummies, nothing special about them :D

There is an excuse for them to not hand them over to even a third country. If the government of Peru makes a good old international fuss about it they might just not get it back from let's say Germany. As far as I know they are open to any investigation but want researchers to go to Mexico to look at the mummies there. Is that such a ridiculous thing to ask? I don't really think so.

I have no information if they refused any such investigation. And if I was refused I would speak out. That kinda means there was not such inquiry so far.

As it seems to me, it is not just about Maussan not wanting to give it away. It is like proper scientists don't care enough or don't want to risk their reputation to actually go there and debunk it.

Is there a scientist who said "all right, I will go there and look at it myself then"? I will personally chip in to fund him. That is what we need. I follow the topic but never heard such a thing.

Also, these things are not easy to debunk. Just because you can link a few people claiming a few inaccuracies, that does not prove a lot. For example the entire country of Peru is on record saying:
This is a discovery we have known for years. No scientific entity in Peru has claimed these findings are of non-human origin.

Leslie Urteaga, Peru's Ministry of Culture chair, from the article above

Also, Vicek above me quotes from a "book" which does not exist. Please provide a source material for me because I am not sure if you are making stuff up at this point.
Also, I found an interesting thing.



You can remember this paper about the mummy's skull and investigating if it belongs to a llama or not.

https://www.iaras.org/iaras/filedownloads/ijbb/2021/021-0007(2021).pdf

We talked about it. The questions were if it proves that the skull belongs to a llama and if it is backwards.

This paper was authored by José de C. Ríos López. He is the main author who appears first.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uSeJnZEns



This is a 2 days old video of José de C. Ríos López, who authored the paper.

At 1:01:38 onwards he says:

Entonces, como este es un tema bastante controvertido debido a las características y apariencias similares que estos podrían tener, se realizó este trabajo. Así como se encontraron ciertas similitudes, también se encontraron diferencias, lo cual no es concluyente para determinar si esto se trata de un cráneo de una llama o de una alpaca. Para llegar a esa conclusión, tenemos que realizar estudios mucho más detallados, comparando los cráneos de otros individuos de la misma especie y llevando a cabo un estudio de ADN para cruzarlo con el ADN de estos organismos. Si encontramos que hay una coincidencia, entonces no queda más que decir que se trata de ello.

Yes I typed it out for you. Yes I speak a bit of spanish too, not fluent. English is also not my 1st (or 2nd) language, someone asked above. I'm European.

In english it means:

"So, as this is a rather controversial topic due to the similar characteristics and appearances that these could have, this work was done. Just as certain similarities were found, differences were also found, which is inconclusive in determining whether this is the skull of a llama or an alpaca. To arrive at that conclusion, we need to conduct much more detailed studies, comparing the skulls of other individuals of the same species and performing a DNA study to cross-reference with the DNA of these organisms. If we find a match, then there is nothing more to say than that it is indeed that."

I used chatGPT to translate so I am not accused of making errors. Blame chatGPT.

I swear on my life this is what is said in the video. Any spanish speaking member can attest. And there are pretty interesting claims in that video but that would require a lot of explanation why it is interesting so who cares.

Anyway, so much about debunking. I seen some pictures taken out of context from this study used as proof for the backwards llama head theory. And the author claims they did not even prove it is a llama.

If you accept this L then we can move on to dissecting the next piece of "proof". Trust me guys, I would not be on this forum if these specimen were not mindboggling.
 
Last edited:
I really think this Lama brain case vs. not Lama brain case could be answered very easy if we had a 3D CAT file for the Mummies skull. Maybe 3D print it off, than 3D print off a lama scull and cut off the portions which are being claimed to have been cut off. Compare.

2D image comparisons of a singe cross section is not going to convince people one way or the other IMHO.

This seems like a very "knowable" thing.
 
Back
Top