Alien Bodies at a Mexican UAP Hearing

[JMartJr]

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.

Feel free to try.

 

[Mendel]

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.

Then you have the scan of one individual, modern lama.Lamas have been domesticated for over 1000 years, and you need only look at dogs how much variation this could create.

Also, there's this:

Article:

Lama is a genus containing four South American camelids: the wild guanaco and vicuña and the domesticated llama and alpaca. Before the Spanish conquest of the Americas, llamas and alpacas were the only domesticated ungulates of the continent. They were kept not only for their value as beasts of burden, but also for their flesh, hides, and wool.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_(genus)

Try to get a 3D scan of a guanaco skull for comparison! I don't think there is one.

 

[Arthur 33]

.Lamas have been domesticated for over 1000 years, and you need only look at dogs how much variation this could create.

This is true. Probably your best option is 3D print off the Mummies skull and go to a natural history museum which probably has dozens of Lama skulls. Talk to a expert zoologist and get their opinion. Hell just send the 3D cat file to a well respected zoologist and ask their opinion would add to this debate.

 

[JMartJr]

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.

Assuming the guy with the mummies WANTS them to be studied and confirmed (or, as the case may be, debunked) then yes, it would be knowable. My impression is that he is not interested in that, and does not want anybody outside of his influence having anything to do with the supposed mummies.

That said, as far as I can tell the 2-D scans and info we have is sufficient to prove the case. The mummies are fake. The skulls are almost certainly from one of the llama relatives of South America, but pinning that down is interesting rather than critical. Even if it could be shown that we don't know the source of the "skull" after all, the mummies are still shown to be fake by other evidence, as listed in my post #303 above and throughout the thread by others.

 

[Landru]

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 Book of Mummy Studies" I'll copy another pair of quotes (bolded by me) to explain the theory in better words than I could write:

And later in the chapter:

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)

Is this a book? I could not find it. I searched titles by Conrado Rodríguez Martín and did not find this title.

 

[Vlcek]

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.

I've posted previously about a researcher who did this (or something equivalent). Here is a quote from Julien Benoit (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julien-Benoit). He took the CT scans that are available and made a 3D model of the brain, concluding that it's from a mammal:

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.

http://descreidos.utero.pe/2020/06/03/megapost-las-momias-tridactilas-de-nasca/

 

[Mendel]

Is this a book? I could not find it. I searched titles by Conrado Rodríguez Martín and did not find this title.

Lombardi, G., Rodríguez Martín, C. (2021). Fake and Alien Mummies. In: Shin, D.H., Bianucci, R. (eds) The Handbook of Mummy Studies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3354-9_36
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-15-3354-9_36

Vlcek gave the source and the Springer link in a previous post.

 

[Vlcek]

Is this a book? I could not find it. I searched titles by Conrado Rodríguez Martín and did not find this title.

Apologies! I got the title wrong, it's "The Handbook of Mummy Studies". The chapter is "Fake and Alien Mummies", you can see it here: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-15-3354-9_36.

I'll edit the title.

 

[Vlcek]

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.

Here is a post made by a group of scientists and mummy experts from Peru who spoke out about these "alien mummies" back in 2017 when they were allegedly first discovered. I've bolded the part where they explicitly offer to demonstrate/defend their position that the mummies are frauds:

DECLARATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY REGARDING

THE FRAUD OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL MUMMIES

The subscribers of this document, members of the national and international scientific community, experts in the study and conservation of human remains (mummies and skeletons), communicate the following:

1.- In the last few months, the alleged discovery of "extraterrestrial mummies" in our country has been publicized through an irresponsible, organized disinformation campaign.

2.- Testimonies and published images on this case, allow to assert that these findings correspond undoubtedly to pre-Columbian human remains - Cultural Patrimony of the Nation -, maliciously manipulated and even mutilated to obtain an 'ad hoc' appearance for commercial exploitation. Moreover, the exclusion of the entire related archaeological contexts is absolutely contrary to the scientific investigation of this kind of cultural finds.

3.- It is upon our authorities to make the corresponding accusations, since this 'production' has violated numerous national and international norms that watch for the defense of Cultural Heritage. We hope that these same authorities will seek the protection and correct investigation of these remains and their place of origin, in order to stop looting and trafficking of human remains. We also expect exemplary sanctions for those responsible of this depredation of heritage that is of all Peruvians and Humanity as a whole.

4.- Finally, the criminal abuse of corpses for petty ends violates human dignity in a profound way. Thus, exploitation of pre-Columbian mummies carried out by this organization, attacks and particularly offends the Andean Culture, implying that its achievements were due to an alleged 'alien aid'.

We offer our best offices to collaborate with the authorities to demonstrate our statements in the corresponding instances. We also offer to participate in activities that would defend our patrimony and help educate the public about our ancestors and their legacy.

Lima, July 10, 2017

Sonia Guillén O'negglio (DNI 04649168), Guido Lombardi Almonacín (DNI 06959233), Elsa Tomasto-Cagigao (DNI 07258405), María del Carmen Vega Dulanto (DNI 10308912), Mellisa Lund Valle (DNI 07763061), Patricia Maita (DNI 25835019), Martha Palma (DNI 10537749), Carlos Herz Sáenz (DNI 07913390), Alejandra Valverde Barbosa (DNI 48813194), Marcela Urizar Vergara (CI 11347428-9), Claudia Aranda (DNI: 20056087), Leandro Luna (DNI: 23511760), Paula Concepción Miranda (DNI 29497158), Alejandro Vazquez Reyna (DNI 30651135)

https://es-la.facebook.com/wcoms/ph...el-fraude-de-las-momias-extr/804089006431344/

The names attached are experts. For example, Sonia Guillén: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Guillén

Sonia Elizabeth Guillén is a Peruvian anthropologist and the President of the Centro Mallqui, who is the current Minister of Culture of Peru. She was elected a foreign associate the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2012.

 

[John J.]

CT scan data done by Dr. Raymundo Salas Alfaro who I confirmed to be a ragiologist via public databases.

Unfortunately I couldn't find a Peruvian medical register, but I'm not sure Raymundo Salas Alfaro is a radiologist in the American/ West European sense (a doctor of medicine who has gone on to professionally specialize in the interpretation of radiographic images).
He doesn't style himself "Doctor" on his Facebook page, and his one listed qualification is in "Radiologia e Imagen" from Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos- he doesn't list a medical (i.e. doctor of medicine) qualification.

https://www.facebook.com/raymundo.salasalfaro.90/

What I think is now the equivalent course at Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Especialidad en Radiología, is a 3-year degree- certainly not long enough to qualify as a radiologist (in USA etc.) without a prior medical degree
https://carrerasuniversitarias.pe/u...e-san-marcos-unmsm/especialidad-en-radiologia

I'm suggesting it would be unusual to list a graduate professional qualification, but not a medical doctorate if you had one.


In another image, his "nameplate" does not have the title "Dr", though he is a "medico radiologo" (which Google translates as radiologist).

Maybe in his (Peru's) healthcare system, Raymundo Salas Alfaro is more than a radiographer, but not a radiologist in the sense that the term is used in some other countries (USA, EU nations, UK, Australia etc.)


In terms of the actual conclusions drawn from the CT scans, in
Applying CT-scanning for the identification of a skull of an unknown archaeological find in Peru, Jose De La Cruz Rios Lopez, Georgios A. Florides and Paul Christodoulides, 2021, the authors state

11 Conclusion
Our examination, based on produced CT-scan images, 3D reproduction and comparison with existing literature (e.g. [13], [14], [15]), leads to the following conclusions:
(a) The "archaeological" find with an unknown form of "animal" was identified to have a head composed of a llama deteriorated braincase. The examination of the seemingly new form shows that it is made from mummified parts of unidentified animals.
(b) A deteriorated lama braincase can produce features (like cavities) that can be found on a human cranium, and that also greatly resemble the main head bones of Josephina.

(PDF attached, below. Has illustrations. Apologies if already posted).

If anything, the authors are too accepting of the claimant's description of Josephina: The "mummy" is described as being covered with skin, although we haven't seen any images which show the surface resembling skin. The authors do not provide any evidence for this claim, or how they determined the covering to be skin.
The authors also seem to be reluctant to recognise possible signs of bonding or filling material, e.g. (page 6 of PDF)

A closer look at the top mouth plate shows that it is attached to the rest of the skeleton of the skull with hard bone at two symmetrical lines, as shown in Figs.6(a),(b),(c).

...and (pg. 7)

the only "unique" feature at this part of Josephina's skull [compared to a llama braincase- John J.] is the mouth plates, which at the resolution of the CT-scan available, seem to be connected to the skull.

However, pg. 6 Fig. 4,

(My underlining). The authors do not seem to recognise that the "mouth structure" appears to be connected to the skull via the non-bone material, and are strangely incurious as to its nature. The Fig. 4 illustration and text contradict the claim that

...the only "unique" feature

...is attached to the rest of the skeleton of the skull with hard bone...

It is taken for granted, from C14 tests, that the mummy is several hundred years old; it is not considered that it could be a recent assemblage of components, some of which are from real mummies (and therefore several hundred years old).
This is despite the authors noting that it would have been difficult to assemble the mummy 1000 years ago.
Personally, I think circumstantial evidence suggests the mummies are much more recent.

Florides is an associate professor at the Cyprus University of Technology in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering and Informatics
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Georgios-Florides

Christodoulides is an associate professor of applied mathematics, Cyprus University of Technology
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Christodoulides, https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=taQfkX0AAAAJ

Florides and Christodoulides subsequently worked (2022) together on a paper describing the reconstruction of dinosaur heads
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361304061_On_Dinosaur_Reconstruction_The_Head

Jose De La Cruz Rios Lopez is harder to find; the paper describes him as "Secretaria de salud del estado de Campeche, Laboratorio Estatal de Salud Pública" which Google translates as "Secretary of Health of the State of Campeche, State Public Health Laboratory". I'm unsure if this is his title or his employer. He is described elsewhere (and by himself) as a biologist.
The Laboratorio Estatal De Salud Pública in Campeche is a public health asset, apparently dealing primarily with epidemiology and disease surveillance,
"World Orgs" link here, Facebook link here.
Other than this paper, De La Cruz Rios Lopez has been a co-author of several papers concerning the genetics of lung cancer,
none (that I'm aware of) about gross anatomy, biological anthropology or evolutionary biology
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Jose-Luis-De-la-Cruz-Rios-26577224


These gentlemen are no doubt honourable and proficient in their fields.
But if I had custody of what I thought were ETs, or even a newly-discovered terrestrial species with the features described,
I would want the best available experts in comparative anatomy, pathology, genetics etc. etc.,
and if any of them thought for one moment that there was any credibility in the "find", I bet they'd jump at the chance.

In this interview (2019) Jose states that there are real biological specimens- that is uncontested; real bones have been used.
When asked if the mummy could be an assemblage of parts, he opines that this would have been difficult to do 1000 years ago; as per the 2021 paper the obvious alternative that it might have been assembled more recently is not considered.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upME0BhhWE

Interview conducted and uploaded by Giorgio Piacenza, found on the "ExoNews" website 11/11/19
https://exonews.org/3-finger-nazca-palpa-mummies-a-presentation-at-the-university/

As already raised by @Charlie Wiser, Reddit user TheFancyNerd posted this approx. 1 month ago, supposedly from Jose De La Cruz Rios Lopez,
https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/16m0rk0/a_statement_from_state_biologist_josé_de_la_c/

"CLARIFICATION: A year ago, I published an article in a scientific journal about the study we did with colleagues from the Netherlands, interested in the case of tridactyl mummies. This document has been taken as a basis to discredit tridactyl mummies. So, for me, it is important to point out that this publication had as the main goal of bringing the subject of Nazca mummies to the scientific community, which has not been easy at all because of the controversial topic. However, it could be published through a "Working hypothesis on the questioned skulls of these beings." It is important to note that the study makes clear the following points and is not conclusive or accurate, since more research needs to be carried out:

• Current study is limited.
• Low resolution of Computed Tomography.
• More comparisons with other skulls are missing.
• More tests needed with C14, DNA, higher resolution computer tomography.
• To perform an autopsy.

Clarified these points: "This publication does not determine that this is a fraud." Therefore, it should be supplemented with other studies to reach a precise conclusion, as required by scientific research. Carefully,

Biologist Jose Lopez Rivers."

I'm not sure what the connection with the Netherlands is,

He describes his co-authors as being from the Netherlands, but they have Greek names and work in Cyprus

...but the study details and timeframe given by Jose De La Cruz Rios Lopez indicate he's talking about the 2021 paper.

"This publication does not determine that this is a fraud."
Correct- the authors believe it is a real archaeological artefact, made by people several hundred years ago.

If Jose is now contending that Josephine is the remans of an extraterrestrial- and his above statement does not say that- then he is deviating from the conclusions made by himself and the two other authors.
(His call for more comparisons with other skulls seems absurd- we know lots of skulls will differ from "Josephine's", but it's hard to imagine that we could find a better match than a llama/ alpaca cranium.)

Edited to add: Nearly forgot, found this, "copyright Jose De La Cruz Rios Lopez",

-Well, the area around the supposed foramen magnum looks plenty chiselled to me.
And biologist Jose De La Cruz Rios Lopez seems to have overlooked (in the name of all that's rational, how?) a bloody great area of non-bone which just happens to have the appearance of cheap modelling resin.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

. Also note that humans share 70% DNA with beans. Almost all of them are inactive genes btw.

The DNA analysis doesn't say that 42.89% is from DNA shared by humans and a bean plant, it says 42.89% is from a bean plant.

When forensic scientists get DNA from a gun used in a robbery, they rarely make the mistake of assuming that the robber is 35% daffodil (or that there is a 35% chance the villain is a daffodil). Even if the gun was hidden amongst innocent daffodils.

It's rare that a court hears that a paternity test has concluded that the father is 98.9% chimpanzee.

As has been asked earlier, if the mummy custodians chose to use a wholly inept test centre or personnel, then why?

 

[Arthur 33]

I've posted previously about a researcher who did this (or something equivalent). Here is a quote from Julien Benoit (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julien-Benoit). He took the CT scans that are available and made a 3D model of the brain, concluding that it's from a mammal:

http://descreidos.utero.pe/2020/06/03/megapost-las-momias-tridactilas-de-nasca/

A "typical mammal" would have a jaw bone. Maybe she is referencing some other morphology? It could be a Lama Skull that has been cut up, but I would call that a "atypical mammalian morphology" due to the lack of jaw bone.

 

[Vlcek]

A "typical mammal" would have a jaw bone. Maybe she is referencing some other morphology? It could be a Lama Skull that has been cut up, but I would call that a "atypical mammalian morphology" due to the lack of jaw bone.

He describes making an "endocast", which is the representation of a 3d space, in this case specifically the inside of a skull where the brain would normally reside: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocast.

His comment is specifically about the shape of the brain that would "fit" inside the shape of the brain case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurocranium

He describes a multitude of features that apply to mammal brains, and notes that it appears backwards:

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.

http://descreidos.utero.pe/2020/06/03/megapost-las-momias-tridactilas-de-nasca/ (translated with google)

The lack of a jaw is consistent with the idea of a backwards skull and a hoax - a real jaw would be in the back, so it wouldn't make sense to include it.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

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.

The authors of the Lopez 2021 paper, that we've quoted extensively here, had access either to the complete 3D scan of Josefina or multiple 2D photographs of the 3D scan. They don't make that clear, although it would be odd for them to only be given photographs if a 3D scan was available.

the current study aims to scientifically examine, through CT-scan analysis, the skull of one of the small bodies... To this end the skull was divided into many sections and a detailed analysis was performed for each one of them

...It must be said that the current study is limited by the low CT-scan resolution and the lack of more comparisons with other small bodies craniums.

Despite the scan being referred to as low resolution, on p.48 the authors write:

a high definition CT-scan, performed by the Inkari–Cusco Institute, was made available to the present group of researchers.

A reddit user uploaded the 3D scan (labeled part 1) but I don't know if it's the "low res" scan these authors worked with or something better.

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.

You'd think so. But the main DNA study was done on Victoria, a similar mummy who is headless. I'm going to predict that Maussan's team will not allow DNA testing on Josefina's skull. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Arthur 33]

I'm going to predict that Maussan's team will not allow DNA testing on Josefina's skull. Hope I'm wrong.

I look forward for more DNA data too. I hope they get in contact with some good ancient DNA people in the West to do tests. There are many published PhD's in ancient DNA analysis. Big pool to draw from to run a test. The BEST ones are now using SNP chip high throughput low cost tech instead of PCR. It makes testing much cheaper and better than old old PCR tech.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

But if I had custody of what I thought were ETs, or even a newly-discovered terrestrial species with the features described,
I would want the best available experts in comparative anatomy, pathology, genetics etc. etc.,
and if any of them thought for one moment that there was any credibility in the "find", I bet they'd jump at the chance.

My first port of call would be an expert on fake mummies from Peru. Just to rule that out.

-Well, the area around the supposed foramen magnum looks plenty chiselled to me.

Paleontologist Cliff Miles wrote a 249-page paper about the mummies last year (where, incidentally, he failed to note Josefina's upside-down fingerbones). The pdf can be downloaded from his site.

In it, he noted the foramen magnum of these specimens (there are many, some being only skulls) was square (unknown in any Terran species). However he's changed his mind about that: A message he allegedly wrote (to the same Reddit user as above) about his work on Josefina this year states he removed her diatomaceous (rock-like) covering to examine her skin.

I personally removed all of the Diatomaceous earth off of Josephina when I went to Peru. Her skin is complete and intact for her entire body. No Seams, No scars. No way to create a fake of any kind. She is sound... I will be using this material for my updated paper which I will have peer reviewed.

This would have been right before the Mexican hearing, so that would be a reason why Clara was the egg-filled mummy presented there rather than de-skinned Josefina. As a paleontologist, he does not to my knowledge have expertise in the matter of mummified skin or in the matter of how mummies with "skin" are faked. Maybe his peer reviewers will help him out there.

When we used an endoscope to explore the inside of the 7 skulls, not one brain was encountered inside the Cranium. I was wrong about the Foraman magnums being square. It is likely going to be round or oval after all. I now believe that as part of the mummification process a tool was used to enlarge the Foarman Magnums so that their brain's could be removed as part of the mummification ritual by whomever was performing the process. I missed that in my description which I will correct in the new paper.

[My emphasis. This is probably a mis-type by the Reddit user, as Miles uses the correct term in his paper.]

Anyway, he agrees with you that the hole has been chiseled.

A few more notes from his relayed message:

We cut opened one of the skulls in order to collect bone samples.

No mention that these samples will undergo DNA analysis - in fact he explicitly says he's studying bone growth. (The skulls he's referring to are 7 mummified brainless skulls recovered along with Josefina and the other mummies - they too look like llama braincases.)

Regarding the complete bodies (such as Josefina):

Their bodies were subjected to at least two applications of "dipping" in order to better preserve the bodies. The first consists of some kind of resin. I could smell it when my son was cutting open the skull that we decided to use to take samples from...
The second application was with diatomaceous earth. I believe that both a slurry was used as well as dry applications. You can clearly see drip lines on the skull of one specimen. This mummification process and the dry Peruvian environment is what has allowed these specimens to remain intact.

Miles' working hypothesis is that these two coatings are the same age as the mummies (hundreds of years). Testing the age of the resin, if that's possible, could establish if these are recent fakes using old bones (which seems unquestionable to me). The diatomaceous earth will presumably turn out to be ancient, as it consists of fossilized diatoms.

 

[Mendel]

A "typical mammal" would have a jaw bone.

Brains don't have jaw bones.

 

[Jedlik]

It is actually foramen

My first port of call would be an expert on fake mummies from Peru. Just to rule that out.




Paleontologist Cliff Miles wrote a 249-page paper about the mummies last year (where, incidentally, he failed to note Josefina's upside-down fingerbones). The pdf can be downloaded from his site.

In it, he noted the foramen magnum of these specimens (there are many, some being only skulls) was square (unknown in any Terran species). However he's changed his mind about that: A message he allegedly wrote (to the same Reddit user as above) about his work on Josefina this year states he removed her diatomaceous (rock-like) covering to examine her skin.

I personally removed all of the Diatomaceous earth off of Josephina when I went to Peru. Her skin is complete and intact for her entire body. No Seams, No scars. No way to create a fake of any kind. She is sound... I will be using this material for my updated paper which I will have peer reviewed.

This would have been right before the Mexican hearing, so that would be a reason why Clara was the egg-filled mummy presented there rather than de-skinned Josefina. As a paleontologist, he does not to my knowledge have expertise in the matter of mummified skin or in the matter of how mummies with "skin" are faked. Maybe his peer reviewers will help him out there.

When we used an endoscope to explore the inside of the 7 skulls, not one brain was encountered inside the Cranium. I was wrong about the Foraman magnums being square. It is likely going to be round or oval after all. I now believe that as part of the mummification process a tool was used to enlarge the Foarman Magnums so that their brain's could be removed as part of the mummification ritual by whomever was performing the process. I missed that in my description which I will correct in the new paper.

[My emphasis. This is probably a mis-type by the Reddit user, as Miles uses the correct term in his paper.]

Anyway, he agrees with you that the hole has been chiseled.

A few more notes from his relayed message:

We cut opened one of the skulls in order to collect bone samples.

No mention that these samples will undergo DNA analysis - in fact he explicitly says he's studying bone growth. (The skulls he's referring to are 7 mummified brainless skulls recovered along with Josefina and the other mummies - they too look like llama braincases.)

Regarding the complete bodies (such as Josefina):

Their bodies were subjected to at least two applications of "dipping" in order to better preserve the bodies. The first consists of some kind of resin. I could smell it when my son was cutting open the skull that we decided to use to take samples from...
The second application was with diatomaceous earth. I believe that both a slurry was used as well as dry applications. You can clearly see drip lines on the skull of one specimen. This mummification process and the dry Peruvian environment is what has allowed these specimens to remain intact.

Miles' working hypothesis is that these two coatings are the same age as the mummies (hundreds of years). Testing the age of the resin, if that's possible, could establish if these are recent fakes using old bones (which seems unquestionable to me). The diatomaceous earth will presumably turn out to be ancient, as it consists of fossilized diatoms.

It is actually "foramen" magnum and no, it is not square.

I am pretty sure they deliberately typed this word wrong because the entire thing sounds ridiculous.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foramen#:~:text=English-,Etymology,-men (nominal suffix).

Foramen is latin. It means entry/drilling. The latin for a hole in the bone is fenestra.

The reason why certain holes are called foramen and not fenestra is pretty relevant here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fenestra

As you can see fenestra means: "a small anatomical opening in a bone". Foramen means drilling.

Certain holes are called foramen because... Well you guessed it. They looked like they were drilled. And they were. By nature.

So when someone says "the foramen looks drilled" you can immediately know that they have no clue about anatomy. Thank you for coming to my daily anatomy TED talk.

 

[JMartJr]

In Post #335 above, Charlie Wiser quotes from Cliff Miles supposedly telling somebody from Reddit:

Her skin is complete and intact for her entire body. No Seams, No scars.

and then there's this quote

I now believe that as part of the mummification process a tool was used to enlarge the Foarman(sic) Magnums so that their brain's could be removed as part of the mummification ritual by whomever was performing the process.

I am not very experienced in removing brains, but that sounds to me like something that ought to have left a seam or scar!

While I'm here, I'll agree with Charlie Wiser that on the face of it a paleontologist is an odd choice to have examining a mummy, and that allowing him to skin one of the most important and valuable scientific specimens in the world, if it is what it is claimed to be, seems... bad.

I was struck by this on Page 7 of "The Miles Paper,"

Please note: Any errors interpreting this species are my own. I used Photoshop extensively to clean up images. I used Topaz Sharpen AI and Gigapixel AI to enhance images so that I would be better able to see features that were otherwise difficult to see.

Is that any sort of standard practice in paleontology now -- to edit the imagery so that it looks better to you, then let some AI software (which will have had nothing legitimate and similar in its training data!) have a bash at it? I hope not.

The forearms of this species consist of one bone that I am designating the ulnius. All existing earthly
species of vertebrates have two forearm bones— the ulna and radius. This also holds true for all of the fossil record. This is the primary reason that Moultonus dolani can be identified as an alien being. It did not evolve on this planet.

I guess he missed that at least one of them, Clara, has two forearm bones, though non-functional. (See my earlier post HERE.) Clara does not appear in his list of specimens by name, but I believe she is "NA-07, complete female with eggs." If the single forearm bone is "the primary reason" M. dolani is assumed to be alien, this is problematic. It is also, of course, problematic for the idea that they are remains of actual creatures.

To close this post, for those who missed it, here is the table of contents for "The Miles Paper."

The majority of a paper describing a new species is devoted to rehashing UFO chestnuts. I'll refrain from further comment on THAT!

 

[JMartJr]

About his papers, well what to say? it's enough to take a look at the pictures.

Just for completeness:

Rather than trying to date the wheels, I'd just get in touch with FX makeup artist Mike Fields, who made those props for "The X-Files."

Mike Fields is a makeup/effects artist who created these props for the X-files TV-series.

You can find the evidence from his old homepages that has been archived. Photo description by Mike Fields: "Alien props X-Files Casting, Sculpting molding."

Source: https://hoaxeye.com/2017/06/13/area-51-aliens/
Obligatory red circle added by me.

 

[Jedlik]

I skimmed through this paper some time ago. The analysis is on page 1-67. After that, part 2 consists of a syllabus of UFO conspiracies. As you can see this is from page 246 and has nothing to do with the actual analysis.

https://www.themilespaper.com/_files/ugd/5a322e_bf4471a1eba54eae9290f61265f6e25c.pdf

My biggest issue is not that the pictures are edited. It is a much bigger issue that they only worked with openly avaliable images and no actual data.

But there are still interesting findings here. Like the signs that an animal attacked one of the specimen. Page 39. Pic attached.

Or that interesting formation hugging the spinal cord. Page 34 fig. 59. I don't think any mammal on Earth has that feature. Keep in mind this looks like an intact spine which has an inexplainable biological feature. And all specimen has that. This begs for two questions: Why would someone fake something like that into the spines and how the hell did he do that without visible clues. Pic attached.

Also, there are a few pics of the hands and for some interesting reason the bones seem to be in order. I wonder how. There are a bunch of pics of the hands from page 49-54 and I wonder why we don't see those mixed up bones people claim exist. Where are those mixed up bones from these X-rays and CT images?

 

[Vlcek]

Edited to add: Nearly forgot, found this, "copyright Jose De La Cruz Rios Lopez",

-Well, the area around the supposed foramen magnum looks plenty chiselled to me.
And biologist Jose De La Cruz Rios Lopez seems to have overlooked (in the name of all that's rational, how?) a bloody great area of non-bone which just happens to have the appearance of cheap modelling resin.

Also note that the exterior layer of material (said to be skin in the image caption) enters the interior of the skull through the orifice shown. We can't know exactly what alien biology would entail, but this arrangement of skin and bone implies that the creature's skull was not attached to its body the way that we see heads attached to bodies on earth. It would have skin inside its brain case, and there would be no barrier between the alien's brain and the outside world.

Inconsistencies like this can be dismissed because don't know what alien biology would entail. But with the same token the entire claim can be dismissed. If similarities to apes and other earth organisims are evidence to support the claim that these were real creatures, then it's appropriate to also consider inconsistencies, like this seemingly impossible arrangement of skin inside the occipital hole.

 

[Landru]

Jedlik is banned one week for repeated violations of the Posting Guidelines.

 

[Ann K]

on the face of it a paleontologist is an odd choice to have examining a mummy

A paleontologist studies non-human remains, usually fossilized. They need to have a decent grasp of anatomy to understand how bones are articulated, and recognize where the muscles attach. To me that doesn't sound like a bad choice to examine something that's claimed to be non-human and of an unknown species. Of course that doesn't tell us how good a paleontologist one is nor how well-reasoned his conclusions, but no, I don't think it's an odd choice at all.

 

[Vlcek]

But there are still interesting findings here. Like the signs that an animal attacked one of the specimen. Page 39. Pic attached.

The picture of the mummy in your comment is Figure 59 from page 34, not 39. There is no mention of an injury in relation to this picture.

The brief mention of injuries in those two paragraphs on page 39 comes with a different picture (figure 68 on page 40). It appears to show a broken spine, but there is no rationale given for the assumption that it's an injury caused by a feline. A comparison to a known feline injury would be helpful here, and a discussion of features unique to feline injuries. The author seems to be implying that the 55mm distance between this spinal injury and the damaged clavicle indicates a jaguar, but there is no further discussion to back this up or demonstrate it.

Here is a description of jaguar hunting techniques:

• Killing prey
  • Method similar to that of lions, tigers, and leopards
    • Bite the throats of large prey
    • Crush the skull of smaller prey
      • Bite the skull or use a powerful fore-arm to strike a blow at the head
      • Canines pierce through the skull; only large cat whose canines do this

https://ielc.libguides.com/sdzg/factsheets/jaguar/behavior

It strikes me as a very odd thing for the paper to abruptly assert that the broken spine "can be assumed" to be from an animal with canine teeth. If there were bite marks or some other indication of the cause of the injury, they're not discussed in the paper.

 

[John J.]

As you can see fenestra means: "a small anatomical opening in a bone". Foramen means drilling.

Certain holes are called foramen because... Well you guessed it. They looked like they were drilled. And they were. By nature.

So when someone says "the foramen looks drilled" you can immediately know that they have no clue about anatomy.

Fenestra is from the Latin for "window".
During the defenestration of Prague, no-one was forced through a small opening in a bone.

Foramen means a drilled or bored hole, but the English translation of foramen magnum- in the anatomical context- is normally given as "great hole", "great aperture" or something similar.
The foramen magnum doesn't really look like it was "drilled".

Isn't this a contradiction?

The area around the purported foramen magnum looks chiselled/ roughly excavated to me (in blue)

Without blue marking, for a clearer view

Remember, the vertebrae of this assemblage are effectively solid, lacking a central channel for the spinal cord.
I suspect the vertebrae, which originally would have had vertebral foramina to accommodate the spinal cord, have been filled with a bonding material to allow their assembly and to add structural rigidity.

The claimants say the spinal cord ran exterior (and posterior) to the spinal column.
As mentioned earlier, an exposed spinal cord travelling alongside the spine, which at the top (cervical 1) vertebra would be the point of articulation between the spine and the skull, is a ridiculous arrangement. Particularly when the cord then has to pass through such a small foramen magnum.

When we used an endoscope to explore the inside of the 7 skulls, not one brain was encountered inside the Cranium. I was wrong about the Foraman magnums being square. It is likely going to be round or oval after all. I now believe that as part of the mummification process a tool was used to enlarge the Foarman Magnums

Thank you, that's interesting. It does mean that the "real" foramen magnum would be even smaller than the (already small) square aperture that we see. (Human at right for comparison).

Perhaps redundant by now, but these (very simplified) sketches maybe help show why I think the mummy's supposed head-spine architecture are not viable:

 

[John J.]

Why would someone fake something like that

To deceive the credulous. Like everything else about these assemblages.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Also, there are a few pics of the hands and for some interesting reason the bones seem to be in order. I wonder how. There are a bunch of pics of the hands from page 49-54 and I wonder why we don't see those mixed up bones people claim exist. Where are those mixed up bones from these X-rays and CT images?

We do see the mixed-up bones. Miles just doesn't comment on them. The L&R middle proximal phalanges (among others) are in opposite orientations in this x-ray that he reproduces in his paper (p. 49) - it's clear even in a low-res screencap. Higher res x-rays are available on the Russian researchers' website Antropogenez.

Miles' only comment on Fig. 93 is:

It's inconceivable to me how a paleontologist - even one mostly experienced in dinosaur bones - failed to notice this (or how he could think an extra finger joint compensates for the lack of an opposable thumb! lol). He also seems unaware of the work done by the scientists at Antropogenez or by Lopez et al.

In his introduction he writes the following, to which I'll add only that my sense of humor doesn't align with his:

It's a bit humorous that a dinosaur paleontologist is going to be responsible for the disclosure of proof that people are seeking.

 

[JMartJr]

I don't think it's an odd choice at all.

I'm going to stubbornly cling to it being an odd choice. I'd have gone with an archeologist with experience in mummies and particularly with spotting (or ruling out) fake ones. But that's just me!

 

[Mendel]

I'm going to stubbornly cling to it being an odd choice. I'd have gone with an archeologist with experience in mummies and particularly with spotting (or ruling out) fake ones. But that's just me!

a bunch of experts worked on the south america section of the Handbook of Mummy Studies cited earlier, any of which would've been an excellent choice. Or any author from that book, really.

 

[MonkeeSage]

We do see the mixed-up bones. Miles just doesn't comment on them. The L&R middle proximal phalanges (among others) are in opposite orientations in this x-ray that he reproduces in his paper (p. 49) - it's clear even in a low-res screencap. Higher res x-rays are available on the Russian researchers' website Antropogenez.

View attachment 63909

Miles' only comment on Fig. 93 is:

View attachment 63910

It's inconceivable to me how a paleontologist - even one mostly experienced in dinosaur bones - failed to notice this (or how he could think an extra finger joint compensates for the lack of an opposable thumb! lol). He also seems unaware of the work done by the scientists at Antropogenez or by Lopez et al.

In his introduction he writes the following, to which I'll add only that my sense of humor doesn't align with his:

It's a bit humorous that a dinosaur paleontologist is going to be responsible for the disclosure of proof that people are seeking.

People keep brigning up that maybe there is an explanation for this or that, but I can't see any way to explain backward finger bones. Well except a bad fake.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

People keep brigning up that maybe there is an explanation for this or that, but I can't see any way to explain backward finger bones. Well except a bad fake.

People with little knowledge of biology, evolution, and functional anatomy can explain it just fine.

Or: The x-rays are inconclusive! Let's focus on the DNA instead - it's even more inconclusive so that leaves room for an alien interpretation.

 

[Mendel]

Let's focus on the DNA instead - it's even more inconclusive so that leaves room for an alien interpretation.

The DNA tests are conclusive. They allow for one of two conclusions:
a) either the guardians of the mummies are laughingly incompetent at taking sterile DNA samples,
b) or there are terrestrial cells from different species inside the skin of the "alien" mummy, i.e. it's fake.

Of course, you can go the UFO believer's route, where "unidentified" (or "unexplained") always means "alien", no questions asked.
Finger bones backward? Alien!
Brain backwards? Alien?

The logic is, "we don't know anything about aliens, therefore anything I don't know about is probably alien". (The Coulthart version is, "I don't know anything about this patch, therefore it's from a UFO reverse engineering project".) This works because they've found that whenever they make claims about hard-to-explain stuff, they find that those who would rebut them are having a hard time. A "light in the sky" video of unknown provenance is harder to explain away than a closeup of a landing airliner.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I found this video on Reddit - an edited snippet (full video linked below) where Peruvian Analyst/Archeologist Flavio Estrada Moreno analyzes some allegedly alien mummies that he had access to as well as extrapolating his conclusions to Alberto and Josefina (who are part of the current batch of mummies being promoted as aliens by Jaime Maussan et al). It's dated Oct 2020.

The complete miniature aliens he had access to are crude compared to Josefina - e.g. sawn-off bones with no attempt to make joints.

Moreno's analysis concluded are that they are pieced together from child and animal bones using PVA glue (Elmer's Glue), with the skin being paper-like plant material and the skull an entire carnivorous animal skull.

He also analyzed some individual alien skulls (they came without bodies) and concluded they're backwards animal skulls with the snout removed. (Sound familiar?)

The reason I'm drawing attention to this is that from what I've read around the subject, it seems to be accepted that this batch were fakes but that the newer ones presented to Peruvian Congress in 2018 and Mexican Congress in Sep 2023 (and highlighted on The Alien Project website), are genuine - and indeed it's clear that more care was taken with the details. To that end, the Reddit poster used this title for their post of the above video: FULL Video Analysis on the WRONG Nazca Bodies as Presented to the Peruvian Ministry of Culture.

In other words, the spin is that this analysis is worthless because it was done on the fakes (the "wrong" bodies). Ross Coulthart echoed this narrative when he said:

I am being told that the objects - I won't say creature or entities - that the objects that are being talked about today are entirely different from the objects that were skeptically debunked quite credibly a few years ago.

Source: Need to Know 9/26/2023 (timestamped)

Setting aside that the current "object" Josefina was, in fact, skeptically and credibly debunked years ago as well... The problem for this narrative is that Moreno's video (some of which even appears in the snippet on Reddit) goes on to extrapolate his results to Alberto and Josefina (the ones being promoted as real) based on their available scans, and concludes they are also fakes - specifically because of the skulls, femurs as arms, the lack of articulation in the joints, lack of symmetry and functionality, similar "manufacturing errors", etc.

The full 2h video is on YouTube where it's titled Anatomy of a Fraud. Josefina is talked about from 24:50.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Following from my previous post, this is just for the record concerning the history of the mummies as the info is scattered. I tracked down these videos from John Greenewald's write-up which gives some history on the initial tiny crude mummies (half the size of Josefina, Alberto, Clara). The important part is this unlisted video made by the guy whose "two friends" (later named as one, Mario, who has also used the pseudonym Luis Quispe) found 20 species of mummies in an excavated Nazca citadel. He displays one tiny complete mummy, probably the one x-rayed above, one llama skull, and one human-sized three-fingered hand. He's asking for scientists to examine them as he can't afford the DNA testing.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvP9Cbn094Y


A few months later he's on TV in Peru, named as Paul Ronceros F, saying that further investigation reveals the tiny mummy is assembled from human and animal bones, but centuries ago, to represent aliens known to those ancient people. (Their video description below summarizes the interview.) His claim is that these aliens must have existed because [8:57]:

That's how the Nazca lines have hummingbirds... they have spiders. [He picks up the alien* skull] One assumes that they have seen them. I assume they have seen similar beings... It is the first time that I understand, in the world, that alien beings are assembled with the bodies of animals and human beings...

*llama braincase


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9gSig7TyM

Video description:

Interview conducted on ATV + in Peru on April 24, 2017 with Paul Ronceros F. known as KRAWIX999, current repository of interesting archaeological pieces discovered in Nasca Peru and that have been studied and analyzed by various private specialists. Although KRAWIX999 initially stated that the pieces most likely revealed that they were some type of non-human and perhaps "extraterrestrial" being, more in-depth studies have revealed and confirmed that in reality they would be representations put together by ancient Peruvians with various bone remains. of animals most likely for offerings or other purposes. The case is in the process of being made official with the Peruvian authorities and entering certified studies in important universities in Peru where more details and progress will be announced very soon. Similar pieces and perhaps obtained from the same source are being circulated with the discourse that they would be of an alien nature with the purpose of making international audiovisual productions and presentations for profit. The pieces today can well be constituted as legitimate Peruvian heritage that must be in Peru and be studied at the highest level. A unique and still open case.

He calls his theory "totally logical". Public videos on his channel promote how the mummies were created by the Nazcas, whereas the one claiming they were real aliens is unlisted. From what I can gather from his comments, he believes Maussan's mummies are all assembled as well (but in ancient times) and does not appreciate Maussan promoting them as real aliens.

It's making more sense now why those who support the next batch of mummies (via Maussan) stress that the mummies are ancient in their entirety, and intact with no sign of tampering. It's important for their narrative that even if the mummies are fake, they were created centuries ago to represent actual aliens that those ancient people were familiar with. This also lessens the grave-robbing crime, since it was the ancient people who dismembered their own to make the dolls rather than being a recent scavenging and destroying of cultural artifacts including human remains.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

For the record: Claims by Prof. Zuniga Aviles Roger from University of San Luis Gonzaga de Ica, Peru, who identifies himself as "the leader of the research project on the mummies of Ikah." He had access to Maria and the small mummies (Josefina and Luisa, another pregnant one). This interview is dated 2023 - unfortunately it's translated into German from Spanish, then into English by YT. This Medium article by the same uploader also has a translation of his interview. Highlights and my comments below.

Firstly, he had access to the X-rays and failed to note Josefina's upside-down fingerbones. So already I'm not confident of his expertise to analyze these mummies. His CV indicates he has a Bachelor of Social Sciences (Anthropology) and works at the Faculty of Communication Sciences, Tourism and Archeology.

Claim about the barbell implant in her chest, which is two plates of bronze and:

Its insides are coated with osmium. It is a mineral found in 1803. But this mineral is very rare. That's what we were told at the technical university. That the mineral is very rare, very scarce and very expensive. It is much more expensive than any other mineral in the world... who would invest so much money in such technology to fool people?

Osmium is by far not the most expensive mineral in the world. Platinum and gold, for example, are much more expensive. According to this website, osmium is $400/oz and given there's merely a "coating" between the plates, probably less than a gram?, that's about $14 worth. Because osmium was discovered in 1803, he thinks it's extraordinary to find it in 1000-year-old mummies. I would rather take this as evidence the mummies are recently assembled, and osmium was chosen because it's considered high-tech (used in circuitry).

Claim about Victoria's DNA (discussed upthread):

I was a little curious how much DNA a gorilla has. A gorilla has 98 percent of human DNA. The bonobo chimpanzee has 99.8 percent of human DNA. Only 0.2 percent are not human. But then I thought and I wondered, if these animals, which are apes and resemble humans, have that much DNA, how much DNA does a fly have? Have you ever checked how much DNA a fruit fly has? 70 percent of human DNA is in a fly. How much human DNA is in the papaya? 40 percent, it's unbelievable. 40 percent human DNA.

So if we compare beings to any animal or plant DNA that is in the world, there is no resemblance to any plant, to any animal.

Victoria is only 15% human but a chimp is 99.8% human and a fly is 70% human. Wow!
I think he needs a geneticist to explain the DNA analysis to him.

Claim about Josefina not being a Frankenstein [monster]:

The critics say these little creatures were assembled from llama heads, children's bones and bird bones. A kind of Frankenstein that was lined with cardboard, with some material. It turned out that the result of this technical and biochemical study was that the tissues of the leg, stomach and head belong to the same species.

He does not specify what the "technical and biochemical" study was on these three samples, but I'd sure like to know how he can conclude they are the same species without DNA testing. It's simply not possible.

 

[Vlcek]

For the record: Claims by Prof. Zuniga Aviles Roger from University of San Luis Gonzaga de Ica, Peru, who identifies himself as "the leader of the research project on the mummies of Ikah." He had access to Maria and the small mummies (Josefina and Luisa, another pregnant one). This interview is dated 2023 - unfortunately it's translated into German from Spanish, then into English by YT. This Medium article by the same uploader also has a translation of his interview. Highlights and my comments below.

Firstly, he had access to the X-rays and failed to note Josefina's upside-down fingerbones. So already I'm not confident of his expertise to analyze these mummies. His CV indicates he has a Bachelor of Social Sciences (Anthropology) and works at the Faculty of Communication Sciences, Tourism and Archeology.

This university is sometimes referred to as "UNICA" (here is a link to the school's website: https://www.unica.edu.pe/). Here is a 2019 statement from students of the archeological school of this university, denouncing the mummies and the professors involved:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/cear.unica/posts/2443101022430482


Translated with google, here are some quotes from their post:

Due to the information released by various media and social networks (Facebook, YouTube) about an alleged agreement between the UNICA school of Archeology with Mr. Jaime Maussan and the representatives of the Inkarri organization or the alleged archaeologist Soriano; CEAR UNICA is emphatic in saying that there is no agreement or conversations between the archeology professionals of our school and these pseudo-researchers.

We archeology students disapprove of the actions of these gentlemen in recent days, taking advantage of the vacation period to visit our facilities with the connivance of some professors and representatives of the multi-faculty of Communication, Archeology and Tourism. The teachers and administrators who have lent themselves to this embarrassing spectacle do not represent us in any way nor are they professionals in archeology or practice any science; We urge you not to carry out any pseudo-scientific activity in a house of knowledge such as our San Luis Gonzaga University.

Note in the 2nd quote they specifically call out the "multi-faculty of Communication, Archeology and Tourism", which includes this Prof. Zuniga Aviles Roger. The students of the school's archeology department were seemingly very much against the university getting involved, and insisted that Zuniga and the other professors involved are not from the school of archeology or professional archeologists.

In my view, the promoters of these mummies have been trying to imply that they have a growing expert consensus, but the "experts" often turn out to be lacking in actual credentials. The UNICA angle to this story seems to be an example of that - it's a group of professors whose archeological credentials are contested by the archeology students at the actual school.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

In my view, the promoters of these mummies have been trying to imply that they have a growing expert consensus, but the "experts" often turn out to be lacking in actual credentials.

Agreed. There are other examples in this thread about the credentials (or lack thereof) of the "experts" being consulted. And when actual experts are consulted, such as the Russian scientists for Antropogenez, their conclusions are dismissed or buried by the official team.

I do wonder if genuine mummy experts have ever been consulted to physically examine the "aliens", and if so, which I'm starting to doubt, whether they declined.

 

[Vlcek]

There was another hearing in Mexico tonight. Some claims were repeated and more claims were made. I imagine it will spark some more debate on this topic.

However I only want to add a follow up from my previous post, honing in on Prof. Zuniga. He was apparently there in Mexico, according to this Reuters article: https://www.reuters.com/world/ameri...ession-featuring-peruvian-mummies-2023-11-08/

Anthropologist Roger Zuniga of San Luis Gonzaga National University in Ica Peru said researchers had studied five similar specimens over four years.

"They're real," Zuniga told Reuters on the sidelines of the session.

Here is a facebook post about UNICA (where Zuniga works and the mummies are being researched):
Source: https://www.facebook.com/sem.investpro/posts/263449188726093
. The post references a release from "Semillero "Investigación y Progreso"" ("Research and progress hotbed"), which appears to be from the school of archeology at UNICA, based on the banner image here: https://www.facebook.com/sem.investpro. It's from 2021, and it seems to be in response to the school's approval of a research project into the mummies. The release denounces the research (translated with google):

No teacher or student of the archeology specialty participates or endorses this "investigation" or is part of the group that investigates the fraud of the tridactyl mummies of Nazca

Other than demonstrating that UNICA's archeology students continued to denounce this research project, this post also includes an interesting bit regarding Professor Zuniga in the comments, where someone asks for the names of the faculty who have requested this research. The author of the post lists a few of the researchers and has this to say about Zuniga's credentials:

Mr. Zúñiga teaches at our faculty but only general courses and is participating in his personal name, not on behalf of the faculty and much less of the Professional School of Archeology. He is also the teacher who disrespected a colleague after not being able to support himself through arguments the veracity of the mummies, in addition to having a series of complaints.

Here's a screenshot of that entire conversation in the comments, for full context and additional info (using google translate):

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I wrote up some stuff on Twitter while watching this second Mexican hearing live, so I'll repeat some of the main claims with my (slightly desnarked) comments:

A letter from the head of the U. ICA, Peru, Mr Moreno Legua, and "signed by 11 heads of the university" according to Maussan, was read on a prerecorded video and included this point:

It is important to highlight that the research team has never stated that these bodies belong to extraterrestrial beings. During our research, the most we can state is that from a scientific standpoint these are biological bodies of unknown origins that existed in the past, but not human.

["Head of..." is a mistranslation since Moreno Legua is actually the rector of UNICA... as in, pastoral leader. News item announcing his appointment.]

Given there is no evolutionary path on Earth to explain these species, it seems to me the logical conclusion is that they are not of this earth, i.e. extraterrestrial.

An air traffic controller spoke for 10 minutes and brought along his balloon videos.

During the earlier "newscast"-style intro showing snippets of various "experts", Josefina's hands are again blacked out (L) and also Alberto's hands (R) for good measure:

Thierre Maurice Pierre (who brought the mummies to the world) did not address any specific skeptical arguments but said:

We know these desiccated bodies have generated a very strong global controversy. Nevertheless, until today, every specialist that has actually taken action and come to Peru to study them, they have concluded that these bodies are authentic. All the specialists or pseudo-specialists or so-called specialists that state that they really think this is fraudulent, they have never come to ICA to study these desiccated bodies. Not a single one.

He praised dino paleontologist Cliff Miles who, as described upthread, wrote a lengthy paper that included the forbidden x-rays of Josefina's hands while failing to note her mixed-up fingerbones.

...Dr Cliff Miles... he has a lot of scientific publications of the highest quality... He has studied a lot of these bodies. His conclusions were that they are authentic bodies.

Incidentally, Miles' website (where you can download his paper) features handless Josefina on the main page:

This guy (a reconstructive plastic surgeon) presented a photo of a mummy I haven't seen before, who has a completely different skull attachment and... a deadly spike?

Previous mummies have not had much of a digestive tract but this one has a bit of a mouth:

Maussan asks him:

I heard you say that not even with a million dollars someone could buy who could build something like this.

followed by a 5-minute back and forth about Ruiz Vela's certainty the bodies are real and not dolls because of the "fine anatomy of the eggs plexus". Might've been a good idea to get an egg person to talk about that. This doc said "I have made a lot of hand surgery" which might be a mistranslation or maybe he reconstructs hands. Not eggs, in any case.

Prof. Zuniga Aviles Roger repeated his derision for those claiming the mummies are "Frankenstein's monster" with llama heads and children and bird bones. (The translator laughs while saying this.) He took a brain sample and doesn't specify what tests were done, but:

the Laboratories in Mexico have concluded that the tissues do not correspond to the human brain nor any other animal.

He also took a sample from the thorax and saw inside "apparently a liver" - "we took a sample from that one which is still under analysis."

A third sample from the leg, along with the other two, were sent to "the university of engineering in Peru". A biology department seems like a better choice to me, but anyway:

The biochemical results gave that the samples belonged to the same individual. This gives us the basis and the grounds to discard the hypothesis that these beings were manufactured.

what kind of person would take the initiative or the bravery to manufacture these kind of bodies with internal organs? It's not possible. All the all this organs would decay because of a lot of factors.

I don't understand his argument here. Organs that are manufactured (Frankensteined) or real would both decay or not decay in the same way, surely. It's also a stretch to call them organs based on just cutting a hole and seeing a bit of stuff inside. (My labels based on his commentary.)

He repeats the claim about osmium being super rare and expensive, and not discovered until 1803.

This is an important part of the narrative - that the mummies could not have been manufactured a thousand years ago, therefore they are not manufactured. Someone else talks about the very pure silver used (in one of the other metal implants?) - 99% pure, unknown in nature, therefore must've been created by intelligent beings (implying: more intelligent than our 1000-year-old human ancestors).

Someone claims the metal plate (in Josefina, I think) was implanted when she was alive because of how it's fused to the bone:

it had to be alive for that fusing process to take place because it's not attached. And... these beings had to have superior intelligence for that to work

Nobody mentioned or showed Josefina's upside-down fingerbones, which would've saved all these experts a big hassle.

 

[FatPhil]

What does "authentic" mean in this context, namely a context lacking a descriptor of what thing they authentically are? It seems no more meaningful a word than "real". And we know they're real, because they exist, even if they're fakes.