It seems to be about Luisa, the mummy Maussan confirms to be fake. He publicly apologized for that hoax according to a lot of comments by mexicans I saw. Was Luisa presented during the hearing? That would be pretty stupid from the hoaxers.
In the link, and in my post about it above, I've quoted Benoit who states that "the modifications observed in Luisa are also found in Victoria, Alberto and Josefina."
The mummies presented in the hearing are from the same group that was allegedly discovered in 2017 according to Maussan, who is promoting these as aliens. He specifically mentioned "Victoria" to Reuters when they interviewed him about the recent hearings in Mexico. He said that the mummies presented in Mexico are "the same" as Victoria, who was analyzed by Benoit along with Luisa.
Maussan told Reuters on Friday that the test results were not directly related to the two bodies that he showed Congress this week, however. In fact, he said, they were conducted on an entirely different body, known as Victoria, that remains in Peru.
"They were found in the same place. They have the same physical appearance, they are the same," Maussan said of Victoria and the two bodies he presented in Mexico. Testing was not done on those two bodies in order to avoid damaging them, he said.
Thanks for your kind words NorCal Dave. I just want to point out that you've misattributed some of the content of the article to Benoit. He is interviewed in the article specifically about the CT scans. He is not the author of the whole article and some of the quotes you've provided here are not by him, but by the author of the article (who seems to go by "Luca").
I took it to be ' paper, but when I got the part that seemed to be him in the 3rd person, I took it as a translation problem. I should have slowed down and re-read it a little better.
It seems to be about Luisa, the mummy Maussan confirms to be fake. He publicly apologized for that hoax according to a lot of comments by mexicans I saw. Was Luisa presented during the hearing?
Benoit was asked about the scans of the other mummies, including Josefina, the one with the "eggs":
What are your conclusions about the other small mummies?
JB: The modifications observed in Luisa are also found in Victoria, Alberto and Josefina. Josefina appears to have a small stick around her neck that holds her head up. As for the supposed eggs, I've studied dinosaur eggs, using CT scans, so I know what they look like. The eggs in these bodies are too dense. They are denser than bones, if they were eggs they would have a density similar to bones. In my opinion, they are stones.
If Josefina is an acknowledged fake, something you have not provided any evidence for, someone might want to let Maussan and Thierry Jamin, the other big promoter of these mummies in on that. Josefina is still listed on the official website of the mummies as a "Humanoid Reptile":
Recall that Maussan and his crew presented a photo of an "alien recovered at Roswell" in his pay-per-view marathon Be Witness. Within hours the museum placard next to the supposed alien explained it was the remains of a young indigenous child from northern Mexico. Not that Maussan gave a shit. He offered $10k to anyone that could dig the kid back up (bold by me):
In 2015, Maussan tried to promote a photographic slide from the late 1940s that, he hinted, depicted the corpse of an alien child found in the American Southwest. More skeptical ufologists applied de-blurring technology to the “Roswell Slide” when it was released, and found that a previously undecipherable placard next to the body revealed that it was actually the mummy of a two-year-old Puebloan boy removed from the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde in 1894. Returned to a National Park museum in 1938, the boy was repatriated to a local tribe in 2015. Incredibly, Maussan then offered $10,000 for information that might permit the Puebloan boy’s “location and recuperation.”
Also I get the feeling reading posts here that people on this forum believe their opinion is on the level of a proof when it comes to debunking which is not really constructive.
If Josefina is an acknowledged fake, something you have not provided any evidence for, someone might want to let Maussan and Thierry Jamin, the other big promoter of these mummies in on that. Josefina is still listed on the official website of the mummies as a "Humanoid Reptile":
While it was Clara who was wheeled out for Mexican Congress last month, the x-ray shown on the screen (albeit with her Frankenstein hands mysteriously blacked out) was of Josefina. So, she is not an acknowledged fake by Maussan as of September 13, 2023.
Josefina was the one determined to have a llama skull by Lopez et al 2021, based on analysis of the CT scans.
Both Clara and Josefina have 3 "eggs" inside. The Alien Project website has no results yet for Clara, but she was the one whose CT scan was livestreamed [timestamped to where they analyze the scan and comment on the asymmetry and joints], when orthopedic surgeon Dr Ruben Linage said her joints mostly or completely lacked mobility:
This humerus does not have the same anatomy as the left. The densities are not the same throughout the skeleton...
We do not see a joint in the hip, not anything that can give it movement... We should see a spherical structure where the femoral head could fit...
This being, it seems to me, could not have had much movement. We see a single bone in the forearm, so no pronosupination [twisting] and in the hand there are practically no bones [in the wrist] making mobility very difficult.
When I tagged Linage in my thread about the livestream, he responded with this (bearing in mind he misunderstood my main point - I didn't say he thought Clara were real; in fact he seemed to politely be saying she is not):
The endless demand for more studies due to "inconclusive" results is ridiculous IMO. Some of the results on these mummies are inconclusive, such as the DNA and tissue samples, but that doesn't matter if there is one smoking-gun conclusive result indicating fraud, such as some upside-down bones (especially bearing in mind the context - that we know of other hoaxed "alien" mummies from this region).
The two pregnant mummies look similar from the outside - the main external difference is that Clara has some digits broken off. Internally, their metal "implant" across the upper torso is a different shape.
This side-by-side of two of the "mummies" is instructive. The radically different architecture in the pelvis might be some sort of extreme sexual dimorphism related to having a canal sufficiently large for eggs -- but both are intended as female, since both have eggs!
Josefina has a single bone in the forearm, while in Clara we can see two bones in the lower arm -- whichmight, in this "mummy," rebut Dr. Linage's point quoted by Charlie Wiser in Post # 244 above, at least as far as this one mummy is concerned:
This being, it seems to me, could not have had much movement. We see a single bone in the forearm, so no pronosupination [twisting] and in the hand there are practically no bones [in the wrist] making mobility very difficult.
But comparing the xray to a functioning forearm:
...Clara's bones a straight and lack the curve needed to allow them to twist around each other, and are already jammed up against each other so that WERE they to twist, one or the other must either dislocate at one end or break.
These would be RADICAL, ridiculous differences within a species.
These (and the many other things wrong with these skeletons) seem the sorts of mistakes hoaxers might make. They do not seem the sort of mistakes Ol' Ma Nature would make. Nature needs an end product that could "live, move and have it's being," whereas a hoaxer just needs something that looks interesting enough to sell to the mark.
(Edited to include external quote from Dr. Linage, which I forgot to quote the first time.)
So this is the smoking gun so far. This thread considers the mummies debunked because of this. But what do we find there?
Keep in mind that according to the theory, the llama skull was turned around 180 degrees. So it should be facing the back of the mummy. Scroll up for a visual representation.
Page 58 is talking about the base of the skull. We can already read there that it does not compare to a llama skull.
"Coronal section.The blue arrows show cavities on llama (fossae ethmoidale), which do not show on Josephina. Thered arrow indicates thick spongy bone on llama, not present in Josephina – probably deterioratedand gone. (e) Transversal cross-section. The blue arrows show bone on Josephina’s skull notpresent on llama. The red arrows indicate a great dissimilarity of the llama bone compared to thatof Josephina at this point."
These are not fine details or small changes. These are almost impossible to fake differences, because literally no adhesive, no seam or any kind or clue is visible on neither CT or xray. If that was the case, the paper would be about that.
That part of the "llama cranium" is in human terms the bottom of your skull, where there are openings for nerves and vessels to carry information and resources up and down. The original claim that the llama skull was turned 180 degrees to form the head of the "alien" is debunked right there.
The anterior and posterior flossa is facing the right way( I mean the human or llama way). Source:
First hand CT scan data done by Dr. Raymundo Salas Alfaro who I confirmed to be a ragiologist via public databases.
Not sure how true that is. I'm ignoring the skull completely because the paper says
Article:
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. Consequently, more tests with C14, DNA, CT-scans at higher resolutions, and even an autopsy are needed for extracting rigid conclusions. Such work has been undertaken by the San Luis Gonzaga National University of Ica, where the finds remain.
the bones we can all see (and not see, like the wrists) are enough proof for me. I don't care what the head is made of.
You'd have to determine how the DNA samples were taken or submitted. I would assume, that samples were taken from marrow producing bones and not the skull. The pulp from teeth would be a great source, BUT the construction does not have teeth...nor a jaw. If it was just a skin sample, well there you go. That would explain why bean DNA ended up in the mix.
I don't think anybody is considering one single element as the "smoking gun" to debunk these things. It's the preponderance of evidence taken as a whole.
Your theory seems to be that all other evidence from Maussan's dubious reputation, the complete lack of an archeological context, the random assemblage of bones, the completely nonsensical lack of any workable bio-mechanics present in any of the specimens, the asymmetry in the various assemblages, the randomness of human vertebra serving as wrist bones, the obviously shattered and broken bone ends in the legs, all of this can be dismissed with a series of "Yeah, buts...". Yeah, but what if it lived in water? What if it was a genetically engineered creature? What if it didn't have to walk or turn it's head. What if it reproduced with eggs that then hatch and were born alive. And so on.
You appear to be arguing that unless one can definitively "prove" the skull of one of these Gaffs is an actual llama skull, then some tinfoil hat guy will say "nothing is debunked, it's an alien". I really don't understand this. As @deirdre noted above, the random and completely unworkable collection of bones visible in the x-rays and CT scans is enough to show these fakes. Regardless of what was used for the skull.
Nevertheless, the paper you cited says (bold by me):
Also, it should be noted that the oval foramen is the passage of the mandibular nerve V3 for the mandibular division and chewing. The orbital fissure in llama is the passage of not only the ophthalmic nerve but also: the oculomotor nerve (III) that controls 4 of the 6 muscles of the movement of the eyelid and the constriction of the pupil; nerve VI (abducens) controlling eye movement; nerve IV (trochlear) that is the motor to the superior oblique muscle of the eye. All the above make no sense at the place they are found for Josephina, and this definitely proves that Josephina’s skull is an articulated braincase of llama.
Actually, the fact that the 1st cervical vertebra enters the basicranium of Josephina would discourage any serious researcher to investigate further, because it would show that the remains were articulated from various bones, fitting together in a mechanistic and unfunctional way. The cervical vertebrae in Josephina should destroy the brain if there was a downward impact on the head, because in the absence of any visible stopping mechanism the vertebrae would enter the braincase.
(a) The “archaeological” find with an unknown form of “animal” was identified to have a head composed of a llama deteriorated braincase.
(c) Concerning the remains of the head of Josephina:
5. There is a great similarity in shape and features between Josephina’s skull and the braincase of a llama (and an alpaca). There are also features on Josephina’s skull like the orbital fissure and the optic canal, similar to the llama’s, that are however on the opposite site of the skull than where they should be, forcing one to accept that the skull of Josephina is a modified llama braincase.
JOSÉ DE LA CRUZ RÍOS LÓPEZ1, GEORGIOS A. FLORIDES2, PAUL CHRISTODOULIDES2
1 Secretaria de salud del estado de Campeche, Laboratorio Estatal de Salud PúblicaMEXICO
2 Faculty of Engineering and Technology Cyprus University of Technology 3603 Limassol CYPRUS
His title translates as:
Secretary of Health of the State of Campeche,
State Public Health Laboratory
His LinkedIn has no CV and just indicates he works as a biologist at a Public Health lab in Merida, Yucatan.
As for the other 2 authors, I'm not sure what they were doing. Florides and Christodoulides are engineers that usually publish engineering type stuff, sometimes together:
Why these guys were looking at the mummies is unclear, the 2 Greek guys seem completely unqualified for this unless they were maybe running the CT equipment.
Why Rios Lopez repeatedly concluded he was looking at a modified llama skull, published that and the publicly did a 180 is unclear.
What is known is that another person, Benoit, that specialized in mammalian brains looked at the same CT scans and also concluded it was a modified llama skull. Compare the findings:
Rios Lopez:
There are also features on Josephina’s skull like the orbital fissure and the optic canal, similar to the llama’s, that are however on the opposite site of the skull than where they should be,
Benoit:
The funny thing is that the anatomy of the brain is the opposite of the anatomy of the skull: the olfactory bulbs and optic nerves are located at 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 has no teeth and leads to the tube that houses the spinal cord.
Rios Lopez:
All the above, reinforce the scenario that Josephina’s skull is a modified llama braincase.
Benoit:
My conclusion is that the people who made this mummy carved the back of an animal's skull to create a face and removed all parts of the original skull except the brain box. Comparison with the most common domestic animals in South America suggests that this skull was that of a llama, whose endocast anatomy perfectly matches Luisa's
It is not the point to cite people saying it is a llama. I can cite just as many people saying it is not a llama skull. Focus on the problem please.
Which way is the llama skull facing. Front or back? Can we at least answer this question?
Don't you see that the semiautomatically reconstructed brainmatter image by scientist Benoit shows the llama skull is put on backwards? So the llama skull's eyes are facing the back of the mummy?
Then please look at the source you quote. Which way is the llama skull facing in the paper you quote that much?
Backwards. Like Benoit says. At least what's left of the llama skull.
In a superior view of a transversal cross-section one can name the basic openings of the braincase of llama, as indicated in Fig. 15(d). The same features can also be observed on Josephina’s skull. It is observed that an orbital fissure (the passage of the ophthalmic nerve to the brain) and an optic canal (the passage of the optic nerve to the brain) can also be found on Josephina, although Josephina’s eyes are supposed to be on the opposite site of the skull.
There are also features on Josephina’s skull like the orbital fissure and the optic canal, similar to the llama’s, that are however on the opposite site of the skull than where they should be.
There is a great similarity in shape and features between Josephina’s skull and the braincase of a llama (and an alpaca). There are also features on Josephina’s skull like the orbital fissure and the optic canal, similar to the llama’s, that are however on the opposite site of the skull than where they should be, forcing one to accept that the skull of Josephina is a modified llama braincase.
Again, I don't get the single point argument about what the skull was made form as the ONLY possible way to debunk this.
Also, I did NOT say this particular report is a "smoking gun", you did. I pointed out that it's very questionable the people involved in the report. It may contradict itself, giving the background of the people involved. I give far more credit to Benoit, but it is interesting that Rios Lopez found essentially the same thing. A modified backwards llama brain case being used as a skull.
Until he denied he concluded any such thing.
Lopez is clearly all over the place, or didn't do the original study, he just put his name on it, I don't know. And here he claims he worked with people from the Netherlands, while his co-authors were Greek. He's typical of Maussan's acolytes. From his Facebook post provided by @Charlie Wiser post #179:
CLAIRIFICATION
A year ago I published an article in a scientific journal about the study we carried out with colleagues from the Netherlands, interested in the case of tridactyl mummies.
This document has been taken as a basis to discredit the mummies, so for me it is important to point out that the main objective of this publication was to bring the topic of the Nazca mummies to scientific attention, which has not been easy at all due to the controversy of the topic, however it was possible to publish through a "Working hypotheses about the questioned skulls of these beings.”
It should be noted that the study makes the following points clear and that it is neither conclusive nor precise, since more research must be carried out:
The current study is limited.
Low resolution of computed tomography.
More comparisons need to be made with other skulls.
More tests are needed with C14, DNA, tomography, and higher resolution computed tomography.
Perform an autopsy.
Having clarified these points, "said publication does not determine that this is a fraud", therefore it must be complemented with other studies to reach a precise conclusion as required by scientific research.
I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion if you're comparing the CT scans side-by-side with the human base of skull illustration that you've posted, because the CT scans are upside down.
At 06:29 in the video; the presenter follows the convention of having the anterior aspect uppermost.
When the presenter uses the cursor to indicate the claimed anterior and posterior fossae, the image is anterior downward, and the letters indicating orientation are absent from the screen.
In fairness to the presenter, he uses the cursor to indicate the anterior and posterior fossae where we would expect them to be with this image orientation (at about 06:17).
Incidentally, he opines that the low-density (black) areas on as seen image at right are foramina; apertures for nerves to travel through. Even allowing for smaller skull size, they seem much too large if that is their "purpose".
And the foramen magnum- where the spinal cord enters the skull, by far the largest foramen in humans- appears to be filled/ surrounded with relatively dense (not neuronal) matter.
Human base of skull for comparison
If we are saying that the scanned skull shows llama cranial fossae the right way round, that obviously rules out the theory that the mummy skull is constructed with a back-to-front llama skull.
This doesn't add any credibility to the mummies, though.
Keep in mind that according to the theory, the llama skull was turned around 180 degrees. So it should be facing the back of the mummy. Scroll up for a visual representation.
Page 58 is talking about the base of the skull. We can already read there that it does not compare to a llama skull.
"We" being who? The authors of the paper conclude it's a backwards llama skull. They point out multiple pieces of evidence for this by identifying analogous features on Josefina, but backwards. On example (p.60):
In a superior view of a transversal cross-section one can name the basic openings of the braincase of llama, as indicated in Fig. 15(d). The same feature s can also be observed on Josephina’s skull. It is observed that an orbital fissure (the passage of the ophthalmic nerve to the brain) and an optic canal (the passage of the optic nerve to the brain) can also be found on Josephina, although Josephina’s eyes are supposed to be on the opposite site of the skull.
The article addresses your concerns about differences between the skulls and concludes the very specific characteristic features of a llama skull
"are however on the opposite site of the skull than where they should be, forcing one to accept that the skull of Josephina is a modified llama braincase." (p.64)
Regarding the fossae, we'd need a llama skull cut at the same angle as that screenshot of Josefina's skull. At first glance though, it looks to me like hers match the human well enough (I'm no anatomist, so I will use lay terms) - with the bow shape at the anterior (her posterior) matching, and the thickened back of the llama skull forming her weird boxy flat face.
Which way is the llama skull facing. Front or back? Can we at least answer this question?
Don't you see that the semiautomatically reconstructed brainmatter image by scientist Benoit shows the llama skull is put on backwards? So the llama skull's eyes are facing the back of the mummy?
Then please look at the source you quote. Which way is the llama skull facing in the paper you quote that much?
Are you asking if that's where Josefina's teeth would be set? I guess they would have to be because the poor lass has no jaw, but she doesn't have teeth - she has two mouth plates in front of her mouth, the upper one connected to the skull, the lower one not, with very slight up and down movement possible (but no side to side) - according to Lopez 2021. At the Mexican hearing they acknowledged this as well, with the just-so story that she sucks liquid for sustenance.
Nope, skull is facing forwards according to the paper. Not even a hint that this is not the case. The paper is dozen pages long and do you guys assume they just forgot to mention the entire skull is on backwards? Do you think it is a secret? Just look at the anterior and posterior flossa.
The three details someone quoted above which "are on the opposite side" are differences WHEN you put the "llama skull" facing the right way.
The brain that fits the mummy's skull is analysed, and regions are determined. The brain regions that have to do with eyesight are not where the mummy's eyes are, they are on the opposite side. These brain regions are near the llama's eyes. It's further proof that the skull is backwards.
This paper does not say the skull is on backwards because they cannot make that conclusion. This is why they did not make that conclusion. Read the conclusions part. There is no mention of the skull being on backwards because that is not a scientific claim by anyone.
The reason for the uncertainty is the base of the skull. It is not consistent with being backwards. I understand that is seems like they share a similar shape from the side on a picture, but this picture is not proving anything. I posted a picture of superimposing the mummy's brain onto a cats face and it was a perfect match. Does that prove this is a cat? No my friends, it does not. It only proves that humans like pattern matching.
The paper never claimed the skull is on backwards because the paper could never claim that. There are pretty straightforward problems with that claim: almost every part of the skull except the general shape, which is similar in every mammals.
So? Did I prove it is a cat? I have a picture showing it!
Nope, skull is facing forwards according to the paper. Not even a hint that this is not the case. The paper is dozen pages long and do you guys assume they just forgot to mention the entire skull is on backwards? Do you think it is a secret? Just look at the anterior and posterior flossa.
This paper does not say the skull is on backwards because they cannot make that conclusion. This is why they did not make that conclusion. Read the conclusions part.
I don't know how one reads from the conclusion section of Dios Lopez's dubious report and not read this as "backwards". The mummy's orbital fissures and optic canal, similar to a llama, on the OPPISITE side of the skull where they should be:
There are also features on Josephina’s skull like the orbital fissure and the optic canal, similar to the llama’s, that are however on the opposite site of the skull than where they should be, forcing one to accept that the skull of Josephina is a modified llama braincase.
My conclusion is that the people who made this mummy carved the back of an animal's skull to create a face and removed all parts of the original skull except the brain box. Comparison with the most common domestic animals in South America suggests that this skull was that of a llama, whose endocast anatomy perfectly matches Luisa's
The funny thing is that the anatomy of the brain is the opposite of the anatomy of the skull: the olfactory bulbs and optic nerves are located at 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 has no teeth and leads to the tube that houses the spinal cord.
Don't you see that the semiautomatically reconstructed brainmatter image by scientist Benoit shows the llama skull is put on backwards? So the llama skull's eyes are facing the back of the mummy?
You seemed to make the argument that Benoit shows the skull parts backwards, and Dios Lopez doesn't. I think he does, but again, only you seem to be fixated on the skull and Dios Lopez's paper as some sort of smoking gun. I've pointed out the problems with Lopez. Other did earlier in the thread. The interesting thing is his findings were in line with the more qualified Benoit, but Lopez then disavowed his own work.
That still leaves Benoit concluding a backwards llama brain case as the skull.
But you dismissed Benoit's findings by claiming that he was looking at Luisa, which is a fake:
It seems to be about Luisa, the mummy Maussan confirms to be fake. He publicly apologized for that hoax according to a lot of comments by mexicans I saw. Was Luisa presented during the hearing?
But then why are we discussing any of this, if most of the CT scans being passed around are of Luisa, and she's fake? And if Maussan has admitted and apologized for presenting the fake Luisa (something I've yet to evidence for) which would be in a long line of hoaxes he's brought up, why should we take him seriously now?
Honestly, I think we're at a standstill. You say that if we look if look at things like broken bones acting as knees, it's just our uninformed opinion. If we quote sources that have examined the mummies, you say were just citing stuff that we don't understand.
You say you believe the mummies to be fake, so I guess the rest of it is just "asking for a friend". I don't know what your "friend" needs to consider these hoaxes and NOT the aliens they were claimed to be, but it looks like he'll never get it and will go on thinking these are real aliens.
Because it is supposedly the braincase of a llama, but now it is the skull of a mummy. Semantics.
The question still is, what kind of a layman thinks it is proven to be backwards when most of the skull looks facing the right way. We have people admitting the bottom part looks fine yet pther people think the above part is backwards, and the paper clearly states the skull seems to be one continous bone with no tampering visible. How did we conclude it's on backwards?
For example there is a radiologist on video scrolling through the scan and showing the skull facing the right way (from leg to skull, pretty hard to debunk with pics). The paper's later pages show the bottom of the skull facing the right way. How?
There are about two dozen similarities indicated with arrows in the figures of the Lopez paper that match the backwards llama braincase with the mummy skull.
It really shows that you refuse to do source work, because you proclaim obvious falsehoods confidently, demolishing your reputation.
Is there something in the "conclusions" part of the paper which hints at the skull/cavity being on backwards?
Because if there is not, then all this talk about a backwards llama skull is a laymans personal opinion which has no scientific or unscientific source. Cherrypicking three sentences don't change that. The entire skulls base is facing the right way and it shows in the paper you are trying to use to prove it is backwards.
Is there something in the "conclusions" part of the paper which hints at the skull/cavity being on backwards?
Because if there is not, then all this talk about a backwards llama skull is a laymans personal opinion which has no scientific or unscientific source. Cherrypicking three sentences don't change that. The entire skulls base is facing the right way and it shows in the paper you are trying to use to prove it is backwards.
Mate that is understandable that you feel this way but science does not work like that. I am not expecting a peer review here or anything.
I just expect one single published paper claiming what you guys claim. If there is an expert claiming it then prove it. Show me the work.
You guys claim there are experts claiming the mummies have backwards llama heads. So far two sources were shown.
One was Julien Benoit's words on a portugese blog, and it is already suspicious to begin with. It is about superimposing a picture of a brain onto a picture of a llama skull. He had limited data because he used the publicly avaliable images ONLY. No other source for this claim.
Julien Benoit has never published anything like that. It also sounds unscientific to superimpose a 2d pic onto another 2d pic and call it proof. For example this guy has published papers about the "inner ear of mammals from the late trias" without any sort of breakthrough, so it is not like he wanted to keep privacy lol.
The other source is a paper which never claims or concludes that the skull is on backwards.
I will now quote the entire conclusion of the paper:
As everyone can see, there is no hint that the skull is on backwards.
The backwards-llama skull hoax is debunked now.
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. To this end, a new perception of the lama
deteriorated braincase physiology is gained through
the CT-scan examination by producing and studying
various sections, as presented in the paper. This new
piece of information could not have been perceived
without the motivation to identify Josephina’s head
bones, which are most probably an archaeological
find. One can point to the supposition that Peru
cultures used animal body elements to express art or
religious beliefs (based on the importance that llamas
played in the Peruvian cosmology - see Introduction).
(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.
(c) Concerning the remains of the head of
Josephina:
1. They are biological in nature. At the available
resolution of the CT-scanning, no manipulation of
Josephina’s skull can be detected. The density of the
face bones matches very well the density of the rest
of the skull. No seams with glues, etc. are obvious,
and the whole skull forms one unit.
2. The skull as a unit is made of thin to very thin
bone, which is greatly deteriorated all over.
Especially deteriorated is the lower part, which gives
the impression of decomposed bone in such a scale
that - in places - it cannot keep its original form
without the support of the external skin. This
indirectly attests to the great age of the find or to bad
conditions of preservation.
3. The comparison between Josephina’s skull and
the braincase of a llama (and an alpaca) results
mainly, in (i) differences in thickness (that may be
explained by deterioration), (ii) existence of mouth
plates in Josephina’s skull that seem to be joined to
the face bones, (iii) differences in the occipital area.
4. No similarities could be identified between
Josephina’s mouth plates to any skeleton part,
although many parts of a skeleton may have some
resemblance (modified hyoid, thyroid, vertebral
piece, etc.). No remains of the feeding and breathing
tracks have been identified in the present analysis.
Also, the cervical vertebrae are solid, made of less
dense material than bone (cartilage?) with no passage
for a spinal cord. Instead, three cords have been
identified connecting the head with the body.
5. There is a great similarity in shape and features
between Josephina’s skull and the braincase of a
llama (and an alpaca). There are also features on
Josephina’s skull like the orbital fissure and the optic
canal, similar to the llama’s, that are however on the
opposite site of the skull than where they should be,
forcing one to accept that the skull of Josephina is a
modified llama braincase.
6. One can also assume that the finds are
archaeological in nature, judging from the age
estimation of the metal implant present in
Josephina’s chest (pre-Columbian period) and the
C14 chronological estimation as performed on the
mummy “Victoria” (950 AD to 1250 AD). At the
same time, one could assume that the remains are
articulated from archaeological staff or assembled
from recent biological material with the use of acids
and methods that cannot be dated with C14.
7. Based on the above, 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 (based on the C14 test), or even
today, with primitive technology and poor means
available to huaqueros, the tomb raiders of Peru.
8. The method of comparing CT-scan images of a
subject to images of known material, shows its
usefulness in identifying unknown bones and
detecting dissimilarities.
Well, you said that it's a layman's opinion that the skulls are backwards llama braincases. I just wanted to make sure you didn't miss the credentials of the experts that I quoted. Benoit is a PhD paleontologist whose PhD thesis was specifically about skull morphology. Estrada is an expert forensic archeologist.
I think it would be appropriate to retract your statement that it's only a layperson's opinion.
Jedlik, I can't see unambiguous fossae. Maybe you (or someone else here) could indicate them for me? Ideally by outlining or colouring them?
(Genuine request; I'm not being sarcastic).
Well, yes, if the conclusion you're drawing is implicit in the study, or backed up by data or other evidence in that study, whether the original authors intended it or not.
I don't think Einstein's theories of relativity explicitly stated that a spacecraft couldn't travel faster than the speed of light, but that is the conclusion most people who understand the theories come to.
Many academic papers about the dating and the construction methods used to build the Egyptian pyramids don't explicitly say "...so they weren't built by aliens or with lost advanced technologies", but that is the conclusion that can be made.
Please explain how this figure shows the skull facing the right way:
It is irrelevant for the conclusion which way the skull is facing, because the fact that it's a llama braincase proves it's not a "real" mummy, but was assembled.
There are also features on
Josephina’s skull like the orbital fissure and the optic
canal, similar to the llama’s, that are however on the
opposite site of the skull than where they should be,
forcing one to accept that the skull of Josephina is a
modified llama braincase.
This is one example of several instances and photos in the paper itself where the authors say the skull is backwards. But here it is, in the conclusion, where you claim they didn't say it. They do say it. Have you read the paper, or only the conclusion?
My comparison image above shows some identifiable features of the fossae indicating the skull is backwards but you didn't respond - you merely repeated your point without addressing the evidence.
Mendel's picture is from the paper (attached below)
let's look at real llama skull and compare it to pics examined in the paper (attached below). it took me a while to work out what they were looking at too.
left side below: a real back of skull of a llama skeleton (only 1500$!)
did my best to 'erase' the jaw bone bit because josephine is only the "brain case" part.
The conclusion to the Lopez report, that you posted, says in (c) Concerning the remains of the head of Josephina: subparagraph 5 (yet again):
(c) Concerning the remains of the head of
Josephina
5. There is a great similarity in shape and features
between Josephina’s skull and the braincase of a
llama (and an alpaca). There are also features on
Josephina’s skull like the orbital fissure and the optic
canal, similar to the llama’s, that are however on the
opposite site of the skull than where they should be,
forcing one to accept that the skull of Josephina is a modified llama braincase.
They concluded that Josefina was made from a "modified llama brain case". The place where the eyes go is on the opposite site of the skull. I may be monumentally dense, but how is that not backwards?
Now if you want to argue, that even though the brain case has the eyes in the opposite site, the other photos in the report show the eyes the other way around, that's a different argument.
You've already pointed out that Lopez disowned the paper in question, regardless of what it says. I've pointed out the 2 Greek coauthors are engineers that usually publish things like studies of "thermal heat pumps". The paper is beyond problematic and typical of fringe science. Let's get a biologist lab tech and some environmental engineers to study a supposed alien mummy.
Let's just throw the Lopez report out.
Next we had what Benoit said. His dissertation was about mammalian brains. Following up on that, he made a digital endocast of Josifina's brain from the 2020 CT scans. He concluded from that:
My conclusion is that the people who made this mummy carved the back of an animal's skull to create a face and removed all parts of the original skull except the brain box.
So, backwards. But you claimed Maussan admitted that Josifina is a fake and therefore Benoit's conclusions are incorrect.
When asked for any evidence that Maussan made this admission about Josifina, you didn't answer.
Where does that leave us? What is it you're trying to ask for? I'm trying to understand.
IF someone cannot PROVE someone used a llama skull to construct Josifina's skull (assuming she is not an admitted to fake) then is your contention that:
Despite all the other problems with the skeletons of these critters, the lack of clear proof how the skull was made means they ARE NOT debunked and therefore real?
The lack of a clear debunk of how the skull was made means, they're probably fake, but not proven?
The makeup of the skull is your own strawman obsession. Most of us think that the random assemblage of mostly human bones in a non-evolutionary and bio-mechanically nonsensical arrangement is enough to disregard these as another of Maussan's money making frauds.
If we're all wrong and your right, then I guess you're just smarter than the rest of us.
Do you think it is a secret? Just look at the anterior and posterior flossa.
