Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Breaking: Scientists unveil pair of 'mummified alien' corpses to Mexico congress


Unusual Tournament

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Ok PG sounds good buddy. You just keep believing in this childish garbage and try to prove and justify this obvious hoax.

Your unending belief in all fantastical things without a shred of evidence and proposals of various nonsense is what makes me categorically discount any post you make. 

Dug in you say? About an obvious hoax that even my teenagers can, see?  Yes, quite dug in on this one pal. 

Did you see my comment above. Yes there are obvious hoaxes your teenagers can see.

I've now watched it cover to cover. And hold to the opinion above still.

It helped to clarify a point of confusion in this thread too. There are indeed smaller cobbled-together junk specimens in from the tomb but they were never championed by Maussan. Those are the specimens the skeptics here are all going on about. At first Maussan was disappointed. But deeper in the digging they came to the larger specimens that are testing 'genuine single organism' under various scientific tests, have embryonic eggs, metal implant not manufactured by humans at the time, unknown DNA and etcetera.

One speculation was that the pre-Columbian ancients made small look-alikes perhaps as part of a religious cult to bury along with the main larger specimens (4:30 in the video).  

Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

One speculation was that the pre-Columbian ancients made small look-alikes perhaps as part of a religious cult to bury along with the main larger specimens (4:30 in the video).  

That's a possibility. But looking at the little ones... And how they could have been made... The exact same method could be used to make the mid sized ones.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

That's a possibility. But looking at the little ones... And how they could have been made... The exact same method could be used to make the mid sized ones.

 

Of course BUT the little ones were easily shown to be constructed by experts. The larger ones have shown to be single specimens with unknown DNA and eggs and etcetera.

My leading theory is the large ones are genuine unknown specimens and the smaller ones were constructed to resemble them.

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Of course BUT the little ones were easily shown to be constructed by experts. The larger ones have shown to be single specimens with unknown DNA and eggs and etcetera.

My leading theory is the large ones are genuine unknown specimens and the smaller ones were constructed to resemble them.

 

It seems to be leaving the headlines, so we might not get much more testing done. Especially if Peru demands their return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

It seems to be leaving the headlines, so we might not get much more testing done. Especially if Peru demands their return.

Well it is hard to imagine all this politics, controversy and non transparency after six years if this is all cobbled together junk parts. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Paper written on the Nazca Mummies by a Paleontologist (266 Pages)

TLDR    After exhaustive analysis Genuine specimen unknown to science

The problem with this paper is the fact that it isn’t a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal.:yes:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

The problem with this paper is the fact that it isn’t a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal.:yes:

I wouldn't know if it is or isn't, but I am interested in all learned opinions. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I wouldn't know if it is or isn't, but I am interested in all learned opinions. 

It certainly isn’t Peer Reviewed, the Peer Review process starts with a submission to a publisher, where it is reviewed by other scientists in the field. If the individuals reviewing the submission find it factual and accurate then the publisher will publish it. What you added, was a paper written by a single individual that was unpublished and not reviewed. Without this process few people will take the paper seriously.

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Paper written on the Nazca Mummies by a Paleontologist (266 Pages)

TLDR    After exhaustive analysis Genuine specimen unknown to science

The cover letter clearly states OCTOBER 2022. 

Why the delay with the release? It makes it look like Miles is working hand-in-hand with Maussan. And that can't be good

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

It certainly isn’t Peer Reviewed, the Peer Review process starts with a submission to a publisher, where it is reviewed by other scientists in the field. If the individuals reviewing the submission find it factual and accurate then the publisher will publish it. What you added, was a paper written by a single individual that was unpublished and not reviewed. Without this process few people will take the paper seriously.

Sure it’s a paleontologist’s analysis and it’s something I consider.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The cover letter clearly states OCTOBER 2022. 

Why the delay with the release? It makes it look like Miles is working hand-in-hand with Maussan. And that can't be good

I’m not clear. I never said anything about when it was released. Perhaps in 2022 but why does that matter?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Sure it’s a paleontologist’s analysis and it’s something I consider.

That’s fine, but my point stands!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I’m not clear. I never said anything about when it was released. Perhaps in 2022 but why does that matter?


This whole thing is fishy, PG. If this report was written in 2022, why did it take Maussan so long to put his demo on?? 

I don't get it, and I sure don't like it.  my opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


This whole thing is fishy, PG. If this report was written in 2022, why did it take Maussan so long to put his demo on?? 

I don't get it, and I sure don't like it.  my opinion.

I think it is two unrelated events. They are not tied into each other,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I heard another commentary from an academic physician with dozens of publications in science journals on the Mummies and the paper I submitted (by paleontologist Cliff Miles). Here is that commentary:

Hello everyone,

I’m an academic physician with dozens of publications in science journals and I wanted to comment on the Nazca mummies. I mostly dismissed them before the Mexican hearing, there was too much noise from some authorities. As of the last couple of days, I found a little time to sit down and study, because I started to have a feeling that I’m missing something. My friend who is a Peruvian physician also sent me the articles.

I will make it short – when I saw the four different specimen skull scans in the Miles Paper (p12-14), I involuntarily said “this is unbelievable” to myself. The skull variations between the specimens, with the preserved anatomy at the highest detail (millimeters), are impossible to replicate outside of a sophisticated digital 3D modeling process. When you’re dealing with many scans of different organisms (I mean people in my case) you immediately pick up the little unique signs and signatures, with individual variations of dimensions, bone creases, densities and so on – it’s like a fingerprint, everyone has a skull, but each is a bit different. This is exactly what I see here, it’s unmistakable.

It would not work if someone took existing animal bones and processed them to look like this. This is a unified organism with seamless transitions between the body parts that make sense from a biomechanical and functional standpoint – it wouldn’t be the case if you adjusted a lama cerebral skull for this purpose. The orbit has the right proportion in relation to the prefrontal bone, remnants of the maxilla and the mandible are congruent with the mouth plates, the mastoid process is at the right point to anchor the SCM muscle, and so on. You have a true sense of studying a new biological entity.

This will be a source of my continued study, there are so many questions. There is an obvious manipulation of many possible sources involved – including surgeries in vivo, specimens breaking post-mortem, erosion, etc.

People should stop listening to stupid arguments and start digging into the facts. We have pretty much grey alien mummies on board.

Cheers!

Now I don't know think this opinion is written up in any peer-reviewed scientific journal (so people like @Grim Reaper 6 can make that valid point) and all I know about this person is his username on another forum. But this is information I collect in my brain and it affects my outlook. Yes, it could be a total lie. But is it? But the confederation of liars/incompetents/hoaxers seems to have grown too large for my rational acceptance.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Paper written on the Nazca Mummies by a Paleontologist (266 Pages)

TLDR    After exhaustive analysis Genuine specimen unknown to science

Did nothing about this ring alarm bells?  Not the first paragraph that sets out the author's unequivocal biases?  (Introduction, page 3/266.)

Not the first line of the summary? (page 62 or 78/266) which says:

"The one single glaring attribute that states (this specimen) is an alien is that she looks like one."  (Original emphasis.)*

Not the twenty pages narrating a 'Camp David President Reagan briefing' that never happened?

Not the 'US patent application' trying to prove a triangular spaceship can create a propulsion system where an electric field overcomes gravity (or some such nonsense)?

Need I go on?

* That's honestly what it says.  The most compelling evidence is not DNA, not X-rays, not CAT scans, not physiology, not morphology, not the alien spaceships lying all over American deserts, not the millions of Americans abducted and butt-probed by aliens.  It's that this fake doll looks like ET.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, I heard another commentary from an academic physician with dozens of publications in science journals on the Mummies and the paper I submitted (by paleontologist Cliff Miles). Here is that commentary:

Hello everyone,

I’m an academic physician with dozens of publications in science journals and I wanted to comment on the Nazca mummies. I mostly dismissed them before the Mexican hearing, there was too much noise from some authorities. As of the last couple of days, I found a little time to sit down and study, because I started to have a feeling that I’m missing something. My friend who is a Peruvian physician also sent me the articles.

I will make it short – when I saw the four different specimen skull scans in the Miles Paper (p12-14), I involuntarily said “this is unbelievable” to myself. The skull variations between the specimens, with the preserved anatomy at the highest detail (millimeters), are impossible to replicate outside of a sophisticated digital 3D modeling process. When you’re dealing with many scans of different organisms (I mean people in my case) you immediately pick up the little unique signs and signatures, with individual variations of dimensions, bone creases, densities and so on – it’s like a fingerprint, everyone has a skull, but each is a bit different. This is exactly what I see here, it’s unmistakable.

It would not work if someone took existing animal bones and processed them to look like this. This is a unified organism with seamless transitions between the body parts that make sense from a biomechanical and functional standpoint – it wouldn’t be the case if you adjusted a lama cerebral skull for this purpose. The orbit has the right proportion in relation to the prefrontal bone, remnants of the maxilla and the mandible are congruent with the mouth plates, the mastoid process is at the right point to anchor the SCM muscle, and so on. You have a true sense of studying a new biological entity.

This will be a source of my continued study, there are so many questions. There is an obvious manipulation of many possible sources involved – including surgeries in vivo, specimens breaking post-mortem, erosion, etc.

People should stop listening to stupid arguments and start digging into the facts. We have pretty much grey alien mummies on board.

Cheers!

Now I don't know think this opinion is written up in any peer-reviewed scientific journal (so people like @Grim Reaper 6 can make that valid point) and all I know about this person is his username on another forum. But this is information I collect in my brain and it affects my outlook. Yes, it could be a total lie. But is it? But the confederation of liars/incompetents/hoaxers seems to have grown too large for my rational acceptance.

Without seeing the link to the comment, I have to conclude it could have been written by anyone. Even by AI. Basically it parrots Dr Salizars testimony, almost word for word.

Will you link where that is from?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

Did nothing about this ring alarm bells?  Not the first paragraph that sets out the author's unequivocal biases?  (Introduction, page 3/266.)

Not the first line of the summary? (page 62 or 78/266) which says:

"The one single glaring attribute that states (this specimen) is an alien is that she looks like one."  (Original emphasis.)*

Not the twenty pages narrating a 'Camp David President Reagan briefing' that never happened?

Not the 'US patent application' trying to prove a triangular spaceship can create a propulsion system where an electric field overcomes gravity (or some such nonsense)?

Need I go on?

* That's honestly what it says.  The most compelling evidence is not DNA, not X-rays, not CAT scans, not physiology, not morphology, not the alien spaceships lying all over American deserts, not the millions of Americans abducted and butt-probed by aliens.  It's that this fake doll looks like ET.

Tom. The focus is on the fact that these larger mummies are getting acceptance as genuine from experts that should easily recognize a cobbled together fraud and damaged DNA.

Now those other issues might merit different discussions. You look to be finding ways to sidetrack this with side points. 
 

I’m honestly trying to be fair and go whichever way the evidence points. These mummies seem genuine.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

these larger mummies are getting acceptance as genuine from experts

What experts? Who are they?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

  It's that this fake doll looks like ET.

And it's made from the back of a llama's skull.

No real surprise: it's from Peru.

Back in 1991 85% of the population was in poverty.

I lived there for half a year, and I know these poor people could create Big Foot or Nessie if they knew they could earn money from the gullible by it.

Remember Ica?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

And it's made from the back of a llama's skull.

No real surprise: it's from Peru.

Back in 1991 85% of the population was in poverty.

I lived there for half a year, and I know these poor people could create Big Foot or Nessie if they knew they could earn money from the gullible by it.

Remember Ica?

Apparently you haven’t seen or are interested in the information and videos presented here in this thread.
 

My leading theory includes a pre-Columbian origin. And experts that should know a cobbled together fraud from a single specimen.

Edited by papageorge1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.