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

Probably revolves around who is calling whom an expert. :whistle:

And "should easily recognize a cobbled together fraud and damaged DNA.". Because, yes, they should...

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

experts

:lol:

I've seen enough experts being fooled by people willing to earn money and/or fame.

I've witnessed people in Peru creating stuff to sell to the gullible.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

I will make the same point as I previously did, this apparently isn’t a Peer Reviewed Published Journal. But, to be fair please post a link to where this article came from.

I have to ask, do you even know what a Peer Reviewed Journal is?

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

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?

Link

Yes, it could be part of the liars/incompetents/hoaxers confederation for all I can be certain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I will make the same point as I previously did, this apparently isn’t a Peer Reviewed Published Journal. But, to be fair please post a link to where this article came from.

 

Link

15 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

 

I have to ask, do you even know what a Peer Reviewed Journal is?

I have the basic idea, yes. And politics and prejudices can be at play too on controversial subjects.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Link

I have the basic idea, yes. And politics and prejudices can be at play too on controversial subjects.

Thanks for the link, and you are right politics and prejudices can come into play on controversial subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I wouldn't know if it is or isn't

Which pretty much sums up in a nutshell your gullible attitude and poor judgement concerning the sources you’re  always parroting.

No offense.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Link

Yes, it could be part of the liars/incompetents/hoaxers confederation for all I can be certain.

Thanks for posting it. Redit is better then some, if still mostly anonymous and untraceable, unless they foolishly post their real information. :alien:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

No offense.

I'm not gullible enough to believe that one, LOL.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Link

Yes, it could be part of the liars/incompetents/hoaxers confederation for all I can be certain.

from the link: 

"Hello everyone,

I’m an academic physician with dozens of publications in science journals..."
------------------------------

And he never says who he is. "It MUST be true. I read it on the internet!"

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

from the link: 

"Hello everyone,

I’m an academic physician with dozens of publications in science journals..."
------------------------------

And he never says who he is. "It MUST be true. I read it on the internet!"

Perhaps my comment above escaped your attention:

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Yes, it could be part of the liars/incompetents/hoaxers confederation for all I can be certain.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I'm not gullible enough to believe that one, LOL.

You can believe it :tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Perhaps my comment above escaped your attention:

 

It did, I confess. 

I've been on your side of things before but this time, PG, I can't see it. Nothing personal, my friend.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It did, I confess. 

I've been on your side of things before but this time, PG, I can't see it. Nothing personal, my friend.

So what DO you think is going on with all these positive testimonials by scientists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So what DO you think is going on with all these positive testimonials by scientists?

For one, the link you posted was to an opinion piece with no name of the author, so "testimonials by scientists" doesn't quite work there.

PG, there is the distinct possibility that they are hoaxing as per request of the main presenter, Maussan. But I should not say that I know that for sure until it is proofed. 

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

16 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

For one, the link you posted was to an opinion piece with no name of the author, so "testimonials by scientists" doesn't quite work there.

PG, there is the distinct possibility that they are hoaxing as per request of the main presenter, Maussan. But I should not say that I know that for sure until it is proofed. 

Well, that little physician's opinion I posted is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and can be held in suspicion, fine. BUT the main point is all the scientists involved in all the videos and links presented in the course of this thread alone add up to an impressive accumulation of evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, that little physician's opinion I posted is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and can be held in suspicion, fine. BUT the main point is all the scientists involved in all the videos and links presented in the course of this thread alone add up to an impressive accumulation of evidence.

Yes it does, although I am not sure "impressive" is the word I would use unless we knew they were legit. Let's not forget, Maussan has had years to plan this out

 

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Yes it does, although I am not sure "impressive" is the word I would use unless we knew they were legit. Let's not forget, Maussan has had years to plan this out

 

To my understanding Maussan fell for a hoax before but he never intentionally deceived. So be careful but don’t just dismiss next time. This time he’s got some serious scientists on board for legitimacy. 

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

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

To my understanding Maussan fell for a hoax before but he never intentionally deceived. So be careful but don’t just dismiss next time. This time he’s got some serious scientists on board for legitimacy. 

Let me get this right?  We all finally agree that the previous nonsense (2017?) WAS a hoax.  Is anyone here still disputing that?

But this time round something virtually identical in external appearance is legit?

So... can you explain how the 2017 hoaxers knew that years later real, genuine, authentic, oh-no-not-at-all-faked alien mummies would appear in pretty much the same circumstances and look almost exactly the same?

Did the hoaxers have access to the 'real' things?  If so why did they have to make fakes?

Or were they just super-smart and worked out what a 'real' alien would look like?  Or perhaps they were precognitives and glimpsed the future?  (Perhaps they even read this very thread 6 years ago?)  Or they were just incredibly lucky and by pure coincidence the fake 'aliens' of 2017 look uncannily like the 'real aliens' of 2023.

I fed the facts into the poopometer and it gave:

1% Smart      0% Precog      1% Fluke

98% We've got it all wrong and the 2017 ones were every bit as real as the new ones!  Who'da thought there could be so many alien mummies just waiting to be uncovered?  I'm gonna write to Zahi Hawass, get him to check his.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

So what DO you think is going on with all these positive testimonials by scientists?

You mean the scientists who have repeatedly stated these "alien" mummies are not Maussan claims? The ones who condemn them as a publicity stunt?

I think they are applying logic and reason, and are on target.:tu:

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The first alien mummies from this guy were fake, yes, but THESE alien mummies from the same guy are real" is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard.

It's equivocal to saying "the first time I said I won the big lotto I lied, but this time I'm not" except the odds are even worse.

Edited by moonman
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

So what DO you think is going on with all these positive testimonials by scientists?

My opinion is either...

1. Maussan is a True Believer, and has found other True Believers in fields/positions that are helpful to his case to do tests, and witnesses.

Or...

2. MONEY!!

 

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Resume said:

Two words again: Independent, objective attestation.*

 

 

*Yes, I know.

The most important being objective. So far it seems Maussan has used those he knows favor his ideas, to back those ideas.

It's like taking a picture of a tossed hubcap, and calling it a UFO. Then sending the pic to twenty "scientists" whom you know are UFO "experts", and when all of them exclaim "YES! This is 100% a UFO". You say, "See! So many experts agree.".

Because they are pre-disposed to agree.

  • Like 3
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.