BREAKING: Alien Mummy Possibly Found in Nazca Peru

[George-ananda]

Not buying it. Cut and paste from: Hoax? Three Fingered Nazca Mummy

Suspicion of a modern fake comes in part from the people involved:

Jaime Maussan is a UFOologist - a journalist well known in UFO circles as someone who hypes evidence-free claims of aliens, etc. He appears to be the person who led Gaia to the mummy.

Jay Weidner of Gaia has a long history of making esoteric videos like "chemtrails and the sun", and does not seems like a neutral documentray filmmaker. He holds some quite strong unscientific beliefs, like:
the physical manifestation of the soul leaving the body.

Dr Jose de Jesus Zalce Benitez has worked with Maussan before, most famously with "Roswell Slides", where he performed extensive analysis of a photo that he said was of a non-human body at Roswell, but which turned out to be a mummified child on a museum shelf in South America. So he does not have a very good track record.

M.K Jessie appears to be a real radiologist but really gives very little information other than saying that based on the small images she has been given she think it's unlikely to be a modified human skeleton.

Natalia Zaloznaja (probably better transliterated as Natalya Zaloznaya, ) - the supposed "head of image analysis" may well be a real doctor, but does not say anything of note.

So simply based on the track record of the people involved, I would have to put "fake" as the most likely explanation in the absence of additional independent evidence.

Where are the mainstream archaeologists and geneticists? One can run a genetics test quickly, easily, and cheaply these days.

Thanks, as it appears you have now watched it. As for people's track records, that seems to be highly based on the worldview of the track recorder. People are both praised and degraded all over the internet, so what?

 

[George-ananda]

"Nazca 'alien mummy' revealed in promotional video featuring serial hoaxer (UPDATE: Experts say ‘hoax’)"

Click HERE

A personal note: What struck me as suspicious right off the bat was the lack of an opposable "thumb."

.

.

The 'Doubtful News' website. If that is all you want to hear then you will hear just what you want to hear. I am even doubtful of the 'Doubtful' myself.

 

[Skwim]

The 'Doubtful News' website. If that is all you want to hear then you will hear just what you want to hear. I am even doubtful of the 'Doubtful' myself.

So, do they make reasonable points or not? If not, why not? Is anything they say inaccurate?

.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Did you watch the video? Bits of information are known with more to come it says.

Yes, I did. And it's severely lacking in anything worthwhile as far as factual information goes.

For example, who, what, when, where and why are not even loosely covered in the video? Can you tell me where it came from - not which country it's currently housed in - but where, specifically, did it come from? What's the geographic location of the site where it was discovered? Who found it? Which archaeological dig came upon this specimen as part of their routine ground work? Who operates that dig? How was the specimen extracted from the ground? What cultural artifacts, if any, were also discovered along with this supposed find?

Those are questions that you don't have answers to, and that should be a giant red flag for anyone who wants to take these types of things seriously.

Any real scientific research, on any topic, answers these questions before they even have to be asked. And if they don't, they're readily available. I challenge you to produce them because I don't believe that you can.

Some of the "experts" in this little video suggest that it was covered in a "white dust" that somehow mummifies bodies more completely so that what's underneath is better preserved... If that's true, what is the white dust? What's it made of? What's the chemical composition? I ask because it looks not-surprisingly similar to a generic plaster that would surround any ground find - meaning it's not original to the discovery and that conclusions about it are mainly just hocus pocus, revealing the speaker's bias.

Also, why would the eyes and ear-holes be as fresh looking as they are if this thing is actually 1500 years old? Soft tissue around the ribs, hips, and hands have sunken in due to decomposition - yet, oddly, the fingers and face don't seem have to deal with the rigors of time the way... Why do you think that is?

If this thing is real, then those questions can be answered, right? (And by answered I mean, not brushed aside or avoided.)

 

[George-ananda]

So, do they make reasonable points or not?
.

My point is you and I don't know (unless you or I have done our own expert research). I am saying don't jump with believer news (if you tend to be a believer) or skeptical news (if you tend to be a skeptic).

I believe this sounds very intriguing but I have not concluded anything yet. I'll have to wait for further information to come out.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, I did. And it's severely lacking in anything worthwhile as far as factual information goes.

This video was just intended to be an introduction to the subject not a claim that it IS an alien mummy. I think the carbon dating and the X-rays and some expert comments are worthwhile myself.

For example, who, what, when, where and why are not even loosely covered in the video? Can you tell me where it came from - not which country it's currently housed in - but where, specifically, did it come from? What's the geographic location of the site where it was discovered? Who found it? Which archaeological dig came upon this specimen as part of their routine ground work? Who operates that dig? How was the specimen extracted from the ground? What cultural artifacts, if any, were also discovered along with this supposed find?

Those are questions that you don't have answers to, and that should be a giant red flag for anyone who wants to take these types of things seriously.

Any real scientific research, on any topic, answers these questions before they even have to be asked. And if they don't, they're readily available. I challenge you to produce them because I don't believe that you can.

Some of the "experts" in this little video suggest that it was covered in a "white dust" that somehow mummifies bodies more completely so that what's underneath is better preserved... If that's true, what is the white dust? What's it made of? What's the chemical composition? I ask because it looks not-surprisingly similar to a generic plaster that would surround any ground find - meaning it's not original to the discovery and that conclusions about it are mainly just hocus pocus, revealing the speaker's bias.

Also, why would the eyes and ear-holes be as fresh looking as they are if this thing is actually 1500 years old? Soft tissue around the ribs, hips, and hands have sunken in due to decomposition - yet, oddly, the fingers and face don't seem have to deal with the rigors of time the way... Why do you think that is?

If this thing is real, then those questions can be answered, right? (And by answered I mean, not brushed aside or avoided.)

They state this is just the tip of an investigation that needs to go on. They would agree much is not known or can be revealed at this time. They are saying 'Stayed Tuned' and they got me intrigued to hear more (maybe even you?). I can't wait to hear more especially about the DNA.

 

[Kapalika]

Ah, but which side is the flat-earthers on this one? I've seen it be the skeptic side on other issues.

If you expand the definition of skeptic to include anyone who just generally disbelieves any claims out side of "common sense" then probably. But an actual skeptic is someone who bases their beliefs withholds acceptance until something has sufficient evidence.

This is summed up in the James Randi quote as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And likewise he's said in other words that an ordinary claim requires little or no evidence. For example if I said "I went to the store today" you don't need any evidence to think I lied, or at most, if there is reason to suspect another motive, you could ask to see the groceries or a reciept.

But if I said "I saw an alien UFO today on the way to the store!" There is no way you should believe me without very clear, undeniable evidence beyond just say a video. You might require some kind of physical evidence or signs, and require people who would know the difference to check it out... and then they document it and others come to confirm as well. Others would need their own videos too and they all be congruent and other possibilities ruled out. A consensus would need to be formed and it be clear. This is part of how science works.

Or perhaps thinking that things have always been more interconnected than just completely independent evolution on different planets.

Without any proof that's just conjecture.

Exceedingly and unfortunately so. But, then again, for some bewildering reason (probably not though since we tend to be very selfish and anthropocentric) people have long thought gods look like us. So I suppose it isn't too odd or unusual that we went from having sky men living in the clouds to having little green men living in space.

Interestingly apparently ancient Jews thought angels looked more like eldritch abominations or some kind of cosmic horror rather than humanoid hence why they said "be not afraid" when approaching people.[/QUOTE]

 

[George-ananda]

If you expand the definition of skeptic to include anyone who just generally disbelieves any claims out side of "common sense" then probably. But an actual skeptic is someone who bases their beliefs withholds acceptance until something has sufficient evidence.

I agree with your definition of skeptic. But I also believe the word 'skeptic' has been hijacked by a group (Randi, Schermer, etc.) that are not really skeptics by the definition but really just no-holds-barred defenders of materialistic-atheism. These types have been call pseudo-skeptics. They are the ones I believe have been wrong before on issues (flat-earthers).

But if I said "I saw an alien UFO today on the way to the store!" There is no way you should believe me without very clear, undeniable evidence beyond just say a video. You might require some kind of physical evidence or signs, and require people who would know the difference to check it out... and then they document it and others come to confirm as well. Others would need their own videos too and they all be congruent and other possibilities ruled out. A consensus would need to be formed and it be clear. This is part of how science works
This is summed up in the James Randi quote as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And likewise he's said in other words that an ordinary claim requires little or no evidence. For example if I said "I went to the store today" you don't need any evidence to think I lied, or at most, if there is reason to suspect another motive, you could ask to see the groceries or a reciept.

I actually agree with that quote. But 'extraordinary evidence' is a vague term. When is it reached? It is a judgment call then.

Without any proof that's just conjecture.

If there is proof then it is not conjecture anymore.

However, I think there is debatable evidence (not proof) of alien involvement with mankind that allows conjecture.

 

[columbus]

So? Did you watch THIS video?

No.
And I am not likely to do so until I am bored.
Because I have clicked on other links you've posted on RF and they were consistently worthless, aside from fantasy entertainment value.
I did see your "Jesus winks at Mexican churchgoers" video. And the one you posted, a phone camera pic on a jet purportedly a Guardian Angel of a child. You gave that better than even odds of being a real picture of a disembodied intelligence. 60% odds, IIRC.
So, whenever you post yet another unsupported assertion from the internet I assume it is because you aren't able to evaluate evidence. You believe what you want to, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.
The truth will interfere with your self-image. You want to believe that you are unnaturally perceptive and rational and educated.

But what I see is a credulous person, posting stuff on the internet.
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

No.
And I am not likely to do so until I am bored.
Because I have clicked on other links you've posted on RF and they were consistently worthless, aside from fantasy entertainment value.
I did see your "Jesus winks at Mexican churchgoers" video. And the one you posted, a phone camera pic on a jet purportedly a Guardian Angel of a child. You gave that better than even odds of being a real picture of a disembodied intelligence. 60% odds, IIRC.
So, whenever you post yet another unsupported assertion from the internet I assume it is because you aren't able to evaluate evidence. You believe what you want to, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.
The truth will interfere with your self-image. You want to believe that you are unnaturally perceptive and rational and educated.

But what I see is a credulous person, posting stuff on the internet.
Tom

Every phenomena I have discussed may very well be true. Because you insist it is worthless or whatever does not make it so to me.

If you are not interested in considering claims of the paranormal/cryptos/aliens that's your prerogative. I find the subjects fascinating. And nobody knows for sure. So why such vehemence?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe they take forms we understand??

Why? Do they think us dumb and stupid? That we are so fragile we have to see something that resembles us? Give our species some more credit to our resilience.

Perhaps a hybrid human/alien genetic experiment?

Given what we know about genetic reproduction, that is extremely unlikely.

Many abductees report aliens interested in their reproductive material.

Many people report relief from copper-treatments. Doesn't mean it works though.

 

[George-ananda]

Why? Do they think us dumb and stupid? That we are so fragile we have to see something that resembles us? Give our species some more credit to our resilience.

Well, I don't do their thinking for them. I have wondered if the two arms, two legs, two eyes, etc. thing is a universal archetype on which things are based.

Given what we know about genetic reproduction, that is extremely unlikely.

The key phrase to me there is 'what we know'. I can't begin to know what a species ten times more advanced than us might know.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, I don't do their thinking for them. I have wondered if the two arms, two legs, two eyes, etc. thing is a universal archetype on which things are based.

That is hardly universal on our own planet.

The key phrase to me there is 'what we know'. I can't begin to know what a species ten times more advanced than us might know.

What they know doesn't change the fact our genes would likely be incompatible with theirs for reproduction. This would assume that for some reason they would harvest our gametes and tamper with them extensively to make them compatible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's a presentation for the general public. That does not make the subject honest or fake.

I think it's a mix of the two.

It takes aspects derived from real science and make believe and liberally uses artistic license mixing the two for entertainment.

If you watch these kinds of shows in volume, you will notice a lot of the same clips and shots are liberally placed and reused in various different shows about different subjects.

I think fake documentaries need disclaimers separating them from the real presentations. It's a disservice and intellectually dishonest.

I've fallen for enough of them already to tell the difference. "What the bleep do I know"? Was one "documentary" I actually fell for, before I realised it wasn't really dealing completely in actual science and misrepresenting actual data from experiments.

It dosent mean I don't like the subjects or the type of documentary upon which the focus and subject lay, I just wish they would let people know the distinction made between entertainment ones, from documentaries based upon actual scientific study and research.

Only way to tell at times is a little research through respective educational institutions and finding peer reviewed journals and publications on the subjects.

 

[George-ananda]

That is hardly universal on our own planet.

Good point, just the most advanced species.

What they know doesn't change the fact our genes would likely be incompatible with theirs for reproduction. This would assume that for some reason they would harvest our gametes and tamper with them extensively to make them compatible.

I am sure it would involve genetic manipulation with a purposeful intent (certainly not regular reproduction methods).

In fact one theory is actually that it was just that type of genetic manipulation that propelled one of the many hominid species into modern humans (the missing link).

 

[George-ananda]

It takes aspects derived from real science and make believe and liberally uses artistic license mixing the two for entertainment.

I do not believe the producers of this video claim that they are presenting any 'make believe' but presenting a genuine mystery.

I think fake documentaries need disclaimers separating them from the real presentations. It's a disservice and intellectually dishonest.

I would also reproach any documentary that used anything they knew was 'fake' without a disclaimer. I do not know that the makers of the video I presented here believe anything they presented was fake.

I've fallen for enough of them already to tell the difference. "What the bleep do I know"? Was one "documentary" I actually fell for, before I realised it wasn't really dealing completely in actual science and misrepresenting actual data from experiments.

It dosent mean I don't like the subjects or the type of documentary upon which the focus and subject lay, I just wish they would let people know the distinction made between entertainment ones, from documentaries based upon actual scientific study and research.

Only way to tell at times is a little research through respective educational institutions and finding peer reviewed journals and publications on the subjects.

For example, when you say 'misrepresenting actual data from experiments', the question then becomes who officially determines if it is a misrepresentation? There is usually two sides so what happens is the believer types listen to their guy and the so-called skeptic side listens to their guy.

Bottom line is that if we don't want to be a sheep behind either the believer or skeptical side, we need to roll up our sleeves and do our own homework. What happens is that very few have time to seriously look into things so we follow the leaders.

 

[Milton Platt]

Thanks, as it appears you have now watched it. As for people's track records, that seems to be highly based on the worldview of the track recorder. People are both praised and degraded all over the internet, so what?

So this is the only thing we can use to evaluate the claims, because virtually NOTHING has been submitted to independent testing and evaluation. Let me know when that happens.

Evaluating the reliability of the ones making the claims has nothing to do with "degrading" them. Their record is important to establishing their veracity and expertise. Their record is what will "degrade" them in the eyes of those seeking confirmation of a claim, not the act of seeking to confirm their veracity. and it should be so.

 

[George-ananda]

So this is the only thing we can use to evaluate the claims, because virtually NOTHING has been submitted to independent testing and evaluation. Let me know when that happens.

Evaluating the reliability of the ones making the claims has nothing to do with "degrading" them. Their record is important to establishing their veracity and expertise. Their record is what will "degrade" them in the eyes of those seeking confirmation of a claim, not the act of seeking to confirm their veracity. and it should be so.

I think you missed my main point. Whether a guy's track record is a good one or a bad one is often just a matter of opinion. It is easy to present things to lead a reader to reach the conclusion about someone that the writer wants you to reach. Do we go a step further and look for rebuttals to the criticism or praise? Usually we stop when we hear what we want to hear. We don't often have that kind of time to spend on every controversy.

After decades of looking into this stuff I believe the hard-core skeptics are more deceptive than the higher quality proponents. We have to do our own homework to have an informed opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good point, just the most advanced species.

Define advanced.

I am sure it would involve genetic manipulation with a purposeful intent (certainly not regular reproduction methods).

But why would they do this?

In fact one theory is actually that it was just that type of genetic manipulation that propelled one of the many hominid species into modern humans (the missing link).

And yet when we look at our closest cousins, it's easy to see that as the ancient "us" so long ago. Why should we assume it is impossible they too as well will not day reach an evolutionary level similar to ours?

 

[George-ananda]

Define advanced.

Knowledge way beyond our current sciences.

But why would they do this?

Perhaps to advance our human species? Or to further some goal of theirs?

And yet when we look at our closest cousins, it's easy to see that as the ancient "us" so long ago. Why should we assume it is impossible they too as well will not day reach an evolutionary level similar to ours?

Do you mean chimpanzees? They don't seem to be changing as far as I know. Perhaps there has been alien involvement all the way back to abiogenesis and along the way.