BREAKING: Alien Mummy Possibly Found in Nazca Peru

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Chimpanzees are evolving just like everything else.

Knowledge way beyond our current sciences.

Elaborate.

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

So, they abduct these people, do all these weird, strange things, and they never thought--despite being intelligent enough to survive the trip here inherently they can survive anything we can throw at them--to just ask us if there are any willing donors?

 

[George-ananda]

Chimpanzees are evolving just like everything else.

maybe to be healthier chimps.

Elaborate.

genetics, physics... look what we didn't know a century ago. what will be known in a thousand years????

So, they abduct these people, do all these weird, strange things, and they never thought

despite being intelligent enough to survive the trip here inherently they can survive anything we can throw at them--to just ask us if there are any willing donors?

Perhaps they have a non-disclosure to humans at this time. Abductees have their memories blocked but a few get through (usually under hypnosis) but most people just think they're imagining.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Abductees have their memories blocked but a few get through (usually under hypnosis) but most people just think they're imagining.

"Memory recall" through hyponosis is extremely suspect, and considered very dangerous and unethical by many because of the high and very real chance of implanting false memories.
And, it goes back to the idea of this super-advanced species, they never thought to just ask, and now they are making errors in erasing memories, despite the fact when we have surgery under general anesthesia at the hands of humans we remember absolutely nothing of the surgery?

 

[George-ananda]

"Memory recall" through hyponosis is extremely suspect, and considered very dangerous and unethical by many because of the high and very real chance of implanting false memories.

Fine, that agrees with what I said that most people dismiss the memories of others under hypnosis although nobody can really know for sure.

And, it goes back to the idea of this super-advanced species, they never thought to just ask, and now they are making errors in erasing memories, despite the fact when we have surgery under general anesthesia at the hands of humans we remember absolutely nothing of the surgery?

Do you claim to know the impact a sudden and indisputable contact by aliens on humanity? Panics? Some suggest they are going with a slow desensitization and it may be working. People are more open to the idea than when I was a kid.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Fine, that agrees with what I said that most people dismiss the memories of others under hypnosis although nobody can really know for sure.

Pretty much every psychologist and psychiatrist dismisses them. It used to not be that way, but implanting false memories of sexual abuse that leads to false charges and false imprisonment are pretty embarrassing things that people tend to want to avoid anymore.

Do you claim to know the impact a sudden and indisputable contact by aliens on humanity? Panics? Some suggest they are going with a slow desensitization and it may be working. People are more open to the idea than when I was a kid.

In some cultures, people aren't visited by aliens, but rather old women. In Medieval times they were visited by demons. I'm also asking questions concerning things that do not make any sense. If the aliens just showed up and asked, they would have no shortage of willing donors, and there would be absolutely nothing we could do to prevent this from going on. And why is it a surgeon "puts you under," and next thing you know you're in recovery, but these aliens blunder to the point these abductees vaguely and sometimes vividly remember things? It makes no sense to forcefully abduct and not make sure the victim remembers absolutely nothing. For such an allegedly advanced species, other than knowing how to get here they seem pretty dumb.

 

[George-ananda]

Pretty much every psychologist and psychiatrist dismisses them. It used to not be that way, but implanting false memories of sexual abuse that leads to false charges and false imprisonment are pretty embarrassing things that people tend to want to avoid anymore.

In some cultures, people aren't visited by aliens, but rather old women. In Medieval times they were visited by demons. I'm also asking questions concerning things that do not make any sense. If the aliens just showed up and asked, they would have no shortage of willing donors, and there would be absolutely nothing we could do to prevent this from going on. And why is it a surgeon "puts you under," and next thing you know you're in recovery, but these aliens blunder to the point these abductees vaguely and sometimes vividly remember things? It makes no sense to forcefully abduct and not make sure the victim remembers absolutely nothing. For such an allegedly advanced species, other than knowing how to get here they seem pretty dumb.

I can't explain it all, but I personally have concluded that alien abductions are very likely to occur after listening to all the evidence and arguments from all sides. We each need to form our own position after careful consideration of everything.

I take it you are a non-believer and that's fine.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I take it you are a non-believer and that's fine.

I believe very much that alien/intelligent life probably does exist somewhere out there other than here. However, I doubt methods that have been debunked, unreliable, potentially dangerous, I have to wonder why these abductions leave no concrete evidence, and I am forced to acknowledge the phenomenon of things such as sleep paralysis. I also have to wonder why these things, including sightings, have decreased since the presence of cameras--especially on phones--has become so prevalent.

 

[columbus]

Every phenomena I have discussed may very well be true.

So might Noah's ark. But the evidence is weak, to be charitable about it. Maybe God and Satan planted evidence, like clam shells on mountain tops, to deceive the unwary. Almost anything is possible, if the evidence is unreliable.

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?

I am probably more vehement about this subject than some of your other ones because I was taken in by Erich von Daniken back when I was a kid. He published some very popular books, back around 1970. I was around 10. I was a child and still believed in The Authorities. He couldn't say it if it wasn't true, right? Nazca was solid evidence that aliens had visited us humans in the distant past. Then, I read a book by a debunker. I came to realize how easy and profitable and fun it is to pass off unsupported claims as Truth. And I became a lot more suspicious of people making such claims, from EvD, to Scriptural authors to you. I developed a much greater appreciation for the rigors of the scientific method.

Here's another important reason for my vehemence concerning badly evidenced claims. I am absolutely confident that there is far more to reality than we humans currently know or understand. More than we can, given our limited perceptions and reasoning. But the biggest single obstacle to Truth Seeking is people who make badly evidenced claims. Before we understood the solar system and realized that the Earth is a tiny speck of molten rock hurtling through the void, people made claims about it that were wrong. Before we understood that infectious illnesses were the results of microscopically small creatures, claims were made about demons and curses. The biggest problem with finding the truth is people making badly evidenced claims.

So I get annoyed when people say things like this. The reality gets lost in the cloud of nonsense claims, caused by credulous people who will believe and post about implausible things before they have actually done the research that would give their claims, and themselves, some credibility. Then when other people point out their lack of such, they act like they're being persecuted or something.

So, how about you don't add to the confusion and set back the search for Truth by posting this sort of thing on the internet until there is credible information on the subject?
Tom

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Nonetheless, I believe that looking at a person's past history of believing in things that are demonstrably incorrect and even publishing these things as if they were factual is a factor in whether to believe current claims by the same person. What was in the cut and past within my response do you think was untrue, and how can we determine if it was or not?

 

[George-ananda]

Nonetheless, I believe that looking at a person's past history of believing in things that are demonstrably incorrect and even publishing these things as if they were factual is a factor in whether to believe current claims by the same person.

I agree with that actually. But, who is the official determiner that things said and published are demonstrably incorrect?

 

[columbus]

But, who is the official determiner that things said and published are demonstrably incorrect?

Why do you think that there is any such "who"?
There isn't. There is evidence that is compelling to a wide variety of educated people.
There is no who. That's the difference between science and religion.
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

Why do you think that there is any such "who"?
There isn't.

That was my point EXACTLY!

There is evidence that is compelling to a wide variety of educated people.

Who determines when that is the case?

 

[George-ananda]

So might Noah's ark. But the evidence is weak, to be charitable about it. Maybe God and Satan planted evidence, like clam shells on mountain tops, to deceive the unwary. Almost anything is possible, if the evidence is unreliable.

I think the literal Noah's ark thing is ridiculous. That is the only opinion important to me.

I am probably more vehement about this subject than some of your other ones because I was taken in by Erich von Daniken back when I was a kid. He published some very popular books, back around 1970. I was around 10. I was a child and still believed in The Authorities. He couldn't say it if it wasn't true, right? Nazca was solid evidence that aliens had visited us humans in the distant past. Then, I read a book by a debunker. I came to realize how easy and profitable and fun it is to pass off unsupported claims as Truth. And I became a lot more suspicious of people making such claims, from EvD, to Scriptural authors to you. I developed a much greater appreciation for the rigors of the scientific method.

Here's another important reason for my vehemence concerning badly evidenced claims. I am absolutely confident that there is far more to reality than we humans currently know or understand. More than we can, given our limited perceptions and reasoning. But the biggest single obstacle to Truth Seeking is people who make badly evidenced claims. Before we understood the solar system and realized that the Earth is a tiny speck of molten rock hurtling through the void, people made claims about it that were wrong. Before we understood that infectious illnesses were the results of microscopically small creatures, claims were made about demons and curses. The biggest problem with finding the truth is people making badly evidenced claims.

So I get annoyed when people say things like this. The reality gets lost in the cloud of nonsense claims, caused by credulous people who will believe and post about implausible things before they have actually done the research that would give their claims, and themselves, some credibility. Then when other people point out their lack of such, they act like they're being persecuted or something.

So, how about you don't add to the confusion and set back the search for Truth by posting this sort of thing on the internet until there is credible information on the subject?
Tom

You say things like 'nonsense claims', 'credulous people', etc., etc.

As in the previous post, who is the official determiner? And we seemed to agree the answer is 'no one'.

Perhaps our difference is that I have lost respect for the so-called skeptical crowd after decades of interest in this stuff. I will wait for the DNA analysis of this Nazca alien mummy possibility and will not apologize for bringing it to the attention of others. I saw the X-rays and it certainly doesn't appear to me to be any type of human I or the expert in the video has seen before. Actually, I think the Atacama mummy also from South America is evidence of something unknown to science.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.


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.

I think you're missing the point. The problem isn't that the information I'm talking about isn't available in the video... It's not available anywhere...

What organization would go so far as to travel to a foreign county and take samples from a specimen for "further analysis" without even knowing where the specimen actually came from?

Also, to suggest that they aren't already assuming an alien origin is a bit naive, don't you think? They finished their little docudrama with images of petroglyphs that suggest a connection between their specimen and the drawings depicted.

All of these should be red flags for further scrutiny - not tantalizing evidence for sincere study.

 

[George-ananda]

I think you're missing the point. The problem isn't that the information I'm talking about isn't available in the video... It's not available anywhere...

What organization would go so far as to travel to a foreign county and take samples from a specimen for "further analysis" without even knowing where the specimen actually came from?

Also, to suggest that they aren't already assuming an alien origin is a bit naive, don't you think? They finished their little docudrama with images of petroglyphs that suggest a connection between their specimen and the drawings depicted.

All of these should be red flags for further scrutiny - not tantalizing evidence for sincere study.

This discovery is apparently extremely new to the people making the video (we are talking days at that point and they already showed some carbon dating and X-ray analysis, etc.)

Plus the believers and skeptics will come out in vehemence at this point. My prediction is this will stay disputed for some time to come.

I think the Atacama mummy case also from South America seems to have held up to intense scrutiny against the skeptic claims. But because of societal attitudes these things stay in the fringe news.

 

[jonathan180iq]

This discovery is apparently extremely new to the people making the video (we are talking days at that point and they already showed some carbon dating and X-ray analysis, etc.)

Plus the believers and skeptics will come out in vehemence at this point. My prediction is this will stay disputed for some time to come.

I think the Atacama mummy case also from South America seems to have held up to intense scrutiny against the skeptic claims. But because of societal attitudes these things stay in the fringe news.

"In the spring of 2017, Gaia filmmakers joined researchers and scientists just outside of Nazca, Peru to investigate an unearthed mummified body. Independent scientists and universities are currently analyzing findings, with initial examinations suggesting the possibility of material that is unlike anything found in the fossil record.

Could this be a primitive human with an intentional or developmental deformity, or undeniable evidence that a non-human species exists?"

This is the original claim from the video, and from Gaia. There's no data, anywhere on the internet, to support any of the scientific claims made in the video about the age of the specimen or of the location where it was discovered. If it was unearthed in the Spring, I'd want to know specifically when and where - wouldn't you? If it was dated to a certain time period, I'd want to at least be able to look over that data and throw it in the face of people who said it didn't actually exist, wouldn't you? If that "white dust" is actually an historically more viable way of preserving ancient bodies that the Peruvians discovered, I'd want to know what it was, how it worked, and which culture used it , wouldn't you? If it somehow preserved organs for 1700 years, that would be a remarkable scientific discovery...

But, almost not surprisingly, that data simply doesn't exist... If it does, please cite it here.

Look, I don't care what you want to believe - but those types of gaps in information are a problem for anyone making any claim about anything.

Pseudoscience claims are able to spread among the common people because they purposefully don't provide information that can be checked, tested, or reviewed conclusively. All of those very basic questions that I asked are questions that you don't have answers to. You don't have them because the data simply isn't there. And, like I've said, if something is real, then there data to validate it.

That's something that needs to be considered before even bothering to take this claim, or any others, seriously.

 

[George-ananda]

"In the spring of 2017, Gaia filmmakers joined researchers and scientists just outside of Nazca, Peru to investigate an unearthed mummified body. Independent scientists and universities are currently analyzing findings, with initial examinations suggesting the possibility of material that is unlike anything found in the fossil record.

Could this be a primitive human with an intentional or developmental deformity, or undeniable evidence that a non-human species exists?"

This is the original claim from the video, and from Gaia. There's no data, anywhere on the internet, to support any of the scientific claims made in the video about the age of the specimen or of the location where it was discovered. If it was unearthed in the Spring, I'd want to know specifically when and where - wouldn't you? If it was dated to a certain time period, I'd want to at least be able to look over that data and throw it in the face of people who said it didn't actually exist, wouldn't you? If that "white dust" is actually an historically more viable way of preserving ancient bodies that the Peruvians discovered, I'd want to know what it was, how it worked, and which culture used it , wouldn't you? If it somehow preserved organs for 1700 years, that would be a remarkable scientific discovery...

But, almost not surprisingly, that data simply doesn't exist... If it does, please cite it here.

Look, I don't care what you want to believe - but those types of gaps in information are a problem for anyone making any claim about anything.

Pseudoscience claims are able to spread among the common people because they purposefully don't provide information that can be checked, tested, or reviewed conclusively. All of those very basic questions that I asked are questions that you don't have answers to. You don't have them because the data simply isn't there. And, like I've said, if something is real, then there data to validate it.

That's something that needs to be considered before even bothering to take this claim, or any others, seriously.

Well, I want to know as much as possible too. I have heard the carbon dating has been confirmed by two other labs now on the Gaia website.

From my past judgment of the mechanations of both skeptics and believers in these type of things, my opinion is that this is a specimen worthy of my serious consideration.

Again, this reminds me of the Atacama mummy case which to this day I consider evidence of things unknown to science.

 

[columbus]

I think the literal Noah's ark thing is ridiculous. That is the only opinion important to me.

Why?
Millions of people believe in the literal truth of Genesis. I am not one, but lots of people do.
Why do you think that is ridiculous and not this alien mummy?
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

Why?
Millions of people believe in the literal truth of Genesis. I am not one, but lots of people do.
Why do you think that is ridiculous and not this alien mummy?
Tom

My rational consideration based on all evidence and argumentation using my lifetime of accumulated reasoning skills.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The old crows just say 'how dare anyone consider evidence of something extraordinary, it has to rediculous'. And then they find support in flocking together. That is honestly how I see it.

Which explains your blindness to actual skepticism and critical thinking.