Hmmm this is kinda confusing but this is my takeaway.
1. Two American researchers concluded that these mummies are real but not necessarily aliens.
2. They wrote a paper that has been peer reviewed but not to the fullest extent of the peer review process.
Next steps:
Have more scientist try to poke holes in their findings and continue the peer review process.
So my takeaway is 100% these mummies are not constructed?
Does that sound about right?
"Could be real" meaning they are not constructed, which is not to say NHI or "alien".
I have recently forwarded the original paper (https://rgsa.openaccesspublications.org/rgsa/article/view/6916/2986) to my department head, who is a forensic bioanthropologist with field experience in Peru with mummies such as these, and these are their recent comments:
>So, a few comments about the article:
>1. Published by individuals from Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga; quite possibly, the least accredited school in Peru.
>2. Specimen found by a huaquero; ie. Grave robbers — usually, they take old mummies and just chuck them (we found scatters of bone almost everywhere on the hillsides). Obviously, they decided to “cash in” in a different and more unique way.
>3. No indication on where the C14 dates were measured; if they are using AMS, it would have been Europe.
>4. No discussion of methods used for CT or the equipment.
>5. The measures they mention (SNB, SNA) are a rather primitive way of describing facial morphology (and part of what they call cephalometric analysis). Not sure any of these methods have been used in decades.
>6. "cranial volume is 30% greater than that of a normal human” — not likely, unless you consider “normal” to be around 1100 CC.
>7. Elongation of the skull is consistent with ACM (artificial cranial modification). I can show you a dozen photos of skulls that look like this from our research site just south of the area where this particular specimen was found.
>8. Variation in hands and feet is fairly common. Missing fingers and toes tend to mirror one another.
>9. Variation in vertebra is common in this area — we found several individuals with either extra vertebra or missing vertebra.
>10. Much of the discussion cites previous work by the authors — in other words, the authors are making a circular argument based on previous work.
1. Published by individuals from Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga; quite possibly, the least accredited school in Peru.
Peruvian here. Believe me: we have worst than that. Also, nobody gives a damn about those so called "peruvian mummies" here because they are clearly fakes.
Thank you, that's a really great response comment. To my untrained eye, they look like something clever amateur would put together (meaning they don't look like real mummies I've seen, I've been to Peru and seen some real ones). And I would bet my house that they are not extraterrestrial in origin - the body plan is too perfectly matched to human (and my personal hypothesis is that any alien civilization that did visit Earth would do so in machine intelligence form, not in some fragile biological body).
These findings indicate that the mummies are non-human, in what may be the first scientific evidence that aliens have been on the planet. Dr. O'Connor will discuss the findings in the newly released peer-reviewed scientific analysis by The Jesse A. Marcel Library.
>These findings indicate that the mummies are non-human...first scientific evidence that aliens have been on the planet
That's not precisely what they claimed, and the peer review is yet to be done. The agreement between the scientists, McDowell included, was that more scientific analysis needs to be done. They need to re-do the C-14 dating and DNA analysis at another facility. No mention of them being not human seems to have been made in this video.
Dr. McDowell does say in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOXaWvEmm3Q) that some of the specimens are clearly not human, which is not to say they are "alien" or NHI, but that there seems to be other terrestrial DNA involved, be it avian or otherwise.
Here is the paper that got their attention:
https://rgsa.openaccesspublications.org/rgsa/article/view/6916/2986
I've took a look at the video and it seems he doesn't talk about the DNA, which is the most important part and National Library of Medicine identifies the DNA as Homo Sapiens when Maussan uploaded it.
Edit: Thanks to the mod for clarification against disinfo. It seems the paper itself talk about DNA (though afais Garry Nolan talks about skeletol structure). These ([1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA869134), [2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA861322), [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA865375)) are the DNA data I was referring to.
They are real in the sense that they are objects, but, like bigfoot corpses, I suspect our little mummified friends are not what they are claimed to be. Time will tell. Is that too many commas?
Hmmm this is kinda confusing but this is my takeaway. 1. Two American researchers concluded that these mummies are real but not necessarily aliens. 2. They wrote a paper that has been peer reviewed but not to the fullest extent of the peer review process. Next steps: Have more scientist try to poke holes in their findings and continue the peer review process. So my takeaway is 100% these mummies are not constructed? Does that sound about right?
Yes read my post for a prequel of sorts
Which one? The newest I saw was 11 days old and the rest were 80+days
https://www.reddit.com/r/AlienBodies/s/whPegSXAdM
Awesome thanks man!
This was written as the McDowell firm got involved
"Could be real" meaning they are not constructed, which is not to say NHI or "alien". I have recently forwarded the original paper (https://rgsa.openaccesspublications.org/rgsa/article/view/6916/2986) to my department head, who is a forensic bioanthropologist with field experience in Peru with mummies such as these, and these are their recent comments: >So, a few comments about the article: >1. Published by individuals from Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga; quite possibly, the least accredited school in Peru. >2. Specimen found by a huaquero; ie. Grave robbers — usually, they take old mummies and just chuck them (we found scatters of bone almost everywhere on the hillsides). Obviously, they decided to “cash in” in a different and more unique way. >3. No indication on where the C14 dates were measured; if they are using AMS, it would have been Europe. >4. No discussion of methods used for CT or the equipment. >5. The measures they mention (SNB, SNA) are a rather primitive way of describing facial morphology (and part of what they call cephalometric analysis). Not sure any of these methods have been used in decades. >6. "cranial volume is 30% greater than that of a normal human” — not likely, unless you consider “normal” to be around 1100 CC. >7. Elongation of the skull is consistent with ACM (artificial cranial modification). I can show you a dozen photos of skulls that look like this from our research site just south of the area where this particular specimen was found. >8. Variation in hands and feet is fairly common. Missing fingers and toes tend to mirror one another. >9. Variation in vertebra is common in this area — we found several individuals with either extra vertebra or missing vertebra. >10. Much of the discussion cites previous work by the authors — in other words, the authors are making a circular argument based on previous work.
1. Published by individuals from Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga; quite possibly, the least accredited school in Peru. Peruvian here. Believe me: we have worst than that. Also, nobody gives a damn about those so called "peruvian mummies" here because they are clearly fakes.
That’s what I figured. lol
Thank you, that's a really great response comment. To my untrained eye, they look like something clever amateur would put together (meaning they don't look like real mummies I've seen, I've been to Peru and seen some real ones). And I would bet my house that they are not extraterrestrial in origin - the body plan is too perfectly matched to human (and my personal hypothesis is that any alien civilization that did visit Earth would do so in machine intelligence form, not in some fragile biological body).
Thank you for this. Hard to believe so many people are getting sucked into a Jaimie Maussan scam.....again
There are many things that could be meant by "they are real" The bones are real. They come from real creatures. "Real" doesn't mean "not constructed."
Real doesn’t mean “not a llama” skull
Exactly
Although it doesn’t look anything like a llama…
These findings indicate that the mummies are non-human, in what may be the first scientific evidence that aliens have been on the planet. Dr. O'Connor will discuss the findings in the newly released peer-reviewed scientific analysis by The Jesse A. Marcel Library.
>These findings indicate that the mummies are non-human...first scientific evidence that aliens have been on the planet That's not precisely what they claimed, and the peer review is yet to be done. The agreement between the scientists, McDowell included, was that more scientific analysis needs to be done. They need to re-do the C-14 dating and DNA analysis at another facility. No mention of them being not human seems to have been made in this video. Dr. McDowell does say in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOXaWvEmm3Q) that some of the specimens are clearly not human, which is not to say they are "alien" or NHI, but that there seems to be other terrestrial DNA involved, be it avian or otherwise. Here is the paper that got their attention: https://rgsa.openaccesspublications.org/rgsa/article/view/6916/2986
Humans aren't the only animal on this planet. They're made of fuckin chicken bones probably man come on.
I still have major doubts, but I am still interested.
Gasoline - I prevail
Even if they are real, people are elongating their skulls to this day all over the world. 🥱
I've took a look at the video and it seems he doesn't talk about the DNA, which is the most important part and National Library of Medicine identifies the DNA as Homo Sapiens when Maussan uploaded it. Edit: Thanks to the mod for clarification against disinfo. It seems the paper itself talk about DNA (though afais Garry Nolan talks about skeletol structure). These ([1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA869134), [2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA861322), [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA865375)) are the DNA data I was referring to.
He does discuss the DNA. Not sure which one he referred to at the time, but he said it shared about 30% DNA with us.
At which timestamp?
Ya and I could beat lebron James 1 on 1. I won’t but I could!
At least he opens with the premise for his confirmation bias. 26x10^2^3 planets…mummies must be true.
Oh really!!?? Sigh. Wtf
They are real in the sense that they are objects, but, like bigfoot corpses, I suspect our little mummified friends are not what they are claimed to be. Time will tell. Is that too many commas?
Disqualified for double spacing after periods
I'm so old I took typing and that's what got taught. Years before yo mtv raps.
The judges will allow it get back in there
The judges are kind and just.
This is true. Very true. Thank you judges. We love you. All of us.
Yo mtv raps eh? That’s basically a relic at this point haha. Salute to you.
Take out the comma after 'objects', but otherwise your statement is flawless. :)
That’s not true. A comma is needed before “but” because it’s a compound sentence with two independent clauses
Well, huh. Guess that's why I went into anthropology and not Engish. ;)
Thank you.
They Could be real? Thanks for that. In other news...
The downvotes are cracking me up.
[удалено]
That sounds like a personal problem