by Abraham Loeb January 26, 2019 (scientificamerican.com)
• The excitement of the scientific enterprise is all about expanding our current knowledge of the universe a little at a time. Learning all at once of the knowledge of an alien civilization with billions of years of scientific and technological exploration would be a shock to the system, and would be difficult to reconcile. As science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke stated: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Put another way, members of such a civilization would appear to us as a pretty good approximation to God.
• A device of advanced alien technology to us, would be like a smart phone to an early human caveman. This could be similar to our mainstream scientist’s reaction to the recent visitor to our solar system, the elongated rocky object known as ‘Oumuamua’. Oumuamua showed six peculiar properties but was nevertheless interpreted as a mere rock. One may wonder whether we are able to recognize technologies that were not developed by us.
• Scientists have considered whether life itself was seeded on Earth by an alien civilization in a process called “directed panspermia.” We can begin to wrap our heads around seeds of life brought to the Earth in the form of microbes, or perhaps a 3-D printer that produced these seeds out of the raw materials on Earth. Our imagination of what aliens might do may improve once we too are able to produce synthetic life in the laboratory.
• If life was seeded artificially on Earth, one may wonder whether the seeders are checking on the outcome. Are they disappointed and have given up on us? The experiment may have failed, or we are simply irresponsible and too slow to mature. Perhaps if we knew that someone is looking over our shoulders, we would do better.
• Our civilization is highly vulnerable to annihilation by self-inflicted wounds, such as nuclear wars or climate change, as well as external threats such as asteroid impacts or evolution of the sun. It would be not be prudent to keep all our eggs in one basket. We should venture into space and seed objects beyond the Earth with life as we know it, thus reducing the risk of complete destruction and securing the longevity of things we care about.
Despite the impression one gets from textbooks, our current knowledge of the universe represents a small island in a vast ocean of ignorance. The scientific enterprise is all about expanding the landmass of this island. And it is fun to engage in the activity of gaining knowledge; knowing everything in advance would have been much more boring. Still, it would be shocking to learn all at once of the discoveries of an alien civilization that’s been doing scientific and technological exploration for billions of years, in contrast to our mere few centuries. The eminent science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke codified this idea in the third of his three laws : “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Put another way, members of such a civilization would appear to us as a pretty good approximation to God.
Meeting a piece of advanced technological equipment developed by an extraterrestrial intelligence might resemble an imaginary encounter of ancient cave people with a modern cell phone. At first, they would interpret it as a shiny rock, not recognizing it as a communication device. The same thing might have happened in reaction to the first detection of an interstellar visitor to the solar system, ‘Oumuamua, which showed six peculiar properties but was nevertheless interpreted as a rock by mainstream astronomers.
Because it would likely be relatively small, most advanced equipment could only be recognized in the darkness of space when it comes close enough to our nearest lamppost, the sun. We can search for technological “keys” under this lamppost, but most of them will stay unnoticed if they pass far away. More fundamentally, one may wonder whether we are able to recognize technologies that were not already developed by us. After all, these technologies might feature subtle purposes—like the cell phone communication signals that a cave person would miss.
Is there something we might be missing already here and now?
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ExoNews.org distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Please contact the Editor at ExoNews with any copyright issue.
On January 16, the head of Harvard University’s astronomy department, Prof. Abraham Loeb, gave an interview where he defended his controversial paper that the interstellar object detected by a Hawaii based telescope on October 19, 2017, and named “Oumuamua”, was a spacecraft of some kind. While astronomers continue to debate the scant scientific data gleaned from telescopes to determine Oumuamua’s origins and nature, a whistleblower/insider’s report of an alleged covert space mission to Oumuamua that acquired much scientific data after landing on it is being ignored.
While astronomers might be forgiven for ignoring insider/whistleblower reports of covert missions to artifacts in the solar system due to a lack of corroborating scientific data, political scientists interested in space affairs, which falls under the rubrics of “astropolitics” or “exopolitics”, do not have such a luxury. Insiders/whistleblowers provide a rare glimpse into the rarified world of highly classified compartmentalized projects and therefore their claims need to be investigated since corroborating evidence may be absent due to the classification process, rather than being non-existent. If found to be credible insider/whistleblower claims need to be analyzed with regard to available scientific data as outlined in a 2014 paper published in the Astropolitics Journal.
Before examining the alleged covert mission that landed on Oumuamau, it’s worth reviewing what astronomers have said about it to date.
In a TED talk published on July 19, 2018, the astrobiologist, Dr. Karen J. Meech, discussed what was known about Oumuamua which was given the formal designation of 1I/2017 U1. She explained the excitement of astronomers who had long awaited the arrival of the first object from another solar system. They initially gave it the informal name of Rama, after the derelict spacecraft depicted in Arthur C. Clark’s 1973 novel, Rendezvous with Rama that was spotted after passing close by the Earth.
Meech explained in her TED talk that this was not deemed suitable. As will be later explained, the name Rama was in fact very appropriate given how a secret space program organized a landing mission.
Given that the interstellar object was discovered from the Pan-STARRS telescope on Haleakala Observatory on the Hawaiian island of Maui, two Hawaii culture experts were consulted. They named it Oumuamua – Hawaiian for “scout or messenger from distant past reaching out to us”. The images taken by the Hubble and Pan-STARRS telescopes were quite faint, so not much could be learned about Oumuamua’s geometry and composition.
Nevertheless, the initial artist depiction was of it being a long-cigar shaped object that was turning and rolling along its interstellar orbital path as though violently ejected from some distant stellar event that occurred in the remote past.
What really attracted scientific attention was when Oumuamua accelerated as it approached the sun according to data provided by the Hubble telescope in June 2018.
While acceleration is normal for comets that have long icy tails which ignite thereby propelling the comet forward, Oumuamua was no comet. Somehow the sun’s solar energy appeared to be accelerating Oumuamua.
This led to Prof. Loeb and his colleague from the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Shmuel Bialy, speculating that Oumuamua may have contained a solar sail and was therefore being charged up and accelerating as it received the solar energy. They presented their conjecture in a paper titled, “Could Solar Radiation Pressure Explain Oumuamua’s Peculiar Acceleration?” and wrote:
Considering an artificial origin, one possibility is that ‘Oumuamua is a lightsail, floating in interstellar space as a debris from an advanced technological equipment… The lightsail technology might be abundantly used for transportation of cargo between planets … or between stars…In the former case, dynamical ejection from a planetary System could result in space debris of equipment that is not operational any more … and is floating at the characteristic speed of stars relative to each other in the Solar neighborhood. This would account for the various anomalies of ‘Oumuamua, such as the unusual geometry inferred from its lightcurve … its low thermal emission, suggesting high reflectivity … and its deviation from a Keplerian orbit … without any sign of a cometary tail … or spin-up torques …
Bialy and Loeb went on to offer an even more exotic explanation that Oumuamua is an interstellar probe that is basically at rest relative to other stars in our local stellar cluster:
Alternatively, a more exotic scenario is that ‘Oumuamua may be a fully operational probe sent intentionally to Earth vicinity by an alien civilization…. This discrepancy is readily solved if ‘Oumuamua does not follow a random trajectory but is rather a targeted probe. Interestingly, ‘Oumuamua’s entry velocity is found to be extremely close to the velocity of the Local Standard of Rest, in a kinematic region that is occupied by less than 1 to 500 stars.
In his January 16 interview Loeb elaborated on the idea of Oumuamua being a kind of interstellar probe or buoy powered by solar sails that once monitored space traffic in our local region of the galaxy:
“If you average the velocities of all the stars in the region … you get a system that’s called the ‘local standard of rest.’ Oumuamua was at rest relative to that system. It didn’t come to us. It waited in place, like a buoy on the surface of the ocean, until the ‘ship’ of the solar system ran into it. To make things clear, only one of 500 stars in the system is as much at rest as Oumuamua…
Loeb in his interview explains that he and his colleague Bialy are not the only astronomers questioning whether Oumuamua is an extraterrestrial spacecraft, but they are reluctant to publicly state their opinions given the paucity of data gleaned from the Pan-STARRS and Hubble telescopes.
What would greatly surprise Loeb and other astronomers is that much more scientific data about Oumuamua has been gathered, but this had been classified at a very high level of national security.
According to Corey Goode, who claims to have worked on multiple secret space programs, he watched a video recording of a covert landing mission to Oumuamua conducted by an alliance of these programs that first observed it prior to its entry into our solar system. This is particularly significant given that Oumoamoa’s “official” discovery on October 19, 2017, was after it had passed the sun and was flying past Earth on the outbound portion of its interstellar journey.
Goode’s credibility as a genuine insider was recently given a dramatic boost with confirmation of two Defense Intelligence Reference Documents (DIRD) dealing with “warp drives” and “traversable wormholes” that he was the first to publicly release in late 2017. The documents showed the scientific feasibility of advanced propulsion technologies that Goode had claimed were used in secret space programs.
The two documents were part of a list of 38 “Unclassified: For Official Use Only” documents that the Defense Intelligence Agency confirmed as authentic on January 16, 2019 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Federation of American Scientists.
The recent confirmation of Goode’s leaked DIRD documents means that his testimony about Oumuamua cannot be simply dismissed out of hand, and is well worth considering by astronomers seeking answers to Oumuamua’s origin and composition.
In January 2018, Goode provided a detailed description of what he saw in a video shown to him and others attending a briefing concerning recent covert space activities. Goode wrote about what he witnessed along with the explanation by a former USAF officer [Sigmund] participating in the briefing:
The person leading the meeting then brought our attention to a large smart-glass pad monitor that was lowering from the ceiling. Sigmund then stood up and said “I have a treat for the both of you.” He walked up to the monitor and stared at it while talking. He stated that they had been monitoring what appeared to be a derelict space craft that was headed towards our Sol System.
This would prove to be the same cigar-shaped “asteroid” that NASA and the mainstream media dubbed Oumuamua, and publicized widely in this same time frame.
Goode next explained what he was told about secret space mission sent to observe and land on Oumuamua:
Sigmund puffed up proudly and stated, “I led an expedition to see who this craft belonged to. Wait until you hear what we found.” Suddenly we started seeing all sorts of readings and telemetry on the monitor. I could also hear what sounded like an old NASA radio transmission. There were beeps along with a pilot calling in positions of his craft, as well as the one he was trying to dock with. That lasted for about five minutes as I saw the two craft spiraling closer and closer together.
As the pilot matched the spin of the object they were approaching, you could see a long cigar-shaped structure that had shiny patches of what looked like ice on the outside. It was obviously made of stone, and looked as if it had been through many meteor showers and collisions. The video broke to a scene where a few people who were suited up in space suits were pushing themselves through what looked like a bored-out hole going down into the rock.
Goode also described what secret space program astronauts found when entering inside Oumuamua:
The shuttle had docked with the mystery vessel close to what looked like a metallic oval dome, which was sitting about a third of the way down its fuselage. It appeared to have been breached many times, and was full of holes and dents from obvious impacts. In the next scene, you could see the men in a weightless environment, with lights on their chests, helmets and the tops of their wrists. They split up and were talking to each other through the communications systems in their suits.
One of them was chipping samples out of the icy residue on the floors and walls. This same frozen, organic sludge was on the outside of the ship as well. It appeared like foamy, dirty lake water that had been frozen. The ship was obviously very ancient. It had been boarded and stripped of technology many times by unknown races.
Sigmund stated that when they tested the sludge later, they determined that it was partly the remains of the original crew. There were many panels removed from the walls, ceilings and floors, leaving empty compartments where technology was once located.
Goode went on to describe the discovery of preserved bodies of former crew members, the identity of an ancient extraterrestrial race they belonged to, the craft being trapped in orbit for millions of years, and a hieroglyphic language found inside the craft.
All this might sound incredible to astronomers relying on the scant data provided by the two telescopes that observed Oumuamua from a great distance. Goode’s release of DIA documents showing the feasibility of advanced propulsion systems such as warp drives, gives a degree of credibility to his claim that a covert space mission to Oumuamua was conducted and recorded on video.
It is certain that the video Goode witnessed has been shown to many scientists with need to know inside the covert world of secret space programs. The similarity of Goode’s account with what Clark described in Rendezvous with Rama is extraordinary. Perhaps Prof. Loeb and Dr. Bialy may have been made aware of such extraordinary information and are presenting their Oumoumou spacecraft hypothesis to open the minds of incredulous colleagues . Eventually, such classified data will be revealed to give a much more accurate and fuller picture of objects such as Oumuamua entering or inside our solar system, and the classified missions to these conducted by multiple secret space programs.
DO WE FINALLY HAVE SOME PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF NON-HUMAN, INTELLIGENT ENTITIES? Isn’t this exopolitically important? Could this case offer more evidence than previously alleged humanoids?
For instance: There has been IN-DEPTH GENETIC SEQUENCING: BUT TO DATE NO UNIVERSITY (AND ONLY VERY FEW SCIENTISTS) HAVE CARED TO GET INVOLVED IN WHAT MAY BE BIOLOGICAL/PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF ENTITIES THUS FAR NOT MATCHING KNOWN EARTHLY SPECIES. Moreover, FEW IF ANY IN THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING UFO AND EXOPOLITICAL COMMUNITIES HAVE COMMENTED OR CARED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME INDIVIDUALS LIKE CAPTAIN ROBERT SALAS. SEVERAL GENETIC LABORATORIES HAVE FOUND IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES AND ‘ANOMALIES’, EVEN AFTER NEXTGENERATION SEQUENCING (NGS) LIKE ABRAXAS: A REPORT FROM ABRAXAS IS FOUND IN THIS LINK Thanks to Instituto Inkari: https://www.the-alien-project.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ABRAXAS-EN.pdf
Thus far (after about 2 years since the news broke out), the almost nil interest or involvement by academic circles, in general, is telling: ‘Scientific’ dogma, fear of reputation loss and prejudice (and not just the imposition of secrecy) overcome the scientific spirit of curiosity and play an important role against a substantial type of paradigm shift. The exopolitics community should care when physical evidence of a totally unknown humanoid species is coming together. If verified, these bodies may represent that humans (the Nazca) and humanoids of unknown origin lived in close proximity. Perhaps the possibility of some kind of a disclosure shift is not only in the hands of a major Government officially disclosing but also in the hands of a few caring, aware, motivated citizens. Perhaps (as Margaret Mead said) we should not doubt that only a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.
Thus far, there has been little interest in the UFO, disclosure and exopolitics community in the developed West or even in Spain. Is it because people mostly care about cases they are used to and in their own language? And in Perú there has been little serious media coverage and lots of detractors trying to find every possible fault, publicly discrediting and laughing about it. But perhaps the sheer weight of evidence accumulated and the dedication of some individuals in favor that SOME of the samples may be genuine (besides a request from the Peruvian Congressperson (Armando Villanueva) for there to be an official investigation) could be reverting the apathy.
I think that this situation on the so-called “THREE-FINGER, HUMANOID, DESICCATED NAZCA BODIES” is gradually becoming a seriously important revelation for humanity to reassess who we are, what life is, a possible extraterrestrial presence in Earth’s past, possible hybridization between homo sapiens and other species, etc. It also shows (thank goodness) that a few individuals care or are able to process the new possibility which is largely dismissed or ignored by scientific, media, political and other representatives of modern institutions.
But bone and tissue structure in these and many other images plus genetic tests performed by several labs are coming together to show that at least SOME of the many samples/specimens under research belong to new species or to hybrid species previously unknown to science. I believe that, taken together, this evidence overcomes some previous objections. If I mention some of the objections from skeptical scientists or scientists having a contrarian view it is because we need to engage in a civil dialogue and facilitate the exchange of views among interested scientists.
It is obvious to me that these DICOM, high-resolution, tomography images are genuine and, in the “María” body, the bones appear to be much more hollow, the teguments in hands and feet show continuity with bones that fit well. No cut of fingers. The rib cage is a little different. In “Josefina” the alleged eggs… are looking more like real eggs.
As of today, only radiologist Dr. Raymundo Salas Alfaro and Inkari Institute know the tomography lab. More should be revealed soon. Thanks to Dr. Alfaro’s efforts we now have these higher quality images and more specific descriptions. Allegedly, other labs that were approached were scared or worried in terms of their reputation and didn’t feel inclined to work with this research. I’m glad that (in spite of the legal consequences that the samples were illicitly obtained by a huaquero-grave robber) some persons and institutions are taking big risks in the name of humanity. I think it is a unique situation and should be treated as such. Many archaeological discoveries were made in an informal manner by huaqueros and others. I do not condone grave robbing to sell bodies or artifacts in the black market but it seems that the huaquero here nor only wanted to make money but to show a discovery for analysis for the world to know and that is why they first approached for guidance my friend Dante Rios Tambini who then took samples to Instituto Inkari.
We must recognize the contributions of radiologist Dr. Raymundo Salas Alfaro, biologist José de la C. Rios López, and analysis of forensic physician José de Jesús Zalce. I am glad that Jaime Maussan is working with these scientists. I’m told that the name of the clinic where the high-resolution tomographies took place should be revealed soon.
Below: A horizontal view of Maria showing very hollow bones. The tomographic bone density shows that the density is low because they are more hollow as biologist José de la Cruz Rios points out. If the bones are so hollow, could they still be strong due to a different chemical composition or structuring? We need more testing. Humanity needs to save and secure the bodies and study them with care.
Lateral right view of Maria. The fingertips have a similar ending as theropod dinosaurs. The calcaneus bone is different and the skulls’ brain capacity is larger than average (1650cc).
Posterior view – torso
Another posterior view-torso
Forensic physician José de Jesús Zalce observed in a recent interview that Maria has no scapula, cocxys or sacrum but I am told by biologist Ríos López that he made a human error confusing names and that he was referring to the specimen named “Josefina.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS1iAoxVdzY&t=275s
Maria’s spine lesion. Maria has her internal organs and is not a classical, regional “mummy.”
However, María was found in a classical Nazca mummy position.
Unique bone structure.
Detail of a subluxation of the jaw. No ear pavillions.
Detail of the spine with 12 pairs of ribs. Are they completely like ours?
DICON tomography images at 128 cuts of resolution shed new light.
In one foot, the middle finger broke off but the other fingers show continuity and no artificial alterations. The radius-carpus articulation is well articulated and gives origin to 5 phalanxes. The phalanges still possess their capsules in each inter articular line. The carpus has 8 bones. Another image (not available here) shows a cavity lesion in the right lung.
Another view of Maria’s right hand
Detail from hands
What are these skin protuberances?
Previous photo of Maria’s horizontal fingerprints.
To be fair, I need to show this previous X-ray plaque by which other scientists determined that proximal phalanxes had been added to the feet. Issues like these need to be decided after careful scrutiny.
A more recent image with a broken finger
One of María’s feet with a hook-like ending 8.6 inches. They have 5 phalanxes.
María’s 5 phalanxes in the feet
Details of extremely hollow bones and feet similar to Therapods as pointed out by biologist José de la Cruz Rios López.
In Maria’s feet, the Achilles Heal is inserted in the Astragalus bone rather than in the calcaneus bone.
Maria’s rib cage: It appears to be somewhat different. Is she a hybrid?
The body named “Josefina” (approx 23 inches tall) allegedly has a metal piece contoured around his chest. It has been affirmed by the Maussan team that the metal was analyzed in INGEMMET (the Metallurgic, Mining and Geologic Institute of Peru) in Peru with anomalous results to be revealed soon. Hand and arm mobility was probably restricted due to the fact that Alberto only shows one large bone in the forearm. No fibula, cubit, radius, tibia. He would have walked like an oviparous entity. The pelvis would be made of separate bones built in a circular manner. (biologist José de la C. Rios López).
An upper, frontal view of “Josefina.” 8 specimens like this have been analyzed. Apparently, she had a broken clavicle. The alleged implant or, perhaps, the prosthesis has a HU (density) of 5,241.52. In other images, it is shown that The viscerocranium has no sutures, that the cranium has 3 fenestras and a pneumatization in the occipital area. The Magnus foramen is square. The clavicle is fused or is a furcula as in birds and some dinosaurs. A short mouth/snout aperture adapted to feeding by sucking liquids. According to biologist José de la C. Rios López theskin is scaly, the neck could be retractile. Victoria and Alberto are defined as “humanoid reptiles” by biologist José de la C. Rios López.
The hands of the 60cm beings still show articular capsules, tendons, ligaments. They only have 4 phalanges instead of 5 as Maria.
“Josefina” (also approximately 23 inches tall) is apparently pregnant with eggs. They are translucid and seem to show structure (embryos?) inside and (although probably calcified with a 2,470.91 HU density) may not be placed metal objects as alleged by skeptical scientists. The cranial perimeter is large and would not be that of a pre-Hispanic dog as alleged. “He” has a different number of fenestra and a very light head.
The spinal column of this second species of 60 cm in height is medial (located in the middle rather than further back). This is why the posterior apophysis is longer than what was known before. This is why there are some structures of unknown function in an area posterior to the spine. They might have to do with swallowing. (José de Jesus Salce, forensic physician).
Interestingly, reporter Jois Mantilla and José de la C. Ríos López pointed out to me that an ENERGY EMANATION seems to come out of this specimen “Josefina” with the tomography. It is in the coming out from the metallic piece place on the upper chest. I don’t know but it might not be an “artifact” of the tomography. It would be necessary to know under what frequencies this energy emanation becomes visible. Here it looks like a reddish flame.
Forensic Archaeologist Flavio Estrada who worked in forensic cases for the Public Ministry in Perú has necessary opinions that must be listened to. He stated that it is the energy of the tomographic machine hitting against the metallic body. In the same manner, Mr. Leopoldo Zambrano Enríquez commented that by using the original tomographies sent to France with 5Gb of information, and using DICOM visors what we are seeing is something that in radiology is known as an artifact “in solar rays” produced by the dispersion of X rays upon hitting the metallic plate. I think that these comments need to be included in a respectful way in order to be fair. However, more tests should be carefully conducted. The artifact known as “solar rays” seems to be different because the “rays” are dark, straight and come together concentrically.
Alleged energy emanation detected.
Another version of the alleged energy emanation detected.
Three more images of the alleged energy emanation. Thanks to Peruvian reporter Jois Mantilla who has been promoting the preservation and formal study of these specimens in spite of great dismissal and opposition.
A frontal image in red color above the metallic object. The apparent energy emanation would be in a deep red color above the metallic piece.
The actual “solar ray” effect or artifact looks different. Here seen also in Josefina: converging, straight, dark lines (“rays”).
A frontal view. The alleged point of energy emanation on the middle of the metallic piece looks darker.
Another view of “Josefina” with the metal piece placed on the chest below what appears to be a one-piece furcula instead of a collarbone.
A tomographic measurement of the density of “Josefina’s” eggs
Another view of the eggs inside “Josefina” at a density of less than the maximum for bones.
Possible internal structures in the eggs. Possibleembrionic formation? Inkari Institute – Courtesy of biologist José de la C. Rios López
Possible internal structures in the eggs. Possibleembrionic formation? Courtesy of biologist José de la C. Rios López
A recent image of structures within the alleged eggs. They could be OVOVIVIPAROUS creatures. Shared on 01-27-2019. Ovoviviparous creatures gestate inside eggs in the parent’s body and may hatch inside before coming out.
According to biologist Jose de la C Rios López the bones are not cut as we can see with the high-resolution tomography. They are “crowned” and only in lesser resolution images seem to have been cut because they are more hollow than normal.
The crowned epiphysis of “Josefina” between the humerus and femur. Is it a different type of jagged connection?
From a study made with associated Russian scientists, the “knee” doesn’t show to be fabricated with cut bones.
The Histology (an analysis of the skin cells) of a small, headless specimen named “Victoria” was made by biologist Jose de la C. Rios Pérez. Here in Spanish, French and English. Here is the link published in “Alien Project”: https://www.the-alien-project.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Victoria-Histologie.pdf
From the conclusions section: – The Victoria paratype skin is composed of a highly keratinized, acellular and thick flat stratified epithelium similar to the scales of reptiles, for both the scapular and hip regions.
– The skin of the scapular region presents small, very thick,
white protuberances, whose appearance is like a wart. Its
distribution in the skin is solitary and also in pairs, but missing
on the hip sample.
– In the protuberance, the keratin becomes more compact and
acquires an amorphous form.
– Mucous glands are missing just like the sweat glands. The loss of
water through the skin is therefore nonexistent (the keratin keeps
it hydrated and protected), which allows it to live in very dry places.
As in the Nazca desert, where these bodies were found covered
with diatomaceous earth for their preservation
Remember that one of the specimens was of an infant named “Wawita”?
With the better images, Wawita’s hand was shown by Dr. Salas Alfaro to have been mutilated. He thinks that, since the specimen is in a very brittle condition, this alteration could have been done as a ritual in the pre-Hispanic past for some unknown reason.
Wawita’s feet also mutilated, modified.
However, we must also recognize that other scientists (for instance pharmaceutical chemist Dr. Ernesto Ávalos using infrared spectroscopy) have legitimately found that some specimens have been fabricated with modern materials such as palmitic acid (oil), paraffin (wax). In smaller quantity: glue, polyethylene vinyl acetate (plastic), cyanoacrylate. All modern components. These would not be the best or genuine specimens.
However, there appears to be a clear difference between different kinds of samples as follows analyzed. Some of the hoaxed ones (including fake hands) may have been analyzed together with previous images (with less detail) by the team from the Instituto de Medicina Legal de Ciencias Forenses del Ministerio Público (The Public Ministry’s Institute of Forensic Sciences and Legal Medicine). Thus (while naturally inclined towards skepticism by being outmaneuvered by huaqueros and by knowing that there is a large black market in Peru for genuine AND FAKE pre-Hispanic items), they would have sincerely concluded that the entire group of specimens given to them (and any other items considered to be part of the same group of specimens) is fake. I’ve interacted with BOTH group of scientists and think that both are sincere. Thus far they haven’t met with each other! There is suspicion between them! It is high time for these 2 groups of scientists to meet in a cordial manner and objectively clarify each little point of disagreement in a meticulous manner.
Regarding some of the GENETIC TESTS: Several laboratories found anomalies in the genetic profile of some samples: For the specimens named “Maria” and “Victoria” out of the main group of specimens most likely not faked (Maria, Wawita, Alberto, Josefina and Victoria- the headless specimen).
NEXTGENERATION SEQUENCING (NGS) LIKE ABRAXAS: A REPORT FROM ABRAXAS IS FOUND IN THIS LINK: https://www.the-alien-project.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ABRAXAS-EN.pdf
A study commanded by the Incari Institute: Massive sequencing of a bone of Maria: Using the services of Dr. Sarah Kouhou, PhD. Only 33.675% corresponds to the human genome. 18.415% to bacteria. Virus and others in 9,384 readings.
A study commanded by Third Millennium using the services of BIOTECMOL. For the tridactyle specimen “Victoria” (the one without a head) – out of a Bone (with 2,400,000 base pairs), using last generation sequencing, only an alignment of 19.82% corresponds to Human DNA. And for “Maria,” only corresponds to an alignment of 34.935% with the human genome.
So according to these labs, for the 60cm tridactyles (to which “Victoria” belongs) and for “Maria,” there is no correspondence with homo sapiens and with what is known of terrestrial organisms in the Blast Base. More in-depth genetic tests need to be conducted for “María” but for the 60cm specimens they have already been conducted.
And the University of St. Petersburg did an exon analysis for a massive nuclear DNA sequencing and for Maria it found a correspondence of 23.8% of short fragments attenuated with the human genome.
Chart presented in the presentation room inside Peruvian Congress. Percentage of genome coincidence of Maria with homo sapiens (after massive DNA sequencing) according to 3 laboratories.
An important link to consider is: https://www.the-alien-project.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-02-06-PALEO-DNA-MARIA-COMPARAISON-ADN.pdf
Observations of the biologist José de la C. Ríos López:
The bones of the most important samples (Josefina, Victoria, Alberto, and María) do not correspond to animals or even to human bones since these bones are hollow bones and this does not correspond to any mammalian animal of the earth. María presents this characteristic of hollow bones without the presence of tracts.
The eggs are less dense than the metal and less dense than the maximum density for the bones.
In the metal in Josefina’s chest, the values as metal are high. They are exact data of the tomographic equipment. There is no manipulation here. We have a reference between those eggs and the metal. The bones are less dense because they are hollow.
Both the x-rays and the evidence of the particularities of the bones coincide. The bones do not belong to any terrestrial mammal because of the said bones of fabricated animals.
Why Josefina’s bones and other specimens have furcula. Why do they have hollow bones? Why do they have a structure of a sexual organ? Why do eggs have conglomerate material if they are metal?
Why does Victoria’s histology show keratinized skin similar to reptile scales?
Why metals correspond in their preparation to pre-Columbian times? Why does carbon 14 in hands date 7000 years in Beta Analytic laboratories and laboratories in Brazil?
Where is it if Analysis of c14 to say that it is a MODERN armed?
Why does the head have 3 fenestrae in the posterior part of the eye socket if the species on the earth only have 2? No species of the earth has three openings behind the eye orbit as it has this being, which, through the tomography could be checked for its presence.
Why are there vascular nerve bundles if they are just bones of various armed animals?
The viscerocranium is composed of two types of tissues. 1. Bone tissue and soft tissue. Hence the lightness that it shows and we should add that fenestra orifices have pneumatizations. In addition, the bones that compose it are very thin sheets.
The weight of these heads (which were two loose) gave an average of 0.377 grams. Which is matches a big brain because the lightness of the head is compensated with the macrocephalic size of the encephalic mass.
The skull has a small short snout.
Why is the viscerocranium composed of two types of soft and bony tissues if it is supposed to be a dog’s skull?
Why do the extremities such as the femur and humerus have crowned edges and present the humeral head or epiphysis if they are only cut bones as they say?
Why are ribs ringed?
Why does the vascular bundle come together between the vertebrae of the thoracic waist?
Why does the vertebral column show compression of the vertebrae as a lesion?
Why was it buried in diatomaceous earth are they dried and in a perfect state of preservation?
Why does he have a hand in pronation? Why three fingers?
About a writing with which he challenged Salas Gismondi Why do they have a cranial perimeter different from other species of terrestrial mammals?
If you had in your hands the skulls show the carving that was done on them. It is not difficult to prove it. A carved bone leaves traces. And they have not shown it.
Why are there 2 sutures in the foramen magnum square?
And why are there 2 sutures in the skull of these beings that are not in the dog?
Where are the cuts and filings that they proclaim? Why if the skin is vegetable-based, the HISTOLOGY shows something else?
The left humerus of Josefina Reptil Humanoid, which they have indicated as cut and is the only argument they use to discredit these bodies as false, is not cut since it has the lower humeral head or epiphysis and its edges are crowned as it has pointed out the independent study conducted by the University of St. Petersburg Russia.
Regarding the specimen “María”:
Are the first phalanges of the hands are placed as phalanges of the feet?
José de la C Ríos replies: That is a presupposition because in reality the phalanges present their interdigital capsules.
Then, José de la C Ríos asks: Why did they call ‘modern fabrication’ a sample that Krawix (Paul Ronceros, according to interview) declares that he warned the forensic of the prosecution office not to analyze the part glued together … which he claims he had to glue because it had been broken?
Other observations: Why the mummy does not have the calcaneus bone like homo sapiens?
Why is the Achilles heel fixed in the Astragalus bone and not in the calcaneus?
Why does the mummy Maria have 3 phalanges in a set of bones of varying size and is at a 90-degree angle?
Why does each finger end in semicircular pads of approximately 1.5 cm with horizontal fingerprint lines?
Good news: Some Professors from Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga (mostly related to the natural sciences), among them engineers, physicists, physicians became interested in working to find out the truth. They were visited by Jaime Maussan and by an Instituto Inkari representative and saw some of the evidence. The university is located in the City of Ica, a few hours south of Lima by car and not too far from the alleged site of the findings in Nazca and/or Palpa. I drove to the City of Ica on Sunday the 27th and met them in person on Monday the 28th, 2019. I spoke with them and with the Vice-rector for research and sent them the information I had gathered telling them that I am willing to collaborate.
About a week later, archaeology students from that university wrote a statement rejecting the Professors initiative. The response may be because they follow a research pattern that requires first locating the exact place of artifacts or biological remains, including its historic, archeological context while natural scientists feel more comfortable with being able to analyze physical-biological samples.
Taken all together, the situation is crucially changing in favor of the reality that SOME of the 3-finger samples from the Nazca-Palpa area in Perú are genuine. Needless to say, this would be a very important discovery and part of different increasing types of evidence leading toward a form of disclosure revealing that other intelligent and/or humanoid life forms previously unknown to science have interacted for quite some time on Earth with humanity.
Consider the political, exopolitical and cultural consequences!
Note of clarification (11-08-2018): I think that many or all of the high-resolution tomography images are interpolated from 16 cuts to 128 cuts but not manipulated to show something different. Since the discussion was about “high-resolution” images, I had not noticed the word “interpolated” in the Alien Project site. I had also been told by a researcher into the case (of the team in favor) that there may also be another clinic that was used for original high-resolution images at 128 cuts but this is to be confirmed. Experts in tomography please comment.
An important link that has to be considered as per the favorable scientific analysis regarding images, some genetic tests, and other issues is in Inkari Institute’s “Alien Project”: