I don’t know if all of the alleged three-finger, humanoid bodies found in the Nazca-Palpa region are fakes but before November 19th, 2018 I was more inclined to think that some could be genuine. Today, I’m a bit more inclined to think that most or all could be fake.  But the careful comparison of the conclusions given by scientists who are in favor and those who are against still needs to happen under a civilized debate between them.

NOVEMBER 19TH, 2018

Various scientists came to Peru with Jaime Maussan and Gaia TV and presented in the Peruvian Congress results from studies of the alleged three-finger, Nazca humanoids. Some Peruvian medical doctors also participated. And also the Inkari Institute which also conducted an analysis of samples related with the alleged three-finger humanoid “mummies” from Nazca-Palpa. They presented in the Peruvian Congress from about 9 AM to 1 PM on November, 19th, 2018. The event was hosted by Congressman Armando Villanueva from Cuzco.

Later on that same day there was another presentation by Peruvian scientists who had analyzed for the state some the samples but which had concluded that they were fake, constructed bodies. I will first report on the findings by this group of scientists.

The Peruvian Astrobiology Association had invited the first group of scientists (those that spoke before Congress) to a scientific debate on that same (November 19th, 2018) after 5PM but, for unknown reasons, they didn’t come. So, instead of a debate, there was an exposition of findings against the veracity of the three finger bodies. This exposition took place at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (UNMSM).

Since I was not able to go to the presentation in Peru’s Congress (because only the mass media had been invited, I’m told), I went later on at 5PM to listen to the scientists that held an opposite view to the one heard at the Congress.

These are some notes from the conference of Peruvian scientists who physically analyzed some of the specimens of possible Nasca-Palpa tridactyl humanoids. November 19, 2018. In contrast with the scientists that presented at the Peruvian Congress, their studies lead them to conclude that the alleged three-finger humanoid bodies are fakes, modern assemblages.

Magister Flavio Estrada, a forensic archaeologist, founder of the Specialized Forensic Laboratory of the Legal Medicine Institute of Forensic Sciences of the Public Ministry, former professor of physical anthropology at the UNMSM.

No living being has a square magnus foramen hole. The specimen shown does not have condyles or point of contact with the first cervical vertebra. The hole is flat and – anatomically speaking – does not exist. A presumed skin covers the edges of the alleged magnum hole. It is impossible for the skin to extend all the way and locate there.

Referring to a small body:
It does not seem to have an anatomical correlation. It has no clavicle and without it the shoulder blades take a posterior position, which is not possible.

Referring to a small body:
The neck has no vertebrae in one of the samples of a supposed humanoid. The x-ray shows that the neck is formed by the middle part of a long bone or diaphysis and was placed inside a head like a pivot. The head shows the tricuspid teeth of a small mammal.

The knee was cut and levered. The leverage pulls out a substance that looks like like a tongue. There is no epiphysis or adaptive bulbous end in the long bones. There is nothing that binds the bones.

Speaking about an x-ray of a long hand of 3 fingers. There is no anatomical correlation. Diaphyses of human adults and combined human children are observed to build the hand. The 3 long fingers constructed with a combination of metacarpals and phalanges.

Dr. Ernesto Ávalos, a pharmaceutical chemist from the National Major Univ. Of San Marcos (UNMSM). He participated in a first report at the request of the Prosecutor’s Office of Nasca. He made infrared spectroscopy analysis to a sample of supposed flesh that covers the bones of a supposed humanoid tridactyl of Nasca-Palpa. The molecules of the sample react to infrared light and transmit unique microwaves for each element part of a molecule. The molecules discovered: In greater quantity: palmitic acid (oil), paraffin (wax). In smaller quantity: glue, polyethylene vinyl acetate (plastic). All modern components.

In another sample: Paper.
In another sample: Glue, paraffin, plastic, cyanoacrylate, polystyrenes, acetates, celluloses (papers), wood remains.
The joints of the bones and the supposed skins that covered the skulls were studied.
Pectin, acanthus gum.
In general: glues, paper, plastics and vegetable fiber.
The prosecutor’s samples were part of the same lot as those from analyzed by scientists associated with Gaia TV, Instituto Inkari, Jaime Maussan and Tercer Milenio. But – in terms of physical samples available – they are not the largest samples.

The antiquity of the skeletal remains was determined by other professionals.

Pedro Pérez: Specialist in tomography: Presentation at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos: The density of the presumed eggs of the Josefina specimen is similar to the density of a metal. There are denser femur bones and less dense femur bones combined to form the legs in the same specimen. In the specimen called “Alberto” there is a metal on one side. Observing the tomography of the feet of “Maria” metatarsals have been added to the carpus of the hand.

Due to misunderstandings of different sorts, both groups of scientists have not met to compare studies, dialogue and debate! Their respective organizers, supporters and often individual scientists in both groups often criticize each other’s intentions and methods without actually meeting in a congenial way to exchange studies and ideas.

Some say there are economic interests on the pro humanoid part.

To be fair, at some point, later on, I’ll try to summarize some of the research findings expressed by the scientists that went to the Peruvian Congress. For now I’ll say that several genetic laboratories found that the samples taken from different specimens were not human.

But the following link is the 4-hour presentation (in Spanish) they gave in favor of the anomalous nature of many of the alleged three-finger humanoids. Let’s remember that there are several samples of different sizes and characteristics. The link is of the presentation that took place in the Peruvian Congress on the morning of November 19, 2018. It must be carefully contrasted with what the opposing group of scientists presented.

Presentation in the Peruvian Congress:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fzPs-cdiik

Post-presentation press conference at the Peruvian Congress in the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNCtp-KcK8

————————————————————————————–

UPDATE: As of today – February 25, 2019 – (and also already in November, 2018), after publishing this article and seeing that more evidence in favor was forthcoming and after carefully listening to both sides of the debate, I became once again more convinced that SOME SPECIMENS ARE GENUINE.  These evaluations do not come from a fanatic, dogmatic position but as an attempt to know the objective truth.

Please note that, even while writing this article, I never abandoned the idea that some could be genuine. I was only temporarily a somewhat more inclined against it.  But it is difficult to be scientifically neutral because it lends itself to misunderstanding. While I was trying to be neutral some people strongly in favor of the specimens being genuine thought that I was a detractor and the others that I was an unscientific ‘believer’. 

Soon after I wrote this article, I became aware of better images and other reports. An extensive, in-depth, genetic test performed on a smaller (60 cm long approx) specimen and other important analysis and pieces of evidence swayed my evaluation more in favor soon once again after I had posted this article.

I have not only tried to listen to scientists vying for both sides of the issue but have also tried to facilitate them getting together to have decent conversations instead of negatively criticizing each other often in an ad hominem manner. 

The main purpose for writing this article was to give both groups of scientists (in favor and against) a fair hearing. It should be clear that the “refutation” in the title of this article is not my refutation per se but that which was presented by scientists at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. 

After carefully considering evidence in favor (including better resolution tomographies), I published (also in November, 2018) the following more favorable account: 

Nazca Humanoid Mummies: High-Resolution Tomography (and Genetic Sequencing) Reveals Truths

http://edy.rdz.mybluehost.me/exonews/nazca-humanoid-mummies-high-resolution-tomography-reveals-truths/

Side note:

There has been controversy regarding who found the specimens and under what circumstances, including the lack of a clearly known archeological context. This has been used to dismiss the entire case or to object to further studies. In fact, I have been called “stupid” and crazy” by name and surname in the airwaves (radio and cable TV) for stating an opinion. This is called DEFAMATION.  The opinion which I still sustain is that since we have physical, biological specimens at hand, we need to focus on them more than on the dubious information about who found them, their exact archaeological, cultural and geological context and whether they are being negotiated or not. While the latter issues are important (and more information should be found about them), the former issue (the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that CAN BE ANALYZED) is more DETERMINING. If  (after all is said and done) scientists show that at least some of the samples have not been artificially assembled and that their genes do not match any biological specimens on Earth, the controversy about who found them and under what circumstances or whether he or she wants to sell them, or even that an ideal, standard scientific procedure was not followed, will not change the main findings. 

I’m not a specialist in mummies but as an educated, concerned citizen, I value the fact that verifying the specimens can be of great consequence culturally, politically and exopolitically. This is why I try to offer information about it attempting to be as objective as possible.