On That UFO Podcast, anthropologist Dr Michael Masters declared the Nazca mummies fake (here's a cued up link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6mo4ETopik&t=1591s )
And after fence sitting for years I said from now on for me the mummies are phony because I didn't honestly see why Dr Masters would risk his professional reputation by calling out fake unless he was certain of his facts.
But I did later message Michael saying "since the American team seems to have positive things to say, I'm wondering - is it possible that you saw the fakes but there are genuine ones around?
I just find it so hard to believe that it was so obvious fakery to you a very qualified guy but apparently not obvious to other qualified people.
Any comments please Mike?"
Now Mike has replied and he's given me permission to publish his response.
He wrote: "Hey David, that's interesting timing, because just a few minutes ago I got done reading through 'The Miles Paper' put together by Paleontologist Cliff Miles. I had been working with someone to get the original DICOM files from the CT scans they did on these 'mummies,' who already sent one of them to me, however, after reading through this report I just wrote the guy who was working to get them stating that I was no longer interested…
If there was any lingering thought in my mind that these might be real, it just went right out the window after seeing the radiographs and still shots of the CT scans in this report, along with the detailed anatomical description itself. The morphology of these is complete nonsense, and it would be a total waste of time to put any more effort into this.
I obviously can't speak to the motivations of others who have gotten involved with, or who have become obsessed with these, but it is now glaringly obvious that they are in fact poorly constructed fakes. It kind of blows my mind it isn't immediately obvious to everyone, and especially the scientists who have involved themselves in this for whatever reason, but that is just where we are right now, and it is good, as this is part of the scientific process. I contributed what I could on Andy's podcast, but am stepping back from this conversation now to focus on topics more grounded in reality. Like a lot of things happening in Ufology, the obvious truth associated with these will eventually come forth, whatever that truth may be.
Michael
Here's the Miles Paper I was referencing as well in case that's useful for anything.
Before signing off with Michael I sent him Jim Garrison's Humanity Rising interview with researcher William Galison mentioning the new mummy found and claimed to be pregnant with a tridactyl fetus present.
I also sent him another link from Peru researcher Thierry Jamin about the pregnant mummy.
I included this note:
"Sorry to raise this but one last question.
Are you aware of the latest mummy which it is claimed is pregnant and has a tridactyl fetus in it?
And is this likely to sway you if genuine?"
Michael replied: "Doesn't sway at all, in fact quite the opposite... a huge problem with these is they are made to look similar to one another, but none of them share the same bauplan, or morphologic characteristics. This would just be a further example of that if there is a 'developing fetus' in one of them, while the 'Josephina' doll has alleged 'eggs' in it. If they want to be convincing they should have tried to make them more like each other. It's unfathomable that within the same or closely related species one would be eutherian while the other oviparou"
In another note Michael says "I no longer want anything to do with this topic so am not at all interested in debating people about it."
Meanwhile William Galison has posted: " I am now prepared to bet anyone $1000 that at least one of these mummies will be determined to be essentially unaltered authentic remains of a once living being."
Will Galison has responded to Michael's comments:
"Dr. Masters has planted his flag against the possibility that these mummies are authentic. As a proponent of the authenticity of some of these mummies, I am somewhat relieved, because I am now assured that Dr. Masters' conclusion is based on pure ignorance and arrogance and not on any semblance of diligent investigation.
For example, in response to David's reasonable question "Are you aware of the latest mummy which it is claimed is pregnant and has a tridactyl fetus in it? And is this likely to sway you if genuine?"
Dr. Masters replies:
"Doesn't sway at all, in fact quite the opposite... a huge problem with these is they are made to look similar to one another, but none of them share the same bauplan, or morphologic characteristics. This would just be a further example of that if there is a 'developing fetus' in one of them, while the 'Josephina' doll has alleged 'eggs' in it. If they want to be convincing they should have tried to make them more like each other. It's unfathomable that within the same or closely related species one would be eutherian while the other oviparou"
If Masters had actually bothered to look at the CT scans and battery of tests and listened to the dozens of qualified doctors and scientists who have examined the mummies he would know that whatever these mummies are, they are not "poorly constructed fakes".
The question is whether the pregnant mummy makes the likelihood of fraud less likely, and Masters replies that if they "wanted to be convincing", they never would have made one eutherian (live birthing) and the other oviparous (egg laying). This is an argument AGAINST the fraud theory. Is he suggesting that the creators of the mummies did NOT want then to be convincing? Isn't the definition of a fraud something that is intended to be convincing?
The disparity of the attributes of the at least five species discovered in the cave points to something far more intriguing than incompetent fraudsters. Scientists of equal academic achievement as Dr. Masters conjecture that it points to a genetic engineering enterprise, conducted over thousands of years with technology utterly different from our own. Hence the genome of "Maria", which was shown to contain DNA from chimps, bonobos and humans in addition to unknown species, all in tissue dated to over 1800 years ago. Masters has not disputed the data, from DNA sequencing, carbon dating, radiology, histology etc, (because he has ignored them), only their interpretation, but a theory must accommodate the data, and the data simply refutes a theory of "fraud". It's not the data that drives Masters' conclusion; it is his arrogant and calcified world view.
It sounds as if, among other things, Masters is buying the utterly debunked fraudulent bodies presented by the Peruvian authorities, which are indeed poorly constructed fakes, and has spent zero time examining the CT scans and other data that are all readily viewable on Thierry Jamin's website. His statement "I had been working with someone to get the original DICOM files from the CT scans they did on these 'mummies,'" indicates that he never even looked at that website, which demonstrates how careless he is. In fact, Thierry is the only one who controls the complete CT data and he has given requested data to other qualified scientists who requested it, so there was no need to "work with" an anonymous "someone". Masters could have simply asked Thierry, but his evident disdain for anyone involved with the research precluded this.
Again, the appropriate response to the data is wonder; if they are not authentic unaltered remains, then they represent ancient technology and cultural practices that will shake archeology and anthropology. Any other response reveals utter ignorance of the data.
I will add that in my opinion neither my interview with Jim Garrison nor Cliff Miles' paper is remotely sufficient to convince anyone of the reality of these beings, and to base one's scientific opinion regarding such an important discovery on these alone is ridiculous.
As a scientist, Masters should be studying the data on Thierry's website and consulting his scientific peers such as Dr. McDowell and his colleagues.
In any case, MY OFFER STANDS to Dr, Masters. If he believes what he is saying, he should take me up on it... with odds; say, $10,000 to my $1000.
What do you say, Dr. Masters?"
Personal note. I know yesterday I wrote around that I was winding down from posting to Facebook and Twitter - but that starts tomorrow - I couldn't ignore this one!