undefined | Better HN

0 pointsan0malous8mo ago0 comments

Here is the breast plate depicting a tridactyl being from the “random Reddit user”:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colombia,_quimbaya,_...

Here is a website with the carbon dating reports from multiple reputable paleo labs, it includes the PDFs from the labs themselves with their names and letterhead: https://www.the-alien-project.com/en/results-analysis-nasca-...

Here is a 2023 hearing where dozens of South American scientists across various relevant specialties present their findings and argue for the bodies’ authenticity: https://youtu.be/MwZkXwuMdsw

Here is the first 2018 hearing conducted by the Peruvian Congress where their scientists concluded the bodies are authentic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2xN41immWE

0 comments

Aloisius8mo ago

> Here is the breast plate depicting a tridactyl being

Ok, ignoring the fact that various cultures drew all sorts of things from lion-headed people to feathered dragons so someone drawing little more than a stick figure hardly means it's real, but that could easily be a three toed sloth which have three very long claws on their hands and feet.

Never mind that the Nazca lived like 1500 miles away from the Quimbaya.

> Here is a website with the carbon dating reports

That shows a large difference in age between body parts from one of the mummies. In one of the reports, it shows a 6000 year age cap between the skin and the bone.

One DNA analysis says it contains DNA from multiple humans and that there isn't evidence the hand and left foot from the same mummy belong to the same person.

This all screams hoax. It looks as if someone stitched together multiple mummies.

> 2018 hearing conducted by the Peruvian Congress where their scientists

One of the two only actual scientists, Jose de la Cruz Rios Lopez, published a paper saying the skull of one of them likely from a llama: https://www.iaras.org/iaras/filedownloads/ijbb/2021/021-0007...

an0malousOP8mo ago

Jose de la Cruz believes they are authentic bodies, he is in both of the hearings I linked to. He’s explained that he wrote the paper considering both perspectives because he would not have been able to get it published otherwise. The topic of the paper is an analysis method, not the authenticity of the bodies. From the paper itself:

> They are biological in nature. At the available resolution of the CT-scanning, no manipulation of Josephina’s skull can be detected. The density of the face bones matches very well the density of the rest of the skull. No seams with glues, etc. are obvious, and the whole skull forms one unit.

> Based on the above, if one is convinced that the finds constitute a fabrication, one has to admit at the same time that the finds are constructions of very high quality and wonder how these were produced hundreds of year ago (based on the C14 test), or even today, with primitive technology and poor means available to huaqueros, the tomb raiders of Peru.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse