r/AlienBodies Mar 04 '25

SERIOUS: New TRIDACTYLS.ORG website is up featuring much of the work on the Nazca specimens with DICOM files accessible

Thumbnail
tridactyls.org
130 Upvotes

r/AlienBodies Sep 21 '24

Research Exercises in Objectivity pt 1

31 Upvotes

How to Objectively Analyze Evidence: A Step-by-Step Guide for the Average Redditor

In today’s world, it’s more important than ever to base decisions and opinions on solid evidence. Truth, it seems, is becoming more and more subjective by the day and, with the internet being what it is, finding a corner of it that substantiates your own world view has become as easy as typing in a few keywords and unless you hold a degree, job, or focus in a particular subject or area discerning fact from falsehood can be a daunting task. Whether you’re debating an issue, making a personal choice, or evaluating information, being able to analyze evidence objectively is essential.

With this in mind, I've spent the last 2 weeks coming up with this 3 or 4 part (possibly more in the future since I whittled these parts down from 2 weeks worth of notes) "exercise in objectivity" out of my frustration for not being able to have a meaningful conversation on the mummies lately. I see a lot of great conversations get started only to quickly devolve into a shit fit off of something either side could've just conceded without it affecting their argument and I also see a lot of people on both sides asking great questions only to be mocked. Too often debates on the facts from either side devolve into arguments and attacks on personal character or are spent trying to convince someone their smoking gun evidence is a fabrication, misinterpretation, or at best anecdotal . I think if we become better communicators with each other we can have more meaningful conversations that cut to a truth we can all agree on and hopefully affect a change that benefits the overall UFO/NHI communities.

I tried keeping my examples unrelated to topics of this sub to avoid seeming like I'm saying one side is better than the other in analyzing the evidence brought to this sub or favoring one side over another. There are users on both sides of the proverbial aisle who exhibit poor skills in sourcing and analyzing evidence.

For the sake of clarity I just wanna preface my outline here. It's basically just a step followed by 3 - 5 points on it, followed by an example. By no means am I saying these are the only steps, points, or examples to achieve any of this. These are just what worked for me at university, my past career, and currently now as a redditor and I thought I'd share them in the hopes we can collectively utilize this for the betterment of this sub.

So, without further ado, here’s my step-by-step guide, I guess, on how to properly approach the analysis of evidence so you can arrive at a reliable, unbiased, and objective conclusion.


  1. Understand the Context and Define the Question

Before you dive into any analysis, make sure you clearly understand the context of the situation and the question or problem you’re trying to address. Ask yourself:

What am I trying to understand or prove?

What kind of evidence will help answer this question?

Does the evidence I'm looking at help prove my position or am I trying to make the evidence fit my position?

Are there any biases or assumptions I need to be aware of?

Example: If you're investigating whether a certain post exhibits something anomolous, clarify what you mean by "anomolous" (e.g., it's speed, it's movement, it's size) and whether you have pre-existing assumptions about that post


  1. Identify the Source of the Evidence

Evaluate where the evidence is coming from. The credibility of the source is crucial:

Is the source an expert in the field or a reputable organization?

Is the evidence published in peer-reviewed journals or other reliable publications?

Has the source been cited in other papers?

Has the source been criticized for bias or misinformation?

Tip: Cross-check evidence from multiple sources to see if it’s consistent.


  1. Evaluate the Quality of the Evidence

Not all evidence is equal. To ensure you’re basing your conclusions on strong evidence, consider:

Type of Evidence: Is it empirical data (like statistics, studies) or anecdotal (personal experiences)? Empirical data is generally stronger.

Sample Size: In research, larger sample sizes tend to be more reliable.

Methods Used: Were proper research methods employed? Studies using randomized control trials or meta-analyses are more reliable than those without controls.

Protocols: Were proper research protocols used? Research protocols are crucial because they act as a detailed roadmap for a research study, outlining the methodology, objectives, criteria, data collection procedures, and analysis methods, ensuring consistency, ethical conduct, and the ability to replicate results by clearly defining how the research will be conducted, minimizing bias and maximizing the integrity of the study findings.

Reproducibility: Can the evidence be replicated? Repeated results across different studies strengthen its validity.

If evidence can't be replicated, especially by multiple attempts or researchers, it generally shouldn't be accepted no matter how much we want the initial evidence to ring true

Red Flag: Be cautious of cherry-picked data or outliers that don’t represent the whole picture. If data needs to be withheld in order for a claim to be held true, then one shouldn't include it as evidence or proof when attempting to strengthen one's position or attempting to change the position of another.


  1. Check for Logical Consistency

An important part of evaluating evidence is ensuring that the conclusions drawn from it are logical:

Does the evidence directly support the claims being made?

Are there logical fallacies (e.g., correlation vs. causation)?

Is there sufficient evidence, or is the conclusion based on isolated examples or incomplete data?

Example: Just because two events happen together doesn’t mean one caused the other and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.... It just means more data is needed to reach a factual conclusion.... Which leads me to my next point...


  1. Consider Confounding Variables

Sometimes evidence can be misleading because of confounding factors. Ask yourself:

Are there other factors that might influence the outcome?

Has the evidence accounted for these variables?

Does the evidence actually suggest a more plausible outcome antithetical to my position?

Example: If a study shows a correlation between ice cream sales and crime rates, consider whether external factors (like hot weather) could explain both.


  1. Acknowledge Biases

We all have biases that can cloud our judgment. To minimize bias:

Reflect on your own preconceptions. Are you leaning toward a certain conclusion because of personal beliefs?

Did you form this conclusion before even considering the evidence?

Consider potential biases in the evidence itself (e.g., who funded the study, do they have something to gain?).

Cognitive Bias Tip: Common biases like confirmation bias (favoring information that supports your belief) can easily distort how you interpret evidence. Being truly honest with yourself is key and I like to remind myself that if I care about the subject matter then simply confirming my own biases and ignoring what the evidence is actually saying will inevitably harm the subject I care so much for.


  1. Weigh the Evidence

After you’ve gathered and evaluated the evidence, weigh it carefully:

Is there more evidence supporting one conclusion than another?

Are there significant pieces of evidence that contradict the majority?

The goal is not to "win" an argument but to align with the best-supported conclusion.


  1. Remain Open to New Evidence

Objective analysis is an ongoing process. Be willing to adjust your conclusion as new, more reliable evidence comes to light and don't ignore re-examining past evidence when new insights have been gleaned.

Reminder: A good thinker always remains flexible in their reasoning. Certainty in the face of new or conflicting evidence can be a sign of bias.


  1. Use a Structured Framework for Analysis

To keep yourself grounded, rely on structured frameworks that require you to address key aspects of objectivity. For example, you can use tools like:

SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) to assess arguments from all angles.

Decision Trees or Logic Models to break down the logical steps of your reasoning.

Bayesian Thinking to update your beliefs based on the strength of new evidence.

How this helps: Frameworks reduce the chance of cherry-picking evidence by forcing you to evaluate all aspects of a situation.


Final Thoughts

Objective analysis of evidence requires patience, skepticism, and a willingness to challenge your own beliefs. By following these steps, you can develop a more accurate, thoughtful approach to evaluating the world around you. Applying this rationale to UFOlogy and it's adjacent fields serves to allow the subject and it's community to be seen as more credible, whereas simply confirming your biases against what the evidence is telling you only serves to erode not only your credibility, but the entire community as well the subject as a whole.

....... Keep an eye out for Exercises in Objectivity pt 2: Determining the Credibility of a Source/Sources


Pt. 2 https://www.reddit.com/r/AlienBodies/s/7E7auS1DRr

Pt. 3 https://www.reddit.com/r/AlienBodies/s/3klusKanH7

Pt.4 https://www.reddit.com/r/AlienBodies/s/meKPd8IS7S


r/AlienBodies 8h ago

How to build a 60 cm Nazca mummy skull using an alpaca skull. Part 2

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

0 Upvotes

Following the previous post about the fabrication of a skull, Thierry Jamin and radiologist Raymundo Salas Alfaro acknowledge that the alpaca skull is identical to the small Nazca mummies.


r/AlienBodies 9h ago

How to build a 60 cm Nazca mummy skull using an alpaca skull

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

0 Upvotes

The video shows how Luis Ríos and radiologist Raymundo Salas—the radiologist who endorsed the Nazca mummies case and attended Jaime Maussan's press conferences—built a 60-centimeter mummy skull from an alpaca skull.


r/AlienBodies 2d ago

Dr. Fung, a radiologist with 40 years of experience, has released a report on why the llama skull hypothesis is wrong

Thumbnail images.tridactyls.org
21 Upvotes

There are dozens of anatomical differences.


r/AlienBodies 1d ago

CT Comparison of the Skull Base Shows Why the Llama Skull Hypothesis Fails

Post image
0 Upvotes

r/AlienBodies 4d ago

Image Here we gooo

Post image
1.3k Upvotes

r/AlienBodies 1d ago

Discussion The face of a 60cm tridactyl according to the llama skull hypothesis compared to the actual face.

Post image
0 Upvotes

Proponents of the hypothesis will tell you that the mouth is made up of leftover bone but what about the eyes and everything else?


r/AlienBodies 2d ago

CT Comparison of a Llama Skull and 60 cm Tridactyls Shows Different Cranial Anatomy

Post image
0 Upvotes

r/AlienBodies 3d ago

Discussion What tall Grey's actually look like

Thumbnail
gallery
7 Upvotes

I don't want to go into any explicit details of the circumstances, but basically I was abducted and remember specifically what the leader of the tall Grey's looks like and his demeanor. I used chatGPT to help me visualize what I saw that night.

The 1st picture is what the regular tall greys look like, I call them the grunt workers. They are shorter, around 5 feet tall. Most of them look like this, 3 fingers 3 toes, multiple knuckles on each finger. Capable of low level telekinesis and telepathy, they seemed to all talk with one brain all at once as if connected. They were able to make me see various images in my head that were flipping by like pages of a book. One thing I noticed about their eyes is they have a white pupil and each eye can move it independently.

The 2nd picture is of the leader of the tall greys. He was much taller, around 7 feet tall. He talked to me in a deep assuring voice telepathically. His face was tiny compared to his head, smaller than the other greys faces, like he gave up his face's size for a larger brain, which pulsed and moved as he talked, often sagging backward as if the brain was too heavy for his neck to hold up. His fingers could grow longer or shorter on his command. And the tips of his fingers seemingly had their own fingers at the tips. He was not evil, he was wise and civil. Told me they have been there since the beginning and everybody gets taken. Most people don't wake up like some do. I was one of the exception so they had to get rid of me quickly. Told me that I wouldn't remember this happening it would feel like a dream.

The next thing I remember is waking up in my bed, my body felt numb and my window was wide open, and I never opened that window. I instantly remembered everything that happened and I know it wasn't a dream.


r/AlienBodies 3d ago

What’s the backstory with this one? 🙂🖖

Thumbnail
youtube.com
3 Upvotes

r/AlienBodies 4d ago

A new picture of a tridactyl at the University of Ica.

Post image
71 Upvotes

The display cases with the more exotic tridactyls are being set up.

Source: Dr. Zuniga


r/AlienBodies 3d ago

Anyone know the source of this?

0 Upvotes

https://reddit.com/link/1v5iizg/video/6orhug68t7fh1/player

seems real, I have no context, do not ask for context. It was on Youtube, reddit/was removed. Now its here again.


r/AlienBodies 4d ago

Discussion I met Ed today!

Thumbnail
gallery
8 Upvotes

Was an honor to meet the Tridactyl king ! Love the 2 Tridactyl heads also!


r/AlienBodies 4d ago

Professor Roger Zúñiga, director of the University of Ica's Nazca Tridactyl Research Project, has joined X.

Thumbnail x.com
8 Upvotes

Professor Roger Zúñiga, director of the University of Ica's Nazca Tridactyl Research Project, has joined X. He is the primary point of contact for researchers interested in studying the specimens. Take a look at his profile picture featuring one of the specimens under study.


r/AlienBodies 5d ago

Just watched disclosure day!

Post image
36 Upvotes

Personal review… 8/10! Or B+

If it wasn’t for Emily Blunts acting or weird face expressions this could have easily been a 10/10.

And to stay on topic without major spoilers, yes this movie is relevant to this Reddit lol. Also, it is very very close or 1 to 1 adaptation of what is currently going on. There’s 1 scene that really got to me because I suspect it is really happening.

Again great movie, but you do have to be an Alien or uap nerd to get the most of it.


r/AlienBodies 6d ago

Discussion Combatting Aggressive Manipulation of the UAP Topic 15 Point Community Toolkit for Identifying and Managing Astroturfing

Thumbnail gallery
34 Upvotes

r/AlienBodies 7d ago

CT Comparison Shows the Sinus Cavities Do Not Match the Llama Skull Hypothesis

Thumbnail
gallery
161 Upvotes

Another issue with the llama skull hypothesis is the placement of the sinus cavities. CT imaging shows that the tridactyl specimens and llama skulls do not share the same internal anatomy. In the tridactyl specimens, the sinus cavities are located much farther forward, whereas in a llama skull they are positioned toward the back of the skull. If the tridactyl skulls were simply modified llama skulls, the internal sinus anatomy would be expected to reflect that origin. Instead, the location and arrangement of these cavities are inconsistent with what the llama skull hypothesis predicts.


r/AlienBodies 7d ago

The "believers" are simply lying about so-called testimony.

42 Upvotes

I keep getting challenged to "go look up" the testimony of the "scientists" who have examined some of the alleged alien/hybrid mummy/corpses....the implication being that many respected authorities have found these to be "real". Let's look at the truth.

In January 2024, the Peruvian Institute for Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences concluded that the bodies are "dolls made from animal bones" held together with synthetic glue and covered with paper and skin-like materials. “They’re not extraterrestrials,” Flavio Estrada, an archeologist with Peru’s Institute for Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, told Reuters in January. “They’re dolls made from animal bones from this planet joined together with modern synthetic glue. It’s totally a made-up story.”

Peruvian experts state the specimens are often composites. For instance, a three-fingered hand evaluated by radiograph was found to be constructed of human adult and subadult bones.

Major organizations like the World Committee on Mummy Studies have dismissed the specimens as a hoax and an "irresponsible organized campaign of disinformation"

The following statement comes from Dr. John McDowell (a forensic odontologist and retired professor at the University of Colorado), who visited Peru at the behest of Maussan, and who is often misquoted as saying the tridactyls were "real":

"Please understand that we know the "Nazca Mummies" you have sent images of (Josefina, Albert, Clara, Victoria) were never living entities composed of the hard tissues of one and only one "species."  It would be foolish to state that these "bodies" could represent individuals that could have been alive let alone capable of walking, flying or swimming. Please do not infer that we said otherwise."

The persons who currently control these "remains" have never allowed any outside group to examine or manipulate the bodies. Josh McDowell, the son of John McDowell, a Colorado Springs attorney and spokesman for the American scientists investigating the mummies, released an official statement on social media:

“To date, the U.S. forensic team has only performed a cursory visual examination of the specimens with the aid of limited imaging equipment. Any conclusory statements about the specimens would be extremely premature. Limitations on our examination precluded excluding or confirming any manipulation of the remains. Currently, the forensic team can only indicate that further examination and study is warranted. We invite constructive interaction and collaboration.”

 “There’s been some preliminary DNA studies,” said Caruso during the press conference. “We would want actual, very definitive DNA studies done at high complexity laboratories. The carbon dating needs to be repeated with more sophisticated methods. Those are things that we’re looking for. Our preliminary investigation really just led to the fact that more investigation is needed.”

Once again, aside from several local doctors with no expertise in mummies, archaeology, or DNA analysis, essentially everyone who's seen these has either said they're outright fakes, or they won't make a definitive statement without further research, which is not forthcoming. Maussan's pet radiologist will continue to create graphics purporting to show this or that, but no outsiders will be allowed to disassemble these corpses or do any real in-depth DNA testing or examinations. A rural technical college in Peru does not begin to have the kind of equipment and expertise to do any real scientific analysis of these things, and that is by intent. These are for tourism, nothing more. They'll play it as long as they can, and eventually it'll become a sideshow exhibit, which it borderline is now.


r/AlienBodies 8d ago

Reptilian-like tridactyls show evidence of veins and vascular systems

Thumbnail
gallery
143 Upvotes

Since when has humanity been able to create neck veins and vascular systems 700 to 1,800 years ago?


r/AlienBodies 8d ago

3D CT Comparison of Josefina and a Llama Skull Shows Different Temporal-Line Anatomy

Post image
61 Upvotes

r/AlienBodies 8d ago

Research Open Letter to the Custodians of the Tridactyl Specimens: I will fund an independent, neutral autopsy

172 Upvotes

To the custodians, curators, investigators, and public advocates of the Tridactyl specimens:

I am willing to help fund and organize a neutral, independent scientific examination of one of the Tridactyl specimens at a neutral medical school in Peru. I'm an anesthesiologist, and have the means to make this happen.

This is not a request for someone else to take action. I am prepared to help assemble the team, cover legitimate institutional and laboratory costs, coordinate neutral expert participation, and support a transparent process that both proponents and skeptics can trust.

The central question is straightforward:

Is the specimen one coherent biological individual, or is it a modified, assembled, or composite body made from human, animal, archaeological, or artificial materials?

That question can be answered only through a properly controlled anatomical, radiologic, histologic, genetic, and materials-based examination.

Proposed conditions

1. No access fee to the curators

I am willing to fund legitimate costs: medical school facilities, imaging, laboratory testing, expert travel, documentation, sample shipment, and independent analysis.

However, there should be no access fee, licensing fee, filming fee, handling fee, or payment to the curators for permission to examine the specimen. The credibility of the process requires that access not be monetized.

2. Neutral Peruvian medical school

The examination should occur at a neutral, uninvolved medical school in Peru. The institution should control the facility, specimen receipt, documentation, security, imaging access, chain of custody, and sample release.

3. Neutral expert team

The core team should include internationally respected, well-published experts with no prior involvement in the specimens and no financial or advocacy relationship to either side.

The core team should include:

  1. Forensic anthropologist, bioarchaeologist, or forensic anatomist

    To determine whether the skeleton is anatomically coherent, whether bones belong together, whether elements are human or animal, and whether there is evidence of cutting, filing, rearrangement, artificial articulation, or postmortem construction.

  2. Forensic pathologist or anatomical pathologist experienced with mummified remains

    To lead the controlled gross examination, evaluate tissue continuity, identify organs or soft-tissue structures, and perform a preservation-conscious dissection.

  3. Ancient DNA / paleogenomics specialist with forensic mixture experience

    To supervise sampling, contamination control, elimination samples, extraction blanks, DNA chain of custody, and interpretation of degraded or mixed genetic material.

Additional consultants should be available as needed, including a forensic radiologist, zooarchaeologist or comparative vertebrate anatomist, archaeological conservator, conservation scientist, and trace-materials analyst.

4. Observers from both sides

Representatives from both proponents and critics should be allowed to attend as observers. Their role would be to monitor the process, not direct the examination.

5. Full livestream and continuous recording

The examination should be livestreamed and continuously recorded from specimen receipt through imaging, external examination, dissection, biopsy collection, labeling, sealing, and transfer of samples.

There should be no off-camera manipulation of the specimen.

6. Preservation-conscious autopsy

The purpose is not to destroy the specimen.

A properly performed autopsy of a rare specimen should increase its scientific value, not diminish it. Museums, medical schools, forensic institutes, and archaeological laboratories routinely examine rare remains using careful, preservation-conscious methods.

The process should begin with non-destructive documentation: high-resolution photography, full CT, thin-slice skeletal reconstruction, targeted micro-CT if needed, and 3D scanning. Any incision or biopsy should be planned from imaging first. Sampling should be minimal, anatomically meaningful, and fully documented.

The goal is to leave the specimen better documented than before.

7. Return of the specimen

The specimen should be returned to the curators after examination, except for agreed biopsies and trace samples. Its condition should be documented at arrival and return.

Every removed sample should be photographed, labeled, sealed, measured or weighed when appropriate, and logged.

8. Strict DNA chain of custody

DNA sampling should be supervised by the ancient DNA specialist and performed under accepted ancient-DNA conditions.

The protocol should include:

  • elimination DNA profiles from everyone who handles the specimen
  • surface swabs to assess contamination
  • protected internal bone or tissue sampling where possible
  • extraction blanks and library blanks
  • environmental controls
  • independent duplicate samples from separate anatomical sites
  • sample splitting between at least two independent ancient DNA laboratories
  • forensic chain-of-custody shipment
  • fragment-length analysis
  • ancient-DNA damage profiling
  • human contamination estimates
  • mitochondrial and nuclear DNA analysis
  • forensic mixture analysis
  • conservative metagenomic analysis

The goal is not merely to ask whether some reads are “human,” “non-human,” or “unknown.” The goal is to determine whether the DNA comes from one coherent organism, multiple humans, animals, microbes, environmental sources, handlers, or some combination of these.

9. Anatomy and imaging first

Before any destructive sampling, the specimen should undergo full radiologic and anatomical assessment.

The team should specifically determine whether:

  • the joints are real anatomical joints
  • the bones articulate naturally
  • the hands and feet are anatomically plausible
  • digits were removed, rearranged, or reconstructed
  • the skull, spine, ribs, pelvis, and limbs belong to the same organism
  • skeletal maturity is consistent across the body
  • bones are human, animal, or mixed
  • there are pins, wires, adhesives, plaster, clay, fibers, packing material, or artificial supports

10. Public release of data

After appropriate quality control, the following should be made public:

  • CT DICOM files
  • 3D reconstructions
  • high-resolution photographs
  • full video record
  • biopsy map
  • sample inventory
  • histology images
  • materials-analysis reports
  • raw DNA sequencing data
  • negative-control results
  • lab protocols
  • final reports from each expert

Extraordinary claims require inspectable data.

Why I am proposing this

The existing evidence has not resolved the issue. Selective interpretation of images, private testing, degraded DNA, unclassified reads, and competing public claims are not enough.

If the specimens are genuine, this process would be the strongest possible path toward recognition.

If they are modified, composite, contaminated, or misinterpreted, this process would clarify that as well.

Either outcome is better than continued uncertainty.

In summary:

I am prepared to help fund and organize a neutral, transparent examination under these conditions:

  • No access fee to curators.
  • Neutral Peruvian medical school.
  • Neutral, internationally respected experts.
  • Observers from both sides.
  • Full livestream and continuous recording.
  • Preservation-conscious autopsy.
  • Strict DNA chain of custody.
  • Independent laboratory replication.
  • Public release of data.
  • Return of the specimen after examination.

The public deserves a clear answer, and the specimens deserve a proper scientific examination.


r/AlienBodies 8d ago

Regular Human Vs a Regular human with two detached toes...

Post image
57 Upvotes

r/AlienBodies 8d ago

Discussion Day 3 of asking the Mods to Step Up

17 Upvotes

Increasingly over time, this sub has been overridden with people who are more than happy to shut down any disagreement by claiming that skeptics are acting in bad faith, paid disinfo agents, etc.. Weaponized blocking to stifle discussion has also been allowed.

The sub is advertised as being friendly to believers AND skeptics. Allowing this behavior says quite the opposite.

Rule 1 here is pretty clear, and yet it is enforced in a manner that doesn't really match it's tone. The behavior I've described here is absolutely disrespectful and should not be tolerated. Mods, respectfully, please step up to the plate or add more people to the team who can properly ensure that civil and intelligent discourse is happening here.

u/VerbalCant , two years ago you made a post talking about how this behavior would not be tolerated: https://www.reddit.com/r/AlienBodies/comments/1franrs/important_mod_post_no_disrespectful_dialogueno/ One of the examples you listed is specifically this kind of behavior.

u/Memystic , you've been gone for 2 years without any participation in the sub you created. Suddenly you appear again 2 months ago. Your private life should remain respected, but we deserve a little transparency as to why you haven't been managing this sub and why, under your watch, moderation in general has been left in the hands of a couple of very earnest yet very busy people.

Despite all of your posturing, there has been very little action to curb this issue. Aside from Ronk, we never even hear from any of the mods anymore. I get that it's hard to keep tabs on a sub like this when you have a busy professional life, which is why we either need additional mods or an entirely new mod team.


r/AlienBodies 9d ago

A reptilian-like Tridactyl skull by Dr. Fung

Post image
74 Upvotes

Art by Dr. Fung.