Yes, the pun is intended.
As I (and of course others) suspected as soon as we saw the picture, the alleged alien is a mummy. OpenMinds TV has an expose here. Good work by Alejandro Rojas and, in particular, Isaac Koi.
Make sure you download the Anthronotes study of the mummy, linked in the above post. And yes, there was a number on the skull.
So what have we learned? Here are some thoughts:
1. Jaime Maussan should no longer be considered a reliable researcher in ufology. To be honest, I’ve thought for some years now that he’s amazingly gullible. If you didn’t think he jumped the shark before, he’s in orbit now.
2. Ditto the above for anyone who promoted this “discovery”. You might think it harsh, but deal with it. This is precisely the sort of thing that gives serious researchers in this strangeness field (and others) a black eye. People who are this gullible and so prone to uncritical thinking shouldn’t be given any air time for their pseudo-research.
3. People who donated money to this cause ought to contact lawyers and sue. Maybe if that happened we’d see less of this BS.
Gosh – I wonder if Edgar Mitchell’s looking for a TV camera now. He was an astronaut, you know.
I am a little puzzled. The Open Minds post doesn’t say anything new.
The 2397 pictures have been out for months, and there was a close enough resemblance to demonstrate the slide figure was a mummy of some sort, if not 2397. Several bloggers and commentor discussed it.
The Coast to Coast image, though more clear than the video stills, does not make certain an ID of 2397 as the slide figure. But the new version does remove the last doubts that the slide figure is a child mummy, and shows that the slide team members were either deluded or lying (and trying to sell product).
Am I missing something?
I had not seen the Thebes photo – are there other links to that?
Indeed, as we had thought, nothing special in those slides.
Over the last 3 months I have been commenting on Kevin Randle’s blog “A Different Perspective” about these slides, UFOlogy’s weird interpersonal pitting of one “expert” against another, character and credibility assassinations, and so on.
Mike is right – if you are honest with your viewpoints and facts, you do become “an equal opportunity offender” to both skeptic and believer.
Not only is Maussin a huckster (has been for a while), but so are Schmitt and Carey. As far as Dew or Dolan are concerned, well others can judge for themselves. Dolan certainly did not boost his credibility in Mexico. Stanton Friedman who claims to be “the original Roswell investigator” avoided the event altogether.
So much for the Dream Team and their wishful “dreaming” so obvious in this foolish circus-like event.
it’s really embarrassing.
The funny thing about the Dream Team is that when the slides came along, they excluded Randle and Rutkowski, the two “honest brokers” in the group.
Consequently, Randle provided a fair and just (and fatal) commentary on the sliders’ claims on his blog; Rutkowski joined a second team that fact-checked the sliders’ claims, and which eventually provided a positive ID on the slide figure.
It is to laugh!
“1. Jaime Maussan should no longer be considered a reliable researcher in ufology.”
hahaha! That was funny. Maybe Greer isn’t so credible either, and I have some doubts about Billy Meier and his photos of dinosaurs.
“As soon as we saw the picture” sums up the value of your “in depth” analysis, Mr. Heiser. Thankfully, the forensic pathologist and the professor of anatomy who spent a bit more time considering what they were looking at in the photo can give us, I am quite certain, a better idea of what the being is – which they plainly stated was not a human being, nor even a mammal. Although I do speak Spanish fairly well (probably better than you), a great deal of what these two experts said in their analyses of the photo went right over my head, and I therefore await publication of their comments, in English, before passing judgment on the legitimacy of the photo. Yet here you are, telling people they should sue Jaime Maussan! Your baseless muckraking is so uninformed (ignorant) and so misleading that it is abundantly clear to me what you are all about, Mr. Heiser. What you are all about has nothing to do with truth.
so, where are the reports? There was no body – only a picture (and a blurry one at that. So now we do forensic pathology from pictures? Others who have forensic experience in ancient bodies don’t count?
Richard, we were told for months by proponents that the slides figure could NOT be a mummy. Now that we have a better image, it is crystal clear that the figure is nearly identical to the Thebes mummy 239; that, yes, indeed it could be a mummy and probably is.
That much at least is evident to anyone with eyes, which demonstrates the sliders were lying to us the whole time. That is not baseless muckraking, it is a stubborn fact.
Redirect your misplaced scorn where it belong: on the heads of the Roswell slides team, the shameless mystery mongers who willfully conned thousands out of their money. They could have waited until after a positive ID of the figure but that would have been too late to cash in.
It will be interesting to read what the scientists report, and I hope someone can find the Thebes mummy today for comparison (something the slides team pointedly avoided doing, despite being made aware of the possibility months ago).
Shame on anyone who postures about these slides having anything to do with “truth.”
Any good forensic pathologist (or MD in general) would stay far way from making pathological or clinical judgment calls without thorough analysis of the physical evidence – i.e., hands on touching the specimen or patient. Looks like all that anyone has done is look at a picture. Pictures in and of themselves can be deceiving.
Personally I won’t treat patients over the phone or via televox. They have to come in and I have to lay eyes and hands on them to confirm the correct diagnosis. Mistakes can be made when thorough disciplined analysis is ignored.
What a novel thought – doing forensics with a specimen.
Michael: I agree with you on all three points. I would add: There should be public accounting of the amount of money made from the event and who benefited.
Here’s hoping; it just gives serious inquiry a bad rap.
Speaking of Gullible, did you hear about “The Best UFO of 2015 – San Diego UFO? (Six Days Ago)
Read intro: “this UFO “cluster” as I refer to them, exhibit a unique “pleiadian” quality, that reminisces of ancient cultural contact between gods from the sky and early human civilization. The evidence, and implications, are discussed during this video, including the stunning possibility that in much the same way as human civilization uses SETI Radio transmissions of prime numbers to communicate our intelligence to the outside – unknown intelligence might similarly broadcast their own signals Radio transmissions of prime numbers to communicate our intelligence to the outside – unknown intelligence might similarly broadcast their own signals via lights in the sky which mimic our most fundamental constellations.”
Here, we have a true believer, invoking “ancient cultural contact” with unknown intelligence of a “unique pleiadian quality” (does anyone know of other galactic civilizations that make the Pleiadian Civilization unique?) whereby they park their blinking lights above Escondido and simulate constellations for us as a method of comunication.
For the amazing debunk of this UFO, see
Yeah, that about sums things up. The true believers filter everything through what they want to see. As I’ve said many times, I’d love for one of these to be the real deal. Proof of ET intelligent life is something I’d like confirmed in my lifetime. But instead of that translating to gullibility, it ought to make us even harder to convince — so that, in the end, the evidence holds up, precisely because it’s been put through the ringer from every angle imaginable. Confirmation by means of unassailable, factual data will bring satisfaction.
For those watching the debunking UFO (the San Diego lights had a simple explanation), it starts at around 4:50 of the video.
To Richard O’Connor MD –
Not certain what kind of MD you are, but it doesn’t matter if the so-called pathologist and professor of anatomy spoke in Spanish, Zeta Reticulan, or ancient Hebrew. When you’re wrong you’re wrong. What are these mens’ standing in their professional fields and the academy in general? Where were they trained? What have they published? No one knows.
Whose to say they weren’t PAID by the hucksters to make a positive alien ID? Two guys make a scientific claim without any documentation or support from their peers? Not likely.
Smells a little fishy to me….and it should to you too as an MD
Take a close look at the distal left femur / knee joint. Distal femur, which is one of the anatomical features seen most clearly in the slide, does not look like a human femur (I have seen 100s of distal human femurs while involved in knee replacement surgeries). The one in the slide looks very different. Condyles appear much less bulbous, more streamlined. Patellar groove is abnormally long. Femoral epicondyles are not identifiable. Adductor tubercle is not identifiable. There is no patella. One would think that a goal of mummification would be to preserve all anatomical structures as intact as possible, yet there is no patella. Why? Also, arm/hand length appears to be short for a human being. Rib count appears to be different (at most, 5 pairs). I do not see a clavicle. Pelvis appears to be quite underdeveloped. These are some, but not all, of the observations that we encounter in viewing this poor quality slide that raise the question “is this a human being”, and I don’t even have any software to enhance selected areas of the photo. While I agree that this photo will likely never become dispositive evidence that this is in fact a “Roswell alien”, it may inspire someone to find the actual specimen in the photo and carry out some much needed DNA testing. As far as the placard, I do not yet know what to think about that. More research on this is needed before jumping to your premature conclusions. I feel that Maussan’s Be Witness presentation was useful and may lead honest researchers to additional avenues of inquiry.
All that from a blurry slide? Pardon me, but I’m not buying it. You can’t do forensic analysis in detail without a specimen. Mummies are NOT always completely intact, either. And dessication plays a role in appearance.
@Dr. Richard O’Connor:
The mummy has already been identified as one found in the area of Mesa Verda. The mummification process was a natural one being the result of dry heat exposure most notably suggested as a child buried at the back of a cave dwelling or burial ground.
The body no longer exists as there was some time ago a government bill that had all Native American remains returned and reburied some decades ago.
By your comments you are an Orthopedist. Bear in mind you have been working on normal adult patients so yes their femurs would seem normal. This mummy had birth or genetic defects. Some of the parts are lost and reconstructed hence missing – others have deteriorated completely. This adds to the strange appearance.