• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

New mummy hoax: look who is involved!

Forums New posts
Swamp Gas said:
Admittedly this mummy seems too good to be true.

That said, reading quickly through the thread, Constance stands out as level headed. One who does not easily fall prey to self-righteous, ad hominem and prejudicial attacks of the people involved. But rather looks at the facts so far reported. Good for you Constance for showing those rare signs of genuine sanity.

As far as we know -- from what has been reported from those organizing and doing the scientific tests and inspection such as microscopic, DNA, Xray and MRI, there is as yet no sign of fakery. But no conclusion yet.

For some, it's OK to realize we do not know everything; and it feels nice to holster our egos and just quietly watch the show. As is often the case, there will be clowns. Long live the clowns.
Click to expand...


Do me a favour:

Input the following into Google or similar web search engine: "Jaime Maussan" and one of the following words: "Fraud" "Hoax" "Fake".

Any ad hominem argument on my part was non-fallacious, because the issue is almost entirely about his character, reputation and previous behaviour.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia


in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.
 
Han said:
Do me a favour:

Input the following into Google or similar web search engine: "Jaime Maussan" and one of the following words: "Fraud" "Hoax" "Fake".
Click to expand...

I'm aware of Jaime's past.
There are many more people involved in this project than those with a questionable history. We are free to ignore the big picture and proudly make a quick judgment based on the past of a few, or we can wait until all the data is in and make an educated conclusion based upon everything presented. I choose the latter is all.

I imagine some will get satisfaction if or when this venture is proven fake. I'm hopping it is real because it would likely shake up our rigid global paradigm in which we "think" we know what's going on.
We need a damn good shaking up.
 
Swamp Gas said:
I'm aware of Jaime's past.
There are many more people involved in this project than those with a questionable history. We are free to ignore the big picture and proudly make a quick judgment based on the past of a few, or we can wait until all the data is in and make an educated conclusion based upon everything presented. I choose the latter is all.

I imagine some will get satisfaction if or when this venture is proven fake. I'm hopping it is real because it would likely shake up our rigid global paradigm in which we "think" we know what's going on.
We need a damn good shaking up.
Click to expand...

Though that is no reason to entertain this Nazca Mummy bullshit.
 
Walter Bosley said:
Though that is no reason to entertain this Nazca Mummy bullshit.
Click to expand...

My reasoning was stated in the first paragraph, not the second. Which basically is that: an educated decision can only be made when the scientific examination and information is in. Where is the flaw in that?

Making a conclusive judgment based on what somebody did in the past -- which is unrelated to the physical evidence/data presented in this case, is no reason to entertain this Nazca Mummy as bullshit.
 
Swamp Gas said:
My reasoning was stated in the first paragraph, not the second. Which basically is that: an educated decision can only be made when the scientific examination and information is in. Where is the flaw in that?

Making a conclusive judgment based on what somebody did in the past -- which is unrelated to the physical evidence/data presented in this case, is no reason to entertain this Nazca Mummy as bullshit.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you, i made the same points with the previous mummy case.
But i also think when you have someone who has shown their judgement was wrong before says this one is real, its quite natural to be cautious.

If 3 of your friends said the mechanic on Stacy street did a lousy job on their tune ups, you would be skeptical of a flyer offering the best tune up in town with his business name on it.
 
Swamp Gas said:
My reasoning was stated in the first paragraph, not the second. Which basically is that: an educated decision can only be made when the scientific examination and information is in. Where is the flaw in that?

Making a conclusive judgment based on what somebody did in the past -- which is unrelated to the physical evidence/data presented in this case, is no reason to entertain this Nazca Mummy as bullshit.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?
 
mike said:
actually agree with you, i made the same points with the previous mummy case.
But i also think when you have someone who has shown their judgement was wrong before says this one is real, its quite natural to be cautious.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. When a person who is involved with this or any other undertaking has been proven to have poor judgment -- we should take that into serious consideration. But in real life one or two bad apples does not mean that the entire bushel is rotten. With all due diligence we should make note of what is bad, but don't stop investigating into what may be valid. Thats all I have been saying.
 
Walter Bosley said:
Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Nothing I have said is cryptic. If you haven't got a clue yet, it's highly likely you never will.

Edited to add: I apologize. that sounded like a personal attack that i did not mean. Better had i said: what you see is what you get. What I say is what i mean. No BS.

True wisdom is gained by questioning our own thoughts and motives rather than those of others.
-- Swamp Gas.
 
Last edited:
Swamp Gas said:
I agree with you 100%. When a person who is involved with this or any other undertaking has been proven to have poor judgment -- we should take that into serious consideration. But in real life one or two bad apples does not mean that the entire bushel is rotten. With all due diligence we should make note of what is bad, but don't stop investigating into what may be valid. Thats all I have been saying.
Click to expand...

Contradiction that it is, i see your point, and those of them who call BS.

Both sides of this have valid conclusions even as they conflict.(Reminds me of old invisibility ninjustu magic. Which to wax lyrical involves holding two conflicting reality's in mind at once.)
 
Swamp Gas said:
Nothing I have said is cryptic. If you haven't got a clue yet, it's highly likely you never will.

Edited to add: I apologize. that sounded like a personal attack that i did not mean. Better had i said: what you see is what you get. What I say is what i mean. No BS.

True wisdom is gained by questioning our own thoughts and motives rather than those of others.
-- Swamp Gas.
Click to expand...

Very religious of you. 'If you don't see what has been revealed, you lack the True Faith' is essentially what that means. Turning it back on me with the 'true wisdom' line is a cop-out. Stay on target: The Nazca Mummy is bullshit. Your pontificating is not going to change that. :)
 
What reasonably competent person, in possession of something like an alien mummy, would let the likes of Maussan anywhere near it? Anyone with an internet connection and ten minutes can learn all they need to know about his track record. I wouldn't trust the clown with my lunch money.

I really have a hard time believing just how gullible people can be.
 
Double Nought Spy said:
What reasonably competent person, in possession of something like an alien mummy, would let the likes of Maussan anywhere near it? Anyone with an internet connection and ten minutes can learn all they need to know about his track record. I wouldn't trust the clown with my lunch money.

I really have a hard time believing just how gullible people can be.
Click to expand...
Just look throughout this forum. You will find plenty of gullible people. I call them Mulderites ( I want to believe.)

Maussan has been pulling these games for decades. You know that old saying, if it looks like a pig, sounds like a pig and smells like a pig... it's probably a pig.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top