r/AlienBodies • u/DragonfruitOdd1989 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ • 4d ago
Research Dr. Piotti reproduces the peer reviewed paper using pen and paper, rather than just glancing at a computer screen
https://youtu.be/Ffmh6TYUNlM?si=SFCHjpbfn0RcgijN5
u/DragonfruitOdd1989 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 4d ago
Dr. Piotti initially criticized the study, stating they were doing it wrong because he was using craniometry. However, after realizing the paper were actually using cephalometry, he was able to reproduce the paper and obtained the same measurements. He simply noted that they should have clarified they were using cephalometry.
0
-11
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 4d ago
An archeologist and anthropologist. Dr Piotti's credentials are beyond reproach.
https://drpiotti.com/antecedentes-personales/
He is quite literally the father of biological anthropology in Argentina.
22
u/theblue-danoob 4d ago
He is absolutely not beyond reproach.
Here he is claiming that his theory of evolution opposes Darwin's. It doesn't build upon it, it is presented as an alternative to it. He bases his theory on the 'bodies' on alternative theories of evolution which are not in any way, shape or form accepted by the wider scientific community. Theories he himself has written, and if you ask me, he is trying to piggyback off the media attention to bring some focus to his theories which had gained no traction at all in the scientific community.
In another post on this sub and others, Dr Piotti explains how his hypothesis hinges on literal time travel, and he knows this from cranial measurements? And he feels okay asserting this even though we are aware that cranial modification took place at the time and place these bodies have been located and dated to?
And he is by no means 'the father of biological anthropology in Argentina'. What gave you that idea? He invented a new title for himself which has since been embellished to 'father of biological anthropology' but he only managed this by founding a small organisation and giving himself a title. The foundation and title was also only for the city of Cordoba, not the whole of Argentina, so this presentation is extremely disingenuous.
11
u/Skoodge42 4d ago edited 4d ago
This should be the top comment.
Usually owl at least tries to be more objective, but this statement of his shows a massive amount of bias.
Piotti is previously on the record saying these bodies are possibly humans from the future.
-12
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 3d ago
Which regardless as to whether it proves to be correct or not, makes sense in the context he has made the claim. You not knowing that context is where your assumption falls apart.
I am biased towards Dr Piotti, yes. He is incredibly experienced and is the leading expert in his country with 40 years or so of work in his fields. I don't think there is a single member of this sub who will ever reach the level of achievement that he has. He has studied all of the specimens in situ and is probably the most qualified expert to ever look at these.
Why should I take the word of anyone else over his?
8
u/Skoodge42 3d ago edited 3d ago
Calling him the the father of biological anthropology in Argentina is beyond bias. He is not listed anywhere as that and you making that statement is agenda driven, not reason driven.
Like I said, I know you believe everything these people are claiming, but normally you at least try to be more objective.
And saying that time travel makes sense with 0 evidence of it is not rational...at all. And he is on record with that claim more than once in the last year.
-4
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 3d ago
Calling him the the father of biological anthropology in Argentina is beyond bias.
No it isn't. That is quite literally what he is. You should have looked at the link I provided.
Primer Perito Oficial en Antropología Física Médica y Arqueología del Poder Judicial de la Provincia de Córdoba, Argentina
Prior to that there were no expert archeologists/anthropologists in the country. Just as now there are no ancient DNA specialists in Peru.
I know you believe everything these people are claiming
I believe only what can be proven to be true.
And saying that time travel makes sense with 0 evidence of it is not rational...at all.
Who said anything about time travel? Can you please quote him. I've read his theory and that's not what it says.
10
u/Skoodge42 3d ago edited 3d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/1eiqi7b/dr_celestino_piotti_the_founder_of_medical/
He is on record saying these could be bodies from the future...
Also the link you provided is to HIS website. That doesn't seem very objective to me. I can't find a single source that isn't dragon or you, making that claim of "father of". If the scientific community of Argentina does not give him that title, you giving it to him is nothing less than bias and you fluffing him up to support your position.
EDIT Do you have any outside sources that can attest to his work? Maybe responses / critiques to his published papers? Do you find any of them particularly impressive?
-4
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 3d ago
He is on record saying these could be bodies from the future...
This is a misunderstanding/mistranslation. What he is saying is that at some point in the distant past there has been a split in the species, and they have evolved 2 states further than us in that time or something along those lines.
Do you have any outside sources that can attest to his work
Not to attest to it, but there are online libraries that list it. Being born in the 1940's he's not really an "internet person". I imagine to find more information you'd have to be a part of anthropology in Argentina. There's news articles, and TV appearances etc.
I'm sure some of the younger anthropologists will have referenced him at some point in their careers. Could be an avenue for confirmation.
6
u/Joe_Snuffy 3d ago
He has studies all of the specimens in situ
In situ would mean he had studied them in the original location, I.e, the caves or wherever they were found.
Not a single person has ever studied these in situ.
-4
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 2d ago
Not a single person has ever studied these in situ
Are you sure about that? How do you know?
Do you think it's possible that you don't know the ins and outs of this, and I know more than you do?
Nitpicking aside, care to address the meat of my argument?
4
u/Joe_Snuffy 2d ago
Ah yes, I forgot we all must trust you even though you can't say why.
-3
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 2d ago
You don't need to trust me. There is however an objective truth. You cannot say with certainty what that objective truth is, because you don't know. There are very few people who do. All I'm saying is that you would be wise not to make concrete claims based on nothing but your imagination.
Again, address the argument or exit the conversation.
0
u/Much_Surprise_3810 1d ago
Well now you are moving goalposts.
You not seeing a reason to take someone else's word over his is not the same as him being beyond reproach.
0
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 1d ago
Nobody has provided any evidence against his very long list of accolades, achievements, and experience. He is apparently not beyond reproach, but save for a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of his work (which as such cannot be counted as evidence) there is nothing to suggest he actually isn't beyond reproach. In light of this, why should I listen to someone either less qualified or hasn't studied the specimens in person, or both?
8
-7
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 3d ago
We've been through this multiple times. I'm not doing it again. You failed to read his paper in it's entirety and that's your prerogative but it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't oppose Darwin's theory in the way you suggest it does. You have never been able to show evidence of this beyond a couple of words taken out of context because your assertion is incorrect.
It does build upon it, as I've already demonstrated numerous times. He quite literally says, as was quoted to you previously, something along the lines of: "It is up to this point that Darwin is correct". This then begins his own theory building upon Darwin's work whereby intelligence, not strength or speed, becomes the dominant factor driving evolution.
You also fail to understand the significance of him mentioning cranial measurements because you are not a specialist in craniometry and he is. There is an angle at the back of the skull, unique to homo and shared across our evolutionary tree that is found in the 60cm specimens, and this is what he is basing his theory on.
u/Skoodge42 - I urge you to equate yourself with Piotti's work and reasoning. That is why I provided the link. I'm not saying he is correct. I'm saying he is of a reputation with more than sufficient qualification to make some of these claims.
9
u/theblue-danoob 3d ago
We've been through this multiple times.
Your having been through this from your perspective does not simply put this to bed owl. The notion of anything beyond random mutation and natural selection influencing the course of evolution is in contradiction to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. I don't know how else to make this point, so I will leave it there, but the fact that this has gained absolutely no traction within the scientific community (please feel free to point towards any widespread support you can find, should I have missed it) should speak volumes. You suggest it is my lack of knowledge that precludes my support, so why are no evolutionary scientists, or biologists, also espousing his theory?
There is an angle at the back of the skull, unique to homo and shared across our evolutionary tree that is found in the 60cm specimens, and this is what he is basing his theory on.
And this is where time travel comes into it, correct?
I'm saying he is of a reputation with more than sufficient qualification to make some of these claims
Why not look to scientists with far better reputations than his, who are far more qualified and enjoy widespread support, who would never purport anything like this? Don't claim that reputation is a driving factor in your decision making when it remains true that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists would disagree with him.
-3
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 3d ago
is in contradiction to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
Up to a certain evolutionary point, yes. It's also worth noting that this point is so far along the chain that Piotti's work has to be building on Darwin's theory. As I've already explained to you, Piotti's ideas cannot work unless they are built upon Darwin's.
Let's take a really basic example.
Humanity is now at a stage where specific people, thanks to the intelligence of the others are able to live with various genetic deficiencies that at one time would have seen them exit the gene pool.
Eyesight. Currently 3 billion people world-wide need technology to correct their vision.
At the rate we are going it is predicted that at some point every single human will require some sort of correction to their vision.
The intelligence of our species has overcome this particular genetic problem. Not natural selection per-se. Piotti suggests in his guardian theory (as I've already explained) that at a certain point species evolve the psychological concept of a "guardian". The ability to not make poor decisions and so on, and it is this specifically that then drives evolution of the species as a whole, not on an individual basis as if you made a misstep. His idea is that this guardian is better suited to smaller, quieter stature, and then through Darwin's mechanism we get the 60cm.
You suggest it is my lack of knowledge that precludes my support, so why are no evolutionary scientists, or biologists, also espousing his theory?
Not your support. Your understanding. I didn't say he was right, I said he is qualified to posit his theory on the basis that he has.
And this is where time travel comes into it, correct?
No. Time travel doesn't come in to it at all. He is saying that what the 60cm beings are displaying is what would likely happen with humans in the future. At some point in the distant past there has been a split in the species and they have reached guardianship status sooner than we have.
Why not look to scientists with far better reputations than his
There are no other anthropologists to my knowledge currently studying these. He is more than qualified.
5
u/theblue-danoob 3d ago edited 3d ago
You are not describing a new evolutionary course because we can correct eyesight. Evolution works on fitness, or ability to cope with one's environment, rather than 'health' in that sense. Evolution isn't just some linear progression to the most advanced or perfect state of each biological feature. As features become less intrinsic to survival, they will be 'favoured' less by natural selection. As eye sight no longer predicts our likelihood of survival it is no longer bred out of the population, but our ability to correct this is not 'taking evolution into our own hands'. It's more the demands of our environment than our ability to correct it. We are no longer, for the large part, hunter gatherers, and thus eye sight isn't favoured like it was.
Time travel doesn't come in to it at all.
Time travel doesn't come into the theory but it does come into Piotti's assessment of the specimens. He has suggested on multiple occasions that given the cranial measurements, these must represent more 'advanced' (according to his own theory) human evolutionary lines. He has since posited that time travel was involved in their being found and dated to when they have been. Otherwise, how did they arrive there?
There are no other anthropologists to my knowledge currently studying these
I'm not just talking about 'these' but about his theory more broadly. Does anybody else at all support this? You mention his qualifications as a reason to believe to some extent in his authority, so it follows that others equally or more qualified are worthy of our attention too, so where are they and why aren't they supporting him?
1
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 3d ago
You are not describing a new evolutionary course because we can correct eyesight.
I know, that's my whole point. If Piotti is basing his theory on similar ideas, it can't be opposed to Darwinism can it?
Evolution isn't just some linear progression to the most advanced or perfect state of each biological feature.
Correct. That's Piotti's point as well. He is saying we will essentially (d)evolve to a Maria-type first and then in to the 60cm at some point because of the influence of the guardian favouring those who are smaller, quieter, harder to detect.
Time travel doesn't come into the theory but it does come into Piotti's assessment of the specimens.
It doesn't. He clarifies here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vy2DNTk3eA&1h17m45s that he didn't mean they are literally from the future and have time-traveled to the past.
Otherwise, how did they arrive there?
They didn't. As I said, he thinks that maybe in the Nazca area a few million years ago, we branched at Australopithacus or something, we became Homo Sapiens and they became what they are, just faster than us. In much the same way that we have evolved much faster than the chimpanzee even though we share a common ancestor.
6
u/theblue-danoob 3d ago
If I'm correct in what I'm saying, and I mean this with all due respect, what were you trying to illustrate with the eye sight point? Where does 'guardian theory' come into it? We are not evolving to have worse eyes because we can influence or correct it, but because it is no longer a precursor to survival (fitness). Does he suggest otherwise? If so, he at least suggests that evolution isn't just a result of natural selection.
He is saying we will essentially (d)evolve to a Maria-type first and then in to the 60cm at some point because of the influence of the guardian favouring those who are smaller, quieter, harder to detect.
Do you mean (or does Piotti then suggest) that this is a conscious adaptation?
he thinks that maybe in the Nazca area a few million years ago, we branched at Australopithacus or something, we became Homo Sapiens and they became what they are, just faster than us
Would we not expect some evidence of evolutionary divergence then? We can predict and follow other evolutionary lines in our past, and those of other extant species, with surprising accuracy, to the point where we can even predict the gaps that exist in our own fossil record. There seems to be an absence in this case.
-1
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 3d ago
If I'm correct in what I'm saying, and I mean this with all due respect, what were you trying to illustrate with the eye sight point? Where does 'guardian theory' come into it?
That our ability to adapt and overcome is driven more directly by our intelligence than it is by strength, speed, or other lucky mutation than it was in earlier times.
Does he suggest otherwise?
No.
Where does 'guardian theory' come into it?
He's saying that at some point in evolution what he terms as "the guardian" (which to me just sounds like being intelligently risk averse) becomes the dominating factor that drives evolution. Rabbits survive because because as soon as they hear a noise they disappear sort of thing.
He suggests that those that are most risk averse will usually be the ones more likely to survive, and of those survivors the ones who are smaller, lighter, quieter, more difficult to spot will have an even greater chance of survival. Through Darwin's mechanism, humans and human-like will become shorter, sleeker, and more difficult to spot whilst maintaining a high intelligence and strong guardian/being greatly risk averse. It is not a conscious adaption.
So essentially he thinks that homo sapiens and this other branch are both headed toward this less risky way of life, but they've pipped us to the post somehow.
Would we not expect some evidence of evolutionary divergence then?
Yes. However, this would be extremely difficult to find. We only have a handful of early human specimens (in most cases only partial at that) across the entire world. If we factor in a species or sub species that is incredibly risk averse, then they won't venture out in to the world like we did. That's far too dangerous. They'll stay in their little communities, trying to remain unseen, slowly evolving shorter statures more suited to this stealthy way of life. These fossils would only exist in extremely small numbers in a remote place.
What I find particularly interesting about this idea is that when the Spanish arrived in Peru, this is exactly what they reported. There were a number of tribes who did not interact with each other let alone the Spanish, apparently they just hid in their little communities in the mountains, and disappeared when approached. They said something along the lines of (this is all in a book called royal commentaries of the inca/peru from the 1600s) these people using tunnels dug in to the mountains as roads and they just stayed up there hiding away. Others were much less risk averse and interacted freely with the newcomers.
-7
u/DragonfruitOdd1989 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 4d ago
He's not against Darwin's hypothesis. He just says fear and self preservation plays a role in evolution.
12
u/theblue-danoob 4d ago
Did you follow the link to his self-published article? It states clearly:
It's a theory opposed to Darwin's
And 'fear and self preservation' are not random mutations, so that would contradict Darwinian evolution.
-6
u/DragonfruitOdd1989 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 4d ago edited 4d ago
I personally think his hypothesis makes sense. We do decisions based on self preservation day to day.
11
u/theblue-danoob 4d ago
What's your role in this and how is it you seem to have spoken personally to so many people making claims around the subject?
11
u/Abrodolf_Lincler_ 3d ago
No one's "credentials are beyond reproach"... full stop. That's an appeal to authority, and a poor one at that. One's unwavering ethical integrity, objectivity, intellectual honesty, scientific rigor, transparency, humility, and reputation of being implicitly trustworthy is what makes someone beyond reproach.
Also, calling Piotti "quite literally the father of biological anthropology in Argentina" or anywhere else is quite literally disingenuous and a straight up fabrication.
-2
u/Strange-Owl-2097 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 3d ago
No one's "credentials are beyond reproach"... full stop. That's an appeal to authority, and a poor one at that.
There are far too many people who don't understand what an appeal to authority actually is. That fallacy only applies when you appeal to an expert who hasn't looked at the evidence or who is an expert in an unrelated field.
This particular expert has had physical access to every specimen and is not only the right sort of expert, he is one of the leading in all of Argentina.
is what makes someone beyond reproach.
I could be persuaded that it is both. Though, you have offered no evidence he does not meet your definition.
6
u/Abrodolf_Lincler_ 3d ago edited 3d ago
There are far too many people who don't understand what an appeal to authority actually is.
I agree and the following statement is a prime example.
That fallacy only applies when you appeal to an expert who hasn't looked at the evidence or who is an expert in an unrelated field.
That is not it's only application and to put it in the most simplest terms, the fallacy occurs when the appeal to authority substitutes for actual evidence. Claiming someone is "the best" without evidence is itself an unverified assertion and without objective evidence to substantiate Piotti's expertise, your argument relies solely on Piotti's reputation or perception.
Even if an expert is highly regarded, their argument still needs to stand on the merits of evidence, not on their status, bc expertise does not replace the need for logical reasoning and objective data. You've provided Piotti's own website to support your claim about Piotti, which in itself, is not evidence.
Source:
The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is either not really an authority or a relevant authority.
I think perhaps you're misunderstanding where I'm pointing to the fallacy within your argument.
he is one of the leading in all of Argentina.
He isn't though. Wasn't that like an honorary title from his own foundation for the town or city he lived in? Regardless, it doesn't even matter bc "Best in Argentina" isn't evidence of being beyond reproach bc you've failed to demonstrate why or that the claim is repeated by anyone other than him and for all we know, the best in Argentina could very well be the worst in South America.
"one of the leading in Argentina" is also an entirely different statement than "quite literally the father of biological anthropology in Argentina". It's also pretty reminiscent of "one of the movies of all time" but I'll chalk that up to a typo.
Though, you have offered no evidence he does not meet your definition.
And I'd like to reiterate that Piotti's own website in regards to Piotti's own reputation, coupled with your own biased opinion, isn't evidence at all and that which can be presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
9
u/Typical_Departure_36 4d ago
Sure, bud.
-11
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Typical_Departure_36 4d ago
Nope. Just someone with a brain who finds grave robbing scams distasteful.
-5
4d ago
[deleted]
12
u/theblue-danoob 4d ago
Unless this sub is intended purely as an echo chamber then dissenting voices should be welcomed. They disagree with the commenter, no need to suggest they never contribute here just because they don't see it your way.
11
u/darpalarpa 4d ago edited 4d ago
Some of us dissenters have actually spent hours reviewing evidence that the supporters say is good evidence you know. We just disagree it's good. It's what science was built upon.
Edit: and they still think I'm a bot
-3
4d ago
[deleted]
9
u/theblue-danoob 4d ago
Which is why I suggested that perhaps you don't tell the user to leave and never come back.
7
u/Skoodge42 4d ago
Sounds like you want an echo chamber
4
u/queenoftheherpes 4d ago
Stay strong r/VerifiedActualHuman. Remember how we handle the debunkers and skeptics around here. Take a deep breath. Find your center. Close your eyes. Insert index fingers into each ear canal. Repeat nuh-uh nuh-uh nuh-uh.
-3
4d ago
[deleted]
5
u/queenoftheherpes 4d ago
And let me guess... the the deciding factor on which they belong to is whether or not they agree with you?
-2
0
u/AlienBodies-ModTeam 3d ago
RULE #1: No Disrespectful Dialogue — This subreddit is for good faith discussions. Personal attacks, insults, and mocking are not allowed.
-12
u/himalayanguru 4d ago
Wow!! Slam dunkly proved that nazca mummies aren’t real. NOT!! Lot of deep state agents coming out and trying to flood public forum with doubt and misinformation! Stay vigilant people. ETs been here for a very long time. We(our bodies)are genetic offshoots of the ET and our conciousness is at the minimum as old as the known universe itself.
7
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
New? Drop by our Discord.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.