Han
piscator ψ
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.
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.