Ah, I think you're falling into something of an ontological trap here. Scientific investigation is a much more complicated process than you present, and while I can attribute much of that simplification not to a failure of understanding on your part but to the brevity of this medium, I'd like to highlight a couple things for the sake of clarity that were glossed over.

(First, I'll point out that these dolls are pretty much identical to the ones presented by Jaime Maussan (although I can find no confirmation that they are the exact same ones, the (predictably low quality) images of the two sets match as best as image quality allows))

This isn't a question of 'if these are authentic remains'. Well, not at first. Despite the impression given by some of the more odious members of the scientific community, our work doesn't actually happen in a grand impartial vacuum. I'd argue that outside of some extremely specific cases, it can't happen in an impartial vacuum. The credibility of the author, of the claim and of the source are all crucially relevant to the process, and those are the first three things any evaluator looks at first (usually, because they're found on the very first page...). The presentation by an author with a reputation for presenting spurious claims, of claims that are extremely similar to others that have been debunked time and time again and/or the presentation of said claims from an academic body that has a reputation for perpetuating hoaxes or lacks academic credentials related to a topic are all grounds for very healthy skepticism. And these are just the first things evaluated,

In this case, we have all three!

Dubious Author: Maussan has a pretty colorful reputation, in no small part to his documentary where he makes claims best described as 'totally bonkers'. There's also his history to consider, like that time he tried to pass off a mummified human child he just bought somewhere as an alien. So skepticism here, given the number of times he's pulled these stunts in the past, seems extremely warranted.

Dubious Claim: I'm setting aside the fact that claims of extraterrestrial mummies are, by their nature, claims in an extremely ill-reputed field. Judging based on the fact that 'it's so obviously not aliens' while a decent way to maintain a skeptical outlook, isn't quite what I would call "rigorous analysis". However, there is an absolutely astounding number of "mummified aliens" that have been found over the years and then gone on to be shown to be... not aliens. And it's not as if there's a coverup disproving all these, unless the aliens have more morphological variation in their species than is credible and has carefully deposited one or two examples of each different morphological example all over the world. Some of them could for the sake of argument I suppose be real, but again this is just a cause for skepticism and not dismissal of the claims. (oh, and if you want an example of debunked alien mummies, Gaia Inc has a debunked video of 'alien mummies' featuring Maussan... in 2017.)

Dubious Academics: I've been unable to find any research done by established or unestablished academic bodies, credible or not, nor any academic body claiming they have done so. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México is the closest we get on this particular topic, the body Maussan claims association with in his presentation to el Congreso de la Unión and in later remarks about those same aliens. That's not to say it doesn't exist, just that it certainly has not been made particularly easy to dig up in english or spanish academic resources. What I was able to discover, however, is multiple times UNAM has stated it made no such claims and has no affiliation with Maussan. So, bit of a red flag there. Again, as you so helpfully pointed out in your first comment,

I think it’s important to note that these are not the ones that had previously been presented. These are from unknown origin and, besides appearance, don’t have any confirmed connection.

Now while I can't find any actual evidence that they aren't the same, the total lack of any academic research or evidence, except for the fact they look exactly the friggin' same, could be assumed to be reasonable as these are new finds. I especially cannot find the supposed Peruvian university that this research is based on, which is slightly concerning since I am physically at a Peruvian university while I'm writing this. ( '11 Researchers' from Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga, in a letter that goes to hilariously painful lengths to explain that they are in no way positing or supporting the claim that these are extra terrestrial remains)

(Well, I could easily find loads of the the research done that to disprove these, like above, or the Maussan finds. Although admittedly the Maussan finds weren't really "research" more just "looking at Maussan's numbers and going 'he's making this shit up, this doesn't make any sense, no not 'oh but aliens don't have to make sense' not making sense, I mean not making sense as in "there's contradicting information in the same graphs and spectral lines for things that clearly aren't related carbon 14 dating being claimed to be evidence of their age, when carbon 14 dating doesn't have anything to do with spectral imaging. He clearly doesn't know what he's doing, and he's making this shit up." Oh, it's that guy? The one with the speaking tour where he showed off the remains of some poor dead kid he found? yeah...")

Listen. There's being healthily skeptical, and there's being being so desperate for any confirmation that you're willing to ignore the heaping mountains of evidence here. To end on a petty personal note, I need you to understand that it's not "bringing in an irrelevant argument" if that argument was made BY A QUOTED SOURCE IN THE LINKED ARTICLE. All you're doing by going "Hey, don't drag racism into this" when

1: I didn't, I expanded on what was in the article

2: You seem to be pushing the fallacious idea that you can't acknowledge racism if you're going to maintain scientific detachment.

is being some kind of weird racist-UFOlogist-apologist. As I so exhaustively have just explained, the credibility of a source or claim is entirely contextual. THAT is why I, and Sr. Estrada, brought up how often these damn things are racist. Can racists make meaningful contributions to science? Obviously. Take, for example, all science prior to 1900. Should we ignore all claims made by people we find odious? No. Should we let the context affect the conclusions we draw on a subject? Yes. That's fundamentally how science (and all 'information', really) works.