The Paracas skulls: aliens, an unknown hominid species or cranial deformation?

Three Paracas Necropolis Culture skulls, showing different shapes produced by head binding
Three Paracas Necropolis Culture skulls, showing different shapes produced by head binding (Source)

Sources of dubious (and notsodubious) news on the internet have been getting very excited for the past week or so about some skulls from Paracas in south-western Perú. According to these sites, the skulls have been shown to have DNA that proves them not to be modern Homo sapiens but something else. Depending on the slant of the site, they are the remains of either an unknown but earthly species or aliens. Some sites make comparisons with the Starchild Skull, which has been touted as a human/alien hybrid. So just how reliable is the news?


The skulls were discovered by the respected Perúvian archaeologist Julio César Tello (1880-1947) during excavations in 1927-8 on the northern side of the Cerro Colorado area of the Paracas Peninsula. In all, some 429 mummy bundles were recovered from two clusters at a site known as Wari Kayan, a large subterranean structure. The mummies were wrapped in cotton cloths, some of which were embroidered with wool to create elaborate patterns, which are among the best South American textiles ever found. The mummies were then placed in baskets in a sitting position, facing north; as with all South American mummies, their preservation is due to natural desiccation. Almost four hundred embroidered cloths were recovered. All the burials were of males and the quality of their grave gifts suggests that they were of high status; some have suggested that many of the men buried there had been brought for some distance to a special location, although this is not accepted by all.

Tello had previously excavated at Chavín de Huantar and recognised that there were cultural affinities between its products and those found at Wari Karan and suggested that the Paracas Necropolis Culture, as he called it, was related to the largely contemporary Chavín Culture. Comparisons have also been made between the later Paracas textiles and those of the Nasca Culture, suggesting another relationship. The pottery was largely plain and thin walled; it is very similar to ceramics found in the Cañete and Chincha Valleys, to the north of Paracas and is generally known today as Topará style. Similar pottery is also found in the earliest Nasca culture. It is generally accepted that the Nasca culture derives from the Paracas Necropolis Culture.

An example of Paracas Necropolis Culture embroidery
An example of Paracas Necropolis Culture embroidery (Source)

A Paracas Necropolis settlement has been found at Arena Blanca, in the coastal plain below the Cerro Coloarado. It covers an area of some 5- hectares, divided into twenty separate ditstricts, with buildings made from cobbles in dried mud. It inhabitants had cultivated plants, while cotton nets may be evidence for fishing. It appears to be contemporary with the earliest phase of burial at Wari Kayan and after its abandonment, was used as a cemetery by people of the Topará Culture. Further settlements are known in the Ica Valley to the south, where they span the entire period of the Paracas Necropolis Culture (conventionally reckoned to span 1-200 CE, although some prefer to place it earlier).

So far, so good. We have burials from a culture whose cultural affinities are well established and whose chronology is reasonably clear. Now for the part that has led to the recent controversial claims. Many of the high status burials of the Paracas Necropolis Culture have deformed skulls, which are usually believed to be deliberately induced using boards and weights. These result, in extreme cases, in skulls that are elongated into tall conical shapes. No two are alike and all are believed to have denoted high status in Paracas Necropolis Culture society.

The beginning of the controversy

A foetal mummy, illustrated by Rivero and Tschudi
A foetal mummy, illustrated by Rivero and Tschudi

For many years after their discovery, the Paracas Necropolis Culture burials were regarded as ordinary Andean mummies, whose high status males exhibit the cultural deformation of the skull practised by a number of pre-Columbian New World societies. Enter David Hatcher Childress, a well known promoter of some very Bad Archaeology indeed. In a 2012 book, The Enigma of Cranial Deformation: Elongated Skulls of the Ancients, co-written with Brien Foerster (described as a “Canadian-Peruvian anthropologist” by Amazon, although it would be more accurate to describe him as a tour operator), Childress suggests that the phenomenon is not one of cranial deformation. Quoting a nineteenth-century doctor, John James von Tschudi who claimed to have seen a seven-month term foetus with a head as elongated as its mother, Childress claims that this is evidence for a separate race or species.

What is not made clear is that they are quoting from the book Antigüedades Peruanas (1851) by Mariano Eduardo de Rivero y Ustáriz (1798-1857) and Johann Jakob von Tschudi (1818-1889) or, rather, its 1855 English translation by Francis Lister Hawks (1798-1866), who also managed to “translate” the authors’ names (as, indeed, does the original Spanish edition, where Dr von Tschudi is given the forenames Juan Diego!). Well, there’s nothing wrong with that. Until one reads Antigüedades Peruanas and discovers that this is in a chapter dealing with racial typology and phrenology and that Tschudi is reinforcing a typology of three Amerindian races he first proposed in Archiv für Pysiologie in 1845. The type to which they attribute the elongated crania are described as Aymaran, and the presence of a large wormian bone at the parietal/occipital interface is said to demonstrate the primitive nature of this people: se halle en una seccion del género humano, un fenómeno anómalo constante que falta en las demas, pero que es característico en los animales rumiantes y carnívoros (“there is thus found in one section of the human race a perpetual anomalous phenomenon, which is wanting in all others, but which is characteristic of the ruminant and carnivorous animals” in Hawks’s translation). Because of the high incidence of such bones among the indigenous peoples of the Andes, they are sometimes known as Inca bones.

The engraving that shows the foetal mummy (curiously found in the English translation but not in the Spanish original) does not depict the extreme of cranial deformation that Childress claims is genetic in origin: while the skull appears dolichocephalic, it appears to be entirely in the range of normal human foetuses. Moreover, although Rivero and Tschudi claim that it was found within the womb of a pregnant mother, the engraving does not show a foetus in a natural position, but in the position of a typical Andean mummy. It also appears to be wearing a kilt. In other words, there is a degree of deception in their account. It appears that Childress and Foerster cannot adduce any recent discoveries of neonatal or foetal mummies displaying supposedly congenital or hereditary skull deformation of this type.

Enter Lloyd Pye

Brien Foerster managed to persuade Juan Navarro Hierro, director (and owner) of the Paracas History Museum (sic: on the sign outside the museum, the name is given first in English, then, smaller, in Spanish) to part with some tissue samples. He claims that he did this because “[t]he only way to establish the actual age, and possible genetic origins of the Paracas people is through DNA analysis of the skulls themselves”. Dating human tissue by means of DNA analysis is such a new technique that I can find no other use of this remarkable development in any other archaeological investigation. Of course, there is no such dating technique: this is Brien Foerster displaying his ignorance of archaeological dating techniques!

Where did he choose to send the samples? To some prestigious university department, well known for its work on ancient DNA? No. Instead, he chose to send them to Lloyd Pye (1946-2013), a crank who believed in ancient astronauts, the extraterrestrial origins of humanity and, worst of all, touted the “Starchild Skull” as an alien/human hybrid. Why? This suggests that, far from being a dispassionate researcher, Brien Foerster has a preconceived agenda and it’s one that involves aliens. Although his original page lists his affiliation as “University of Victoria, Biological Sciences, Department Member”, his association with the university is as a graduate, not a member of faculty. [Update 11 April 2015: he has a new page that more honestly describes him as an undergraduate.]

A Paracas skull: note the dimple toward the top of the head, which is a product of head-binding, depressing the suture between the parietal plates that Brien Foerster claims does not exist
A Paracas skull: note the dimple toward the top of the head, which is a product of head-binding, depressing the suture between the parietal plates that Brien Foerster claims does not exist (Source)

On his website, Brien Foerster makes a number of claims about the skulls from Paracas, citing Lloyd Pye as an authority. He refers to “5 physical factors, pointed out by Lloyd Pye and myself, which are not at all common to Homo sapiens”, of which he lists two: “the presence of 2 small holes in the back of the skull” and “only one parietal plate, where there should be 2”. This is backed up by a photograph, although it appears to depict a skull with no cranial deformation.

The “small holes” are the parietal foramina, perfectly normal features of the human skull (he does say that Lloyd Pye believed that they might be “natural”, so why are they flagged up as a factor “not at all common to Homo sapiens”?). There are few photographs that show the top of the Paracas skulls, but it is obvious that the frontal bone (the bone behind our foreheads) is stretched enormously; it is also evident that the sagittal suture (between the two parietal bones) begins very high up on the skull on those few photographs that show this element. Either Brien Foerster is entirely ignorant of the normal features of the human skull, or he is deliberately deceiving a readership he expects of be ignorant of these features.

It gets worse

Just when you thought that this story couldn’t possibly take off, Brien Foerster managed to put out a release on his Facebook page on 12 February 2014 hinting about initial results from his DNA tests. This is what has set the internet of dubious news stories talking excitedly. This is what Brien Foerster quotes:

Whatever the sample labeled 3A has came from – it had mtDNA with mutations unknown in any human, primate or animal known so far. The data are very sketchy though and a LOT of sequencing still needs to be done to recover the complete mtDNA sequence. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample 3A indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.. I am not sure it will even fit into the known evolutionary tree. The question is if they were so different, they could not interbreed with humans. Breeding within their small population, they may have degenerated due to inbreeding. That would explain buried children – they were either low or not viable.

I am surprised that a geneticist would make this statement, but it is presented as verbatim, so we must assume that she/he genuinely wrote it. Let’s analyse what they are saying. Firstly, that Sample 3A “had mtDNA with mutations unknown in any human, primate or animal known so far”. That’s a very far reaching statement. It means that the source of the sample is unrelated to any animal on the planet. Any animal. Think about that for a few moments. The clear implication is that this is a non-terrestrial life form. The only one not to be related to all other animals, be they Bryozoa, Porifera, Acanthocephala, Acoelomorpha, Brachiopoda, Chaetognatha, Ctenophora, Cycliophora, Entoprocta, Gastrotricha, Gnathostomulida, Hemichordata, Kinorhyncha, Loricifera, Micrognathozoa, Nematomorpha, Nemertea, Onychophora, Orthonectida, Phoronida, Placozoa, Priapulida, Rhombozoa, Rotifera, Sipuncula, Tardigrada, Xenoturbellida, Echinodermata, Cnidaria, Annelida, Nematoda, Platyhelminthes, Chordata, Mollusca or Arthropoda. Incidentally, we belong to the phylum Chordata.

A Paracas Necropolis Culture skull with hair
A Paracas Necropolis Culture skull with hair (Source)

Now, this statement troubles me. For a start, there is the skeletal morphology. This morphology shows that the owners of the Paracas skulls were Chordates; more than that, they belonged to the sub-phylum Vertebrata (or Craniata), as they possess a bony vertebral column; more than that, they were members of the superclass Tetrapoda, as they possess four independent limbs; more than that, they belong to the class Mammalia, as they possess hair (which can be seen on some of the skulls); more than that, the skeletal morphology demonstrates that they belong to the Primates, as do all apes, including humans, monkeys, tarsiers, lemurs and lorises. In other words, far from possessing “mutations unknown in any human, primate or animal”, they appear to be human. So what does the mtDNA sequenced from Sample 3A mean?

Well, our anonymous geneticist goes on to classify Sample 3A as “a new human-like creature”. So it’s not actually unrelated to the rest of the animal kingdom. That’s a relief. However, it’s “very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans”, whatever that is supposed to mean. Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and Denisovans (exact species not yet determined, although members of the genus Homo) are extinct hominins whose distribution was restricted to Europe and western Asia: one would not expect to find them in South America. If the mtDNA of Sample 3A really is “very distant from Homo sapiens”, the only hominin so far known from the New World, does this mean that the geneticist considers it to be another species within the genus Homo or a member of an entirely separate genus? This is something I would expect them to give an opinion on and I find it curious that they apparently have not.

The hominin evolutionary tree, as understood in 2014
The hominin evolutionary tree, as understood in 2014 (Source)

What is even more curious is the statement that “I am not sure it will even fit into the known evolutionary tree”. This is worryingly ambiguous and can be taken in two ways. It might mean that Sample 3A derives from a species whose position in the hominin lineage cannot yet be determined, but which might one day. I suspect that this is not the intended meaning though. Given the thrust of the rest of the statement, I suspect that it is meant to imply that the mtDNA belongs to a species entirely outside the hominin lineage. In other words, it’s leaving open the possibility that we should regard the sample as deriving from an alien. There does not appear to be any consideration given to the likelihood that the odd features of the mtDNA recovered are not “mutations unknown in any human, primate or animal” but a result of contamination (after all, the skulls were excavated in the 1920s and we do not know the conditions under which they have been stored, how much they have been handled, whether any procedures have been used to stabilise them and so on) or errors in the laboratory.

The statement ends with a very worrying pair of sentences: “Breeding within their small population, they may have degenerated due to inbreeding. That would explain buried children – they were either low or not viable.” “[D]egenerated” is a very loaded term: it smacks of racialist theories and I am surprised that a scientist would use it. Be that as it may, it is true that inbreeding within small isolated populations will increase the likelihood of genetic disorders that will led to the eventual extinction of that population. However, it is quite ludicrous to claim that it “would explain buried children”. Has this geneticist no knowledge of pre-twentieth century population mortality patterns? Before the development of modern medicine, infant mortality rates were high; in some societies, fewer than half of all live births would survive more than five years. The burial of children in the Paracas Necropolis Culture is a perfectly normal phenomenon that can be found in many human societies. To claim otherwise is deliberately misleading.

I find the entire statement released by Brien Foerster to be quite unprofessional. It makes unsubstantiated claims; it deals with preliminary results; it contains at least one outright untruth. This is not standard scientific procedure. Let us assume that the mtDNA sequencing has been done properly. The geneticist states that “[t]he data are very sketchy”: so why release them, particularly when “a LOT of sequencing still needs to be done”? It is very unusual for a scientist to “leak” preliminary results in this way, unless they are very certain of their reliability. Doing it with “sketchy” data is inexcusable. Unless there is a hidden agenda…

Assessing the claim

There are so many problems with the statement posted by Brien Foerster, that it is difficult to see why anyone would take it seriously. For a start, it sits in glorious isolation from any archaeological data. The Paracas Necropolis Culture is not the product of some mysteriously isolated group of non-human creatures: its position within the broader cultural development of prehistoric Perú is well understood. The cranial deformation seen in mummies from the Wari Kayan cemetery fit into a known pattern, termed the Aymara deformity, which is produced by wrapping the skulls of infants tightly in circular bands. This exerts pressure along a transverse axis, through the mastoid region and the region just above the insertion of the nuchal ligament on the occiput. This can cause the skull to appear tri-lobed (as seen in the “Starchild Skull”), although the Paracas skulls exhibit a more conical deformity. The compression may disrupt the normal growth pattern of the skull, particularly along the sutures, and can produce a depression in the sagittal region, exactly as seen in a number of the Paracas skulls. Altering the shape of the skull also alters its volume, despite Foerster’s claim that it does not [edited 19.2.2014 by KJF-M]. Although small variations away from normal volume can be produced, they are not significant. However, while Foerster claims that the capacity of the skulls is too great for Homo sapiens, this is not the case: the Paracas skulls have an average capacity of 1600 cm3 and the human range is up to 1800 cm3 and they therefore fall well within the normal distribution range.

Secondly, the interpretation of the genetic information so far released is said by the scientist carrying out the sequencing to rest on “sketchy” data. Does this mean that further work may modify the interpretation? Is the geneticist allowing themselves a way of retracting the interpretation of further work shows the mtDNA to belong to a perfectly ordinary Amerindian type?

I was initially reminded of another DNA related story, the announced discovery of Bigfoot DNA in 2013 by Melba Ketchum. Although some early analyses of Brien Foerster’s statements regarding the Paracas DNA implicated Melba Ketchum, this is not the case, although Foerster has said that he is working with her, while she has hinted that she has been working with elongated skulls. It thus appears that she is not the anonymous geneticist who wrote the bizarre statement posted on Foerster’s Facebook page. As happens so often with this sort of work, Brien Foerster is asking for donations to carry on the work (the site shows as of today (15 February 2014) that one donor has given $1000, twenty have given $100, twelve have given $50, while there are 38 donations of smaller sums).

In summary, this is a non-story. There is nothing at all unusual about the population of the Paracas Necropolis Culture, apart from the extreme nature of the head-binding they practised. DNA or no DNA, they are fully human: every aspect of their skulls can be explained in terms of genetics (such as the large wormian bone) and culture (such as the cranial deformation). Any statements to the contrary contain a mixture of deliberate deception, ignorance of anthropology, lack of archaeological knowledge and jumping to wild conclusions using “sketchy” data. They are not evidence for aliens or an otherwise unknown hominin species.

Update 20 February 2014

Sagittal synostosis
Sagittal synostosis, from The International Journal of Morphology 27 (2) (June 2009)

There is a condition known as craniosynostosis, in which one or more sutures fuses early. The most common form is sagittal sysnostosis, which is found in about half all cases and suppresses growth in the lateral plane of the skull, compensated by a disproportionate growth in length, resulting in a long, narrow skull. In The Enigma of Cranial Deformation, Childress and Foerster publish a colour photograph of a skull from Camacho (Perú) showing exactly this form of sagittal synostosis, which they wrongly claim shows that the individual had a single parietal plate. As with all their other discussions of palaeopathology, all they show is their ignorance of the subject: they are completely unqualified to write an entire book on the subject if they can make such basic mistakes. It’s a shame that the readers of their book are unaware of the depth of their ignorance.


      1. They don’t. It seems to me screaming racist and whining and name calling is their methodology, along with character assassination and spin doctoring.
        Pot kettle black wrought irony.


      2. I don’t believe there is a 50% increase in the volume of the cranium of the mummy compared to that of a normal human of the same age. You might want to read that again.


      3. Yes.. Talk about Bad Archeology.. The writer makes claims with no evidence , disputes the DNA yet never offers to do his own testing or calling for the community at large to take on the task of doing full testing with independent testers of fact… While you are a tad high on the cranial capacity as the skulls generally are about 15% to 25% greater capacity than modern humans it’s still to great to be explained by manual deformation but there is one childs skull that is close to a 50% increase as compared to a child of the same age based on the suture state … The writer just states that there is nothing to see with no real evidence to debunk the claims with scientific testing… He then falls to attack on a person that was not the person that actually did the DNA testing in order to muddy the water and at no point did he call for Professional Investigations by assorted institutions to settle the science …


      1. Yup. If they were aliens there wouldn’t be male only saved superiority skulls – things would be equal. It’s obviously a primitive race – the human race as we know it today

        Liked by 1 person

      2. No, they are not… not completely. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the skulls in question being shown by Brien Forrester LA Marzulli etc are CLEARLY very different “structurally”.


  1. I can concur that Mr Foerster know nothing about genetics and confirmed that when working with Pye thy had not received any viable test results from said tissue samples but ‘will keep trying until they do’….!!! I have this in writing………….the guy is a charlatan of the highest order……………………!!!


  2. Great article Keith, we are currently discussing this @ the UM site. I would like some clarification on your statement, “Altering the shape of the skull also alters its volume, despite Foerster’s claim that it does not.”

    Altering could mean increasing or decreasing, and I’m assuming that your meaning here is increasing cranial volume.

    Also, does the cranial binding cause the skull plates to grow excessively to close the wider gaps in the sutures? Or are the plates simply stretched due to the binding pressures?
    From article,…”the Paracas skulls, but it is obvious that the frontal bone (the bone behind our foreheads) is stretched enormously; it is also evident that the sagittal suture (between the two parietal bones) begins very high up on the skull..”

    Thanks in advance…BF has claimed for yrs that these skulls are of Alien origin, and has just recently admitted they are human. His choice of geneticists, etc (and his choice of words) doesn’t help to improve his credibility problems.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi John

      Thanks for the praise! As I understand it, the cranial bones are stretched (and this is clearly visible on the frontal bones of the Paracas skulls, for which most photographs show views from the front; photographs showing the sides indicate that the parietals are also stretched): the sutures appear to form quite normally. Presumably, decreasing the volume of the cranial capacity would put pressures on the brain that would cause problems for the individual.

      I’ve been trying to find out more about Brien Foerster, but it’s proved very difficult. As I note in the post, Amazon describe him as an anthropologist, but I haven’t found any evidence for this. He has revealed that the subject of his undergraduate degree from the University of Victoria was in Biology. Some of the websites that parrot Foerster’s claims have described him as Assistant Director of the Paracas History Museum; this appears to derive from a post that Foerster made on Graham Hancock’s website. The Museum’s website is rather basic (the English version appears to have some errors of translation from Spanish) and journalist Rachel Chase has has revealed that it is a privately-owned institution.

      From his own statements, it is abundantly clear that Brien Foerster’s knowledge and understanding of archaeology are limited; so are his understanding and knowledge of anthropology. As for genetics, well that’s not for me to say…


      1. Thanks Keith, I wasn’t sure if the bones could be stretched….esp to that degree.

        I think describing BF as a tour guide is mostly accurate. His collaboration w. DH Childress, and their actions together are comical to say the least….apparently they are also ‘experts’ at stone cutting, etc! (I watch Ancient Aliens TV just for the laughs, and there are many Youtube vids of this pair as well.) Also, I’ve just read your “Starchild” article, another interesting topic. The fringe will believe what they will, regardless of the facts.

        Keep up the good work!


      2. Just because someone doesn’t have half the alphabet in letters after their name, it doesn’t mean they are mentally deficient. Some of the finest discoveries and inventions have been made by ‘unqualified’ individuals; just using common sense and imagination.


      1. Okay, that’s a recent study that suggests the textbook I was using (which is admittedly thirty years or so old) may be out of date. I’m more than happy to accept that. However, the range of cranial capacity in modern Homo sapiens is 950 cm3 to 1800 cm3 (the average is around 1400-1450 cm3), so the Paracas skulls fall well within the range of human cranial capacities. It is not evidence that they are not human.

        As a side issue, why does no-one look at the rest of the body? Was the post-cranial skeleton even retained after excavation? It was common practice in archaeology during the 1920s only to retain the skulls of human burials. If any post-cranial remains have survived, I’m willing to bet that they are indistinguishable from Homo sapiens skeletons.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. OE, thanks for the link.!

          I’m not sure what to believe now. My original line of thinking was to compare the deformed skull to a deforming a balloon, the shape changes, but volume doesn’t. Also, I’ve accepted the fact that the plates are stretched, (and grow) during the deformation process.

          IMO, the skull vault volume may increase slightly, but brain size does not.

          Good point on the skeleton Keith, so much more could be learned.

          Regardless of what BF has said, there was never a doubt in my mind that the Paracas skulls are humanoid, I’m no expert, but I’d like to examine one up close for myself.


        2. It would be very interesting to see the rest of the body. Here’s one for a start:

          I suggest you turn down the audio and ignore the title lest it detract from your observation of the remains.

          It would be foolish to discount the possibility of deformity in this this case, though if this was the case, the individual must have lived long enough to have its skull modified (three to five years?). It also seems unlikely that if this was typical for cone head remains that the original archaeologists wouldn’t have noticed it. Or maybe they chose not to investigate?


          1. Sorry, I seem to be unable to embed that video.

            You might try a youtube search for ‘Anatomy expert believes enigmatic skeleton of Peru is not human’


            1. You expressed an interest in seeing a body associated with these skulls. I provided one example.
              Rather than comment on the body, you denigrate the ability of a person expressing an opinion on it. Do you have a foregone conclusion in this case?


              1. My impression: too many persons qualified on this subject are bristling with foregone conclusions and will tolerate nothing that is not in line with the officially approved version.


        3. Does the example in this video not have a skeleton attached?
          (from the bottom of the article i just read on this topic – first time i have heard of these skulls)

          And with more ribs than a modern human would have…
          Just wondering if this skeleton is available to you? :-)

          Article: )



  3. I am enrolled on the Human Evolution: Past and Future mooc
    by John Hawks and you would (or maybe would not) be surprised at the rubbish people take for granted as truth.Someone is on there spouting sections of a paper as defending the non-sapiens possibly erectus Paracas skulls even after having pointed out to him that the very next paragraph in said paper says it does not mean H.erectus.
    Sigh…..why can I not avert my eyes instead of engaging.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The Paracas Museum is a small private museum – something not uncommon in Peru – located in a town that doesn’t get a huge amount of tourism. Given that, I suspect Brien Foerster managed to persuade the owner that giving him a title in the museum would bring in more visitors thanks to his Ancient Aliens fame.

    The museum does contain skulls from Tello’s excavations, but the collection has increased greatly in recent years thanks to the work of looters. Here’s a video from 2011 showing Brien purchasing a skull:

    Liked by 1 person

  5. One wonders how the skull samples made their way from Peru to the US for testing. As you may imagine it’s tremendously difficult to get official permission to remove archaeological materials or samples from the country. Permits from INC – the Peruvian Ministry of Culture – are needed, and are only granted to archaeologists for good reason. It seems highly unlikely that they’d issue one to a tour guide.


  6. Good point Judith, I’m sue BF had some help in getting the necessary permit(s)…assuming he did get one. Also, did BF purcase the skull from a reputable source???

    I agree 100% w/ what Keith said about their qualifications overall, and esp. so on Childress and BF’s book which is available on Amazon.

    One person gave a negative review there, and the AA fans attacked imm.


    1. It was Judith B. who gave that review! (It’s a small world after all. I thought you name seemed familiar.) And you did a great job JB; your review is in sharp contrast to most of the rest there on Amazon…it’s amazing what the fringe will believe, and accept as fact without question.


      1. P. S. The link orangeelvis gave requires a fee to acess full text of article. (The abstract is good.)

        Alos, you are all invited to join the Unexplained Mysteries website to join in our discussion(s). The skeptics are outnumbered by the fringe there…but we are more intelligent, (haha).

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Have any of the sculls been definitively dated?
    Has anybody commented on the layout of the teeth in the skulls?
    If there is a significant difference in the number and configuration of the teeth it would be decisive either way as an alien would be very unlikely to have exactly the same configuration as homo sapiens.
    Is it not true that the volume of the skulls lies right at the top end of the Homo Sapiens range?
    Does it not appear to be strange to some archaeologists that these elongated skulls are found in Malta, France, South America and North America –
    Does anybody know of any other locations?
    My point is that it would be very unusual for the culture of head binding to be a universal world wide practice unless there was a persuasive reason for so doing AND that there was at the time a connected world wide homogenous civilisation to impose it. In our hugely connected planet today we can’t even dream of this kind of connected culture with universally practised behaviours.
    Notwithstanding what has been said, I am not convinced that totally debunking the idea that these creatures were alien is necessarily the right thing to do without further scrutiny.


    1. ‘Does it not appear to be strange to some archaeologists that these elongated skulls are found in Malta, France, South America and North America –
      Does anybody know of any other locations?’
      How about Australia, Egypt, Russia and Africa just for starters.


      1. Why do people keep bringing up the idea that elongated skulls have been found in Egypt? This seems to be a wrong inference from the head shapes in Armana style art, in which the hereditary dolicocephaly of the royal family is over-exaggerated. Remember that we possess the mummified bodies of some of the people so portrayed, and their skulls do not exhibit deformities of the type depicted in the art of the period.

        Equally, I don’t know of any Maltese skulls showing this type of deformation. Yes, there are dolichocephalic skulls, but this is a perfectly normal type of skull shape (the three classes are dolichocephaly, where the head is long in proportion to its width, brachycephaly, where the skull is broad in proportion to its width, and mesocephaly, where the proportions are “just right”).


        1. I can’t comment on maltese skulls, I was quoting the original post in my response. I had read somewhere that elongated skulls were found in egypt, but can’t find anything on it just now (better check my facts ).

          I do think its interesting though, to compare this egyptian sculpture with a skull found in south america:

          I guess you’ll call that coincidence.


          1. Just found something referring to cranial deformation in Egypt:


            The sociopolitical history and physiological underpinnings of skull deformation.

            Ayer A et al. 2010

            ‘In this report, the evidence, mechanisms, and rationale for the practice of artificial cranial deformation (ACD) in ancient Peru and during Akhenaten’s reign in the 18th dynasty in Egypt (1375-1358 BCE) are reviewed’….. ‘While evidence from ancient Peru is widespread and complex, there are comparatively fewer examples of deformed crania from the period of Akhenaten’s rule. Nevertheless, Akhenaten’s own deformity, the skull of the so-called “Younger Lady” mummy, and Tutankhamen’s skull all evince some degree of plagiocephaly,’


  8. Nope. It’s all true, I seen it on the Tee Vee. On Dat Anceint Allian program. Whooo golly dats like sayin the Annooonnaki ain’t on tryin to steel my gold! Hot MUSTERD!


    1. I did Brien, and quite openly…, but when I pushed you on the ‘facts’ on your FB page and even offered to pay myself in full for DNA testing through a reputable scientific establishment you immediately blocked and deleted me… Figure that…!!! (Alex from

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I also bought the book “The Enigma of Cranial Deformation” and I was shocked to find that a lot of text is actually misquoted and copied from Wikipedia.
    There was a video where Brien was using a rotary tool (and broke off the blade) to cut some pieces of skull. When I asked him on Facebook if this was a video of the sample 3A being taken he removed the video.

    It’s fine that someone is a tourguide and is interested and passionate about something but I think it’s wrong to pretend or bend the information.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sounds like you are full of misinformation. Probably have the book statements wrong too because of your idea about the video being so far off. I quote from the DNA analysis that was actually done, “The samples consisted of hair, including roots, a tooth, skull bone and skin, and this process was carefully documented via photos and video. Samples from three skulls were sent to the geneticist, although the geneticist was not given any information about what they came from until after the genetic testing, so as not to create any preconceived ideas. “


      1. As we have all been asking Brien for so very long… Which ‘Geneticist’…? Any reputable scientist would be more than happy to present such an amazing discovery to the world… If it were valid.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Thank you for the disinformation and thanks for the representing the 75% of the world who will not change and continue to be apart of the zombie or walking dead. THE ONLY WAY WE NO THE TRUTH IS IF MORE AND MORE ASK QUESTIONS.


  11. Whenever this subject is raised I see more ad hominem attacks than addressing of the issues. Lets leave Forrester out of it. I don’t care who he is or what his qualifications are. I saw these skulls long before I had heard of him or any of the controversy and would like to see someone who is qualified address these issues:

    1) Brain capacity.It has been asserted :’the Paracas skulls fall well within the range of human cranial capacities’. Really? Try and ignore the other nonsense on these webpages, but have a look at this diagram:

    and tell me that it is within normal range for Homo sapiens. How about we reputably establish the typical range of the skulls from Paraccus? There’s some seriously big heads there.

    2)Anomalous parietal plates. I have seen many with two (instead of three) and others with five or more.

    3)Anomalous dentition (many are missing molars, and sockets where they would be are also absent).

    4)Possibly natural red hair, not normally present in South American populations.

    There is tremendous interest in these skulls and I find it disappointing that mainstream experts dismiss them as typical cases of cranial deformation.
    Is there really nothing of interest here?
    How about some DNA testing by reputable experts to put the matter to rest?


    1. ‘Lucky’, I’ve looked at the image to which you link, that shows a typical deformed skull in photograph accompanied by an outline drawing of (presumably) the same skull superimposed on a normal human skull, looking much larger. But there is no scale. Also, notice how the deformed skull’s mandible is around 10% larger on the outline drawing than that of the normal skull. Is this legitimate? Secondly, the outline drawings just show the profile of the skulls, not the capacity: the file to which you link is called conehead1.jpg, which gives a good clue about the three-dimensional shape, implying that it becomes narrower as it progresses away from the face. You are right that we need some reliable estimates of cranial capacity for the entire assemblage of skulls from Paracas, something that, as far as I know, has not been provided.

      I’m unsure what to make of your comments regarding the number of parietal plates. Two is the number of parietal bones in all human skulls. You could have looked this up on Wikipedia. I have no idea where you’ve got the idea that three is the usual number; where does the third bone fit? If you’ve seen skulls with five parietals, are you sure that you’ve not been looking at all the bones of the skull or that you’ve not seen Wormian bones (the so-called Inca Bones that I mention in the article)?

      Missing molars are not uncommon. Are aware of what happens to the bone of the mandible and maxilla after the loss of a tooth? The socket fills with new bone growth. This is perfectly ordinary human biology.

      A lot of mummies have red hair. Have you perhaps been reading this? If you read this instead, you’ll learn that hair colour depends on the interplay of two substances, eumelanin and pheomelanin. Oxidisation of the hair, as would occur during decay, results in a greater loss of the type of eumelanin that produces a black colouring; the result is that the hair appears light brown to reddish after the loss of the darker colouring. Again, perfectly normal human biology.

      Yes, the skulls from Paracas are interesting, but not for the reasons you suggest.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You should go take a look for yourself before you crap all over people who are not only actively studying it, but using real science instead of biased opinions of what they think should or shouldn’t be according to their ridiculously small concept of the universe.


    2. Like it of not, BF is involved…unfortunately. Also, the diagram in the link you posted doesn’t specify the size of either skull, so how are we to make a good decision re size?
      It’s still being debated as to whether the intentionally deformed skulls are bigger than a ‘normal sized’ skull. Some do look bigger, and I agree, accurate measurements would be helpful.

      I’ve read many articles quoting ‘normal skull size’ and the #’s have ranged from 1,200 ccm to 1,900 ccm. Everyone’s different, and this also applies to the size of their heads.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. BF is involved. So what? How is that relevant to the existence of these skulls and the questions they pose?

        True, the diagram doesn’t specify size. Nonetheless I find it indicative that the proportions appear correct. Given that the lower half of the skulls that I have observed appear ‘normally’ sized, if you superimpose a ‘normally’ sized skull over these ones you can see that there is a considerably larger brain case.
        To me this is a fundamental area for enquiry; do these extreme examples of cranial deformation display larger brain capacities?


        1. BF’s involvement IS relevant because he is claiming these skulls belong to human/alien hybrids, OR a humanoid branch that doesn’t fit anywhere in the current ‘evolutionary tree’. He is basing these claims on the tiny genetic sequences available to him, (supposedly) and worst of all, (IMO) he is employing Dr. M. Ketchum who is infamous for presenting opossum DNA as Bigfoot DNA.

          The skull’s and the brain’s size is genetically determined in each individual. The intention deformation of the skull MAY increase the cranial vault size, but DOES NOT increase the brain size. (A. Einstein’s brain was of ‘normal’ size….about 1250 ccm; increased brain size doesn’t necessarily mean increased intelligence.)

          Also, intentional skull deformation can and does affect sinus cavities, and upper/lower mandible size/shape.


          1. My issue is not that wild speculation about the origin of these skulls, alien or otherwise, is being discounted, rather that the assumption has been made that these skulls are typical and not worthy of special investigation.
            These assumptions seem to have been made on principle, rather than on an examination of the evidence.

            Without any accurate or reliable measurements (that I am aware of, perhaps you can rectify this), the statement has been made that these skulls fall well within the normal range for modern humans.

            I have observed skulls in Peru which are apparently normal skulls which have been deformed. No problem. They are what you would expect.
            The interest is piqued when you compare these with others which are radically different. In this context, it is not relevant who makes what claims about their origins, or what their credibility or motivation is.

            Clearly there is a lot of uncertainty about whether or not cranial deformation can alter either the size of the cranial vault or the size of the brain. Could you be so kind as to indicate your evidence or your expertise which has prompted you to assert (in bold letters) that cranial deformation does not increase brain size and does affect upper/lower mandible size/shape?


            1. No one said they’re not worthy of special investigation. The problem is about WHO is now investigating them. As I’ve said, we (ALL) need accurate measurements.

              I can only suggest you read the many links on this subject available on the Unexplained Mysteries website, in the Ancient mysteries Section, and go to the ‘Paracas Skulls’ Thread there. (Some articles are fee-based, and you must pay to access them.) And/or search the web.


              1. I accept the fact that BF is involved is relevant, but only in regards to this blog as it is mostly about his claims. I am not here to defend his claims of alien origin, or to add credence to his DNA results.
                I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned that unidentified DNA does not an alien make. As I understand, most genomes will have significant portions of unidentifiable junk DNA which mean (as far as we know) nothing.

                You say ‘no one claims they are not worthy of special investigation’, but rebuttals of BF’s theories emphasise that these skulls are typical examples of head binding.
                For example: “There is nothing at all unusual about the population of the Paracas Necropolis Culture, apart from the extreme nature of the head-binding they practised.’ Also: ‘ the Paracas skulls fall well within the range of human cranial capacities’.
                Don’t these type of statements suggest that they are not worthy of special investigation?

                If our science is free of bias, as it should be, wouldn’t the fact that BF is involved be no impediment to serious examination?
                I have no doubt that if BF claimed that a three and a half feet tall human lived as recently as ten thousand years ago in Indonesia, and presented a complete skeleton (while running tours to Flores to see the location it was found) that this would have been consigned to the annals of junk science, ridiculed as a hoax or another bigfoot story and not investigated any further.

                Perhaps the most valid criticisms of BF are unsubstantiated claims.
                One of the features I find interesting in these specimens is the noticeably different lower mandible shape and size. Could you please substantiate your claim that head binding can and does affect the shape and size of the lower mandible?


                1. My point was that the skulls are still worthy of study because it would help us gain knowledge in cultural, historical, and medical areas. (Maybe it suggests this to you, but not to me, much can still be learned.)

                  Like I said:I can only suggest you read the many links on this subject available on the Unexplained Mysteries website, in the Ancient mysteries Section, and go to the ‘Paracas Skulls’ Thread there, and/or search the web.

                  This site is good, though some are fee-based articles, but you can read the Abstract…


                2. PS, What I’ve been trying to say in a nice way IS: Do your OWN research. The info is available, I don’t have the time to back every point made here.


                3. Thanks John, I am doing my own research. Part of that research is engaging in discussion with experts like yourself. I hadn’t come across reference to head binding affecting lower mandibles before, so rather than accept your comment at face value I asked for your source. I understand if you don’t have time to reply.
                  Thanks for the link to the medical site. I was unable to find anything that referred specifically to the paracus skulls, but I did find something which referred to mandible deformation: (
                  it referred to ‘rocker jaw’ but I am not sure that it relates directly to the variations we see in these skulls.
                  I made quite a few searches on Unexplained Mysteries website
                  ( using a variety of terms but found nothing relating to the paracus skulls. I would really appreciate a link if you would be so kind.
                  One thing I did find on that site which I quite liked was a quote in one of the comments sections:
                  ‘science is about investigating the unexplained
                  not explaining the uninvestigated’


    3. I wholeheartedly agree with you and have been watching this subject for a long long time. What the writer, Fitz, fails to note is that the skull volume is significantly larger than homo sapiens. Why did he omit this incredible fact? Gee we all find it curious why a couch potato scientist who is debunking in-the-field-researchers fails to cite one of the most important elements regarding these skulls. Well his long winded tedious scientist bashing expose just sheds light on how far a mainstream arrogant couch-scientist will go to force his square peg into a round hole, a round cyclic hole that is.


    4. “Red hair” is often the result of burial. The “Bog Bodies” often show red hair as a result of the chemicals in the peat. It’s been also found in other species such as the Columbrian mammoths. Recall seeing a recent article on the chemistry of this (still looking)


  12. A recurrent characteristic of these skulls is larger and slightly differently shaped mandibles, so I would not be surprised if it is legit.
    Having seen these skulls, my (totally unqualified) observation is that many are not substantially narrower as they progress away from the face.
    Looking at them without preconception, it appears that the cranial vault is larger than a ‘normal’ human.
    Clearly some accurate measurements need to be taken before we can say one way or another that they fell ‘well within the range of human cranial capacities’. Blind freddy could see that they are big.

    I must have got the idea about the number of parietal plates from an unreliable source. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to the arrangement and number of sutures in these skulls, which appear to be non standard. Perhaps this is a result of the head binding process, however, ‘typical’ skulls which have been bound display normal arrangements of the sutures. Some of these examples (the larger, more extreme ones with differently shaped eye sockets, jaws and dentition) show considerable variation from the norm.


    1. The red hair on these examples looks nothing like the ones in the pictures on the link you provided, it is way darker and redder. I don’t know that its a big deal; it may have simply been dyed, but again it might be interesting to investigate further, with reputable DNA analysis.


      1. Also regarding the anomalous mandible, if you question the legitimacy of the diagram in this aspect, I suggest you take a look at the picture of the skull accompanying it; you can clearly see that the mandible is massive (around 10%) larger.


        1. I do question its legitimacy, no guarantee and no indication is given that the smaller unmodified skull is normal size….plz see my re, above.


  13. Lester, here’s the link to the UM thread, (I hope, the search there @ UM doesn’t always work.)

    IF link does not work, plz go to UM website, enter ‘Ancient Mysteries and Alternate History’ Sect, and then go to pg 3.of this Sect. The Thread’s exact name is: ‘Paracas elongated skull dna’. There are some good links/info posted there….good luck.

    ( I don’t blame U for not just taking my word….also, I’m not an expert, but I’m fairly well-read on this subject thanks to the UM site, and the above article. The ncbi has 2 free articles on this subject, but all others are fee-based. Shouldn’t we be sharing info freely for the benefit of all?)


  14. Hi, I really respect your work but I have to disagree. If we omit actual forensic evidence as well as what may be literal parts of the bible, we are left with pyramids all over the world with an incomplete timeline as to who built them and why they are all over the world, reports of a pre cro-magnum and pre-nethanderal races of giant hominids all over the world as well as reports that the Incans discovered this race, and unexplainable archaeology all over the world. Pumu Punku and Baalbek have stones perfectly quarried and carried miles away that weight potentially over 1000 tonnes. The Ajanta caves are nine caves in India that are not only intricately built only by removing existing stone from the caves, but also two of the cave temples perfectly align with the sun of the Winter and Summer solstice every year. Gilgal Rephaim in Northern Israel is another site that looks similar to the Stonehenge in the US and the UK. Some Israeli archaeologists even believe that this was the ancient city of Bashan, ruled by Og, supposedly one of the last of the race called the Rephaim, which literally translates into giants in Hebrew. Original portions of the bible such as Genesis, Deuteronomy, and the Book of Enoch, clearly mention this unidentified race. Also, the strange theory (theory because I haven’t actually seen the skulls in Peru), it’s reported that the sagittal suture is commonly missing and the mandible and dentition are significantly different. Feel free to explain your opinion as to why you think different races have significant noticeable differences on the cranium when we all supposedly evolved from one single primate. Last but not least is Ancient Sumeria, one of the first recognized cultures to write and read. If we dismiss all written language and only look at the image recorded by the Sumerians, it shows what appears to be Sumerians kneeling and praising their god, who is the same height as them sitting down. Above they have a drawing of the constellations showing Pluto which humanity didn’t even discover until the 1900’s. Please do not tell me that all these past civilizations were just very intelligent beings. What was their fascination with the cosmos?


    1. Hi Dan, I always worry when people start quoting the bible as a reputable source of anything other than the state of politics in Judea/Palestine during the periods when it was finally compiled.
      Many years ago a BBC Horizon programme debunking (brilliantly) Eric Von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods (I had been impressed when I first read it as someone with no other knowledge with which to counter its assertions). In this they pointed out that without mortar the pyramid is the only structure which can be built to a monumental size. I think you will find that there are timelines for all these monuments. People who want to believe in alien intervention will try to deny much of what is known and pretend that everything is a great mystery. You might find this (and many other sites as well as books) informative. The Incas were around during the 16th century so were way behind Europe and the far East. Other people before them also built pyramids and in Egypt there is plenty of evidence for a learning process as older pyramids had collapsed.
      Ancient peoples seem to have managed to drag huge lumps of rock around all over the world, after all they didn’t have the internet to waste their time on so had to do something! (Only joking – but they did have oodles of time which we, in our ‘civilisation’ don’t seem to have.)
      You ask of ancient people “What was their fascination with the cosmos?” Err, it was all around them? They did not have cities or street lights or any other form of light except for fires at night so the night sky was there in all its wonder, every night. Their intellects were the same as ours and curiosity is a very human trait. Alignments on solar solstices is nothing unusual and easy to do when you know where they occur. it would not take many years of living in a n area to suss this out.
      Also most peoples showed their Gods and kings as being larger than others. It was a sign of their importance. Again nothing unusual. It even persisted in early European medieval art. “Medieval artists ranked humans in order of social importance based on religious ideology. Medieval artwork demonstrated that hierarchy by drawing humans sized according to social status rather than true proportions. ” ( Hope this is useful.


  15. I would recommend a mummies genetic test.
    The result will be probably an unknown specie.
    In the primitive homo spaiens point of view
    may be they were considered as gods or
    at least rulers due to their highly analytical mind.


  16. You rather skated over the only important point about the Paracas skulls. That is their volume. You are improperly comparing the mean to the +4 sigma value. A mean volume of 1,600 cc should be compared to the mean of humans which is usually taken to be 1,330 to 1,350. Given that the standard deviation is about 100 to 120 cc, that is significant.

    I have read in the mainstream literature that some of the skulls have volumes between 2,500 and 3,000 cc, though I have not been able to find corroboration in the peer reviewed literature. If this is true, they would fall completely outside of the human range and would present a very serious problem.

    The mtDNA report is implausible on its face, and I disregarded it when I read it. The most likely explanation would be that a mutation took place that increased cranial volume and because it enhanced the deformation potential was reinforced within the population. However, I am really ambivalent about the whole thing and would prefer to be curious rather than dismissive.

    Great blog, by the way. I would love to have you join us at Polymathica.


  17. Nice skulls – I first saw photos of them back in early 2,000. However, where are the bodies, and where are the scale markings from which to determine stature and height? I can not tell by your photos but the photos I saw had only two distinct cranial sections rather the human three. Additionally, what has happened to all those remains of giants found on U.S. soil before WWII? One can go into newspaper archives and view the B&W’s with impunity. After WWII the photos and the source info just dried up as regularly reported phenomenon.


  18. Skulls/burials like these turn up in Migration Period burials in the Bavaria-Bohemia region. The archaeological evidence points to them being Hunnic. I personally excavated one on a late Roman – early Medieval gravefield near Dachau in c.2008. Probably male, the body was buried not far from a number of deviant burials.


  19. I also find the unusually large eye sockets of these Paracas skulls to be an interesting anomaly. The practice of cranial deformation isn’t known to effect the eye area to such a degree.


  20. What is extremely sad is that people are donating money towards this frud. If only that money could go towards some legitimate science imagine what a benefit it could make especiaally now with cutbacks in basic science funding.


    1. Yep. Legitimate science, thats what we need, like GMO’s for corporate profit, expensive medication to mask social and behavioural problems in children, and newer and deadlier weaponry for the military. (is archaeology legitimate science, or just a diversion?)


      1. Archaeology is a legitimate science when it is done in a way that folows the evidence. This is clearly not the case and as such it is illigetimate.

        Really not sure why you needed to add your rant against GMOs and pharmaceuticals. Guess you have never eaten a banana or taken a tylenol. Good on you :)


      1. Laws of thermodynamics prove that the unprecedented production of artificially generated heat on an industrial scale (home heating, manufacturing, combustion engines, electric power generation etc.) as is the case since the industrial revolution has to contribute significantly to global temperature rise.
        Add to this the emission of greenhouse gasses that prevent sunlight from being reflected back into space to the degree that it was prior to the massive production of the greenhouse gasses by mankind along with the reduction of glacial and ice cap (reflectors) and the fact that energy (heat) is not destroyed and must go somewhere (oceans and atmosphere) mean conclusively that the human factor in global warming is absolutely and unquestionably settled.
        Now we can only hope the problem is not irreversible.


  21. I have visited the private Paracas museum of Mr. Juan navarro Hierro and seen these skulls by my own means and not as part of a tour. I can say, these skulls deserve more research. They definetly don’t look like the Wari, Nazca or other people of that area/time skulls. Instead of complaining about Mr. Foerster work, I would welcome more interest by universities and institutions with the funds and resources to do more DNA testing on this skulls. It is just unbelievable how much this testing is avoided and talk is cheap.
    One point not adressed so far on this comments is the fact that there are also some Paracas skulls with 5 plates; One extra plate on the back of the skull. I find there is a lot of research work to be done yet.
    Julio C. Tello discovered them almost a century ago. His work and conclusions might need to be reviewed in the light of modern science; DNA, carbon dating, MRI, CAD imaging, ground penetrating radar, google earth, etc. There is more there than just the skulls to be studied.

    For example; On the Paracas peninsula there is a place across from Lagunillas beach called Playa Roja (translation: Red Beach), a beautiful beach with it’s shore filled with red pebble stones. Just above that beach on the desertic flat adjacent area (13°53’25.52″S, 76°18’11.58″W) there are craters sprinkled on a rectangular area roughly about 250 x 160 meters = 40,000sq.mts. This area appears to have been subject to bulldozer digging at the south end towards the beach. I suspect it is an ancient Paracas area studied years ago and at some point in time badly vandalized by grave robbers.
    If you trace a straight line from the craters area (13°53’25.52″S, 76°18’11.58″W) to the famous Chandelier geoglyph in Paracas and continue into the sea from the Chandelier, you will reach a small island where only decapitated and only female momies were found. This island is called today Isla Blanca due to it’s white color as the result of guano or seabird droppings.
    If you meassure the distance from the coordinates shown above to the apex of the Chandelier and multiply it by phi(1.61803399…) you get the distance from the craters to the highest point on Isla Blanca.

    Coincidence. Maybe, but there is more, although I will not print it here.


  22. The following comments are made without any support or attack to either side of the Scientific-Evolution vs Religion-Creationism debate. I hold both sides in about equal contempt.

    I take some personal issue with your comments regarding Lloyd Pye. He made his own case regarding the so-called ‘Starchild Skull’. You can character assassinate anyone, but when you make absolutely false claims against folks that I knew and cared about, I have to respond. Your ploy is typical of historical sciences. If you can’t argue the facts, attack the messenger.

    In any intellectual argument, we can disagree with a viewpoint without calling people names or casting negatives about them personally. Lloyd was a thoughtful, bright intelligent human being, willing to live on subsistence wages to follow his passion. He believed in what he was doing, and he had to make a living with his life’s work, and he did, such as it was. The nature of exploring ideas that are outside the current political, educational, scientific or religious mainstreams means by definition the consumer audience is going to be a tiny slice of the woo-woo crowd. Ain’t much left, even if the ideas have substantial merit as a subject of rigorous inquiry. That leaves a small slice of the population whom reject both Science and Religion no alternative but to follow some ideas on those on the fringes.

    A really good example is the current state of 14c testing on non fossilized so called ‘dinosaur’ bones. For 10 years, Dr. Schweitzer made exemplary efforts to explain how ‘collagen and hemoglobin elements’ could survive for 65 million years. All with a straight face, and without ever once subjecting the material to 14c testing. Ten years later, we have over 65 blind 14c test results from non-fossilized so-called ‘dinosaur’ bones with a date range between 12.5K and 42,000 years ago. And you and I both know that 14c tests are the bedrock of Historical Science. What those tests say, is that so-called ‘dinosaurs’ didn’t all go extinct 65 million years ago, but many mid range species larger than an elephant, survived up to and went extinct pretty much around the Younger Dryas impact event of 12,800 YBP. That list includes T-Rex and many other Raptors and Therapods, as well as a range of Stegosaurs and many other Sauropods.

    The above is just a tiny taste of my disregard for most Historical Sciences, only slightly less than than the Religious-Creationist nonsense. For a whole lot of reasons, your personal attack drives me ever further from almost every Historical of Physical Scientific viewpoint. And I had long ago crossed to the other side of the road regarding organized or structured religion-creationism.

    Your lack of perspective, (giving no credence to any other viewpoint, other than your own) doesn’t enlighten us much. As I understand the mass of data regarding ‘elongated skulls’ and particularly the Peruvian specimens, many of the skulls are actually a result of cradle-boarding or binding. And many experts (including Brien Foerster) agree that is the case. The rub is that some of the skulls exhibit characteristics that differentiate them from modern humans to a degree that suggests a possible different linage from us or modern human. But that, in and of itself should be no basis for discounting the questions of the inquiry. That does NOT infer they are anything other than a species of terrestrial carbon based life.

    If you are as well read as you make yourself out to be, you are aware that at current count, there have been about 23 different species of identified hominids in our late Holocene to late Pleistocene past. About 9 are identified from some physical evidence, 4 or 5 are multiple reports of exposure to such evidence. For example, the thousands of reports (and I have copies of over 800 in my collection) from newspaper around the world of giants of various sizes and shapes found in all kinds of circumstances.

    The remaining 10 are of various unknown species from eye witness accounts throughout known history.

    The anomalies that run through the Historical Scientific community are as about as deep and empty as the Black Holes of Physics. Anthropologists, Archaeologists, Paleontologists and Geologists date everything (incorrectly) before they even know the relative details of an inquiry, or subject evidence. That is patently bad science. Dr. Schweitzer is just one of the more egregious examples. Although her discovery will still turn out to be one of the turning points in kicking down the door of a 65 million year old extinction event.

    So, RIP Lloyd Pye, a good friend, mentor, teacher and all around excellent human being. Many do not agree with your position advocating ‘Interventionism’, as I did not, but no one should question your authenticity as a true human being.


    1. Hi John, You mentioned, ‘bad science’ and this applies to BOTH Mr. Pye and BF here.

      BF is NO expert, he’s a tour guide at best. His poor choice of associates has damaged his credibility…..beyond repair, IMO.

      I have nothing personal against Mr. P, but, speculations and assumptions are not proof, no matter how many times someone insists it to be true.

      Talk IS cheap….it’s up to BF to provide valid proof to support his claims IF he expects to be taken seriously, and so far, all we’ve gotten is Bad Arch..


      1. What I said specifically is that so-called ‘scientists’ assign dates and chronologies to everything (incorectly) BEFORE they even know the relative details of an inquiry, or subject evidence. THAT is patently bad science. You are entirely disengenuous by making the reference of ‘bad science’ point to BF and LP. My reference had nothing to do with them and everything to do with so-called ‘scientests’ that misrepresent data and information for their own agenda and time clock of history. How about keeping an open and honest dialogue going, not using misdirection and slight of hand in your responses. You are so far off the wall that you are literally implying that only non-standard theories are financially lucrative for the purveyors of those theories, by denegrating Brian Foerster for making Tour Guide money, while the great hidden truth is that most standard and historical sciences depend on enormous mountains of cash to perpetuate their vice grip on the “facts” of history. Just like ALL explorers, Brian and Lloyd were and are bound to get it wrong sometimes. But that is no excuse to accuse them of being literal ‘charlatans’. They weren’t and aren’t. It has nothing to do with any facts about ‘elongated skulls’ that Brien Foerster makes a living as a Tour Guide Operator. The facts regarding elongated skulls are whatever they turn out to be, regardless of any detractors or proponents means of livelehood.

        If you really need someone’s tree to pee on, go look at mine/. My book is published here:

        If you think Brien and Lloyd give you heartburn, I bet you my stuff will curl your toes.

        John Jensen


        1. There’s no denying BF has been disingenuous re the Paracas skulls. He made false statements that he simply cannot prove. He’s simply promoting Ancient Alien crack-pot ‘Theories.’

          ” My reference had nothing to do with them and everything to do with so-called ‘scientists’ that misrepresent data and information for their own agenda and time clock of history. How about keeping an open and honest dialogue going, not using misdirection and slight of hand in your responses…..”

          You should be applying the above to BF and Pye’s statements…..misrepresenting data is the stock and trade of the Fringe Crowd. Bears repeating: Talk IS cheap….it’s up to BF to provide valid proof to support his claims IF he expects to be taken seriously, and so far, all we’ve gotten is Bad Arch. in the form of BF’s unsubstantiated opinions. (And this should apply to Pye’s work as well.)

          “The facts regarding elongated skulls are whatever they turn out to be, regardless of any detractors or proponents means of livelehood.”

          I agree, so let’s get someone REPUTABLE to do the proper tests, etc. and report the facts.


    2. Could you let me know where you saw the evidence about the dinosaur bones and the Younger Dryas period? I remember seeing Dr. Schweitzer’s comments about iron allowing collagen to still be unfossilized, I think it was a T-rex being transported from a site that provided the evidence? But I had not heard that there was evidence that dinosaurs were alive possibly until Younger Dryas period. I would appreciate if you could point me in the right direction to read about this. Thank you!


  23. I would like to know which sections of the MTDNA sequence were anomalies and what those areas correspond to. I understand that ancient DNA is harder to sequence, but if possible the tests should be replicated and several individuals sampled. Also, how many markers were examined-if money is the problem why not test many individuals on a few markers rather than one on all markers (whole genome)?

    Also, why the distrust of the government? Wouldn’t the government of Peru want to support this research? It sounds like these people lived a typical life of people of that time and region-but more archaeological research is needed. It is an interesting topic; I’m pretty sure further DNA testing will show these were Native Americans related to others in South America, but we have to wait and see.


    1. Don’t hold your breath waiting for further DNA testing. The established archaeologists have decided that there is nothing extraordinary about these skulls even though they have never even seen them. Any further private testing will be disregarded and ridiculed, especially if it produces results which challenge mainstream pronouncements.


      1. What the question should rather be is the following. If it really was alien DNA, why did they not publish the results in a reputable scientific journal and win the Nobel prize in the process. Usually pseudo science runs to the Internet first and claims cover ups before even attempting to publish.


        1. What nonsense. If a ‘reputable’ scientific journal publishing non mainstream perspectives is your answer, you will be spending a lot of time twiddling your thumbs waiting for that to happen. Because it doesn’t. I have hard evidence (and I mean HARD evidence) that proves several facts that do not fit into current the current mainstream scientific narrative, and I couldn’t get any of them printed in any peer reviewed publication if my life depended on it. Not that I have necessarily tried very hard. What happens when you have overwhelming evidence for non traditional facts, (for instance, the more than 65 RC AMS tests performed on semi and non fossilized Dinosaur bones (including a T-Rex, but NOT Dr. Mary Schweitzer’s T-Rex hind limb) returning RC dates between 12K and 42K years ago. No one in the Western scientific community will even acknowledge that the data exists. Yet it in fact does. When scientific attack dogs can’t beat up a person’s credentials, or frame the data as lying, cheating, mishandled, contaminated or other smoke screen bushwa, then they just ignore it with a silence that would defy an outer space vacuum.

          Elongated skulls, and some 23 other anomalous species including various size giants have been recorded over hundreds to thousands of year, alongside unknown aerial craft and their occupants, underwater remains of cities, and technologies from the very far distant past, as well as dinosaurs that are not more than two or three Epochs old, (based on science’s most authentic and accepted testing methods; RC AMS tests) and the lists go on. You cannot make a careful and thoughtful case for every piece of evidence being a fraud, fake, mishandled, etc. To do so, is just junk science of the worst kind. Evidence that is fact based needs to be tested, re-tested until a reasonable explanation can be found for the cases that stand up to the scrutiny. I will readily admit that just like the elongated skulls, many artifacts are not what they are purported to be. But they also are not ALL fakes or lies. So keep shouting fraud. You are in the minority anymore, and one of these days facts are going to put you all out of the shouting business.

          I make the case in my books and papers that I am neither an advocate, supporter or debunker of either gradualism-evolution or creationism-religion. I hold both in about equal disregard and about as foolish as the concept of atheism.

          I do not know what the answer is to DNA, but I do know that it is the equivalent of ‘machine code’ or some form of software language, because it has structure and sequencing, which means, by definition that it has ‘design integrity’. Which ultimately means there is no other logical or rational explanation than it is of some form of intelligent design. On that basis alone, I call bullshit on atheism. I only comment on it because you are so lame you put it in your response name.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. I clearly defined (exactly) my issue with “atheism”. As I understand it, the term is used to define a position that denies any “gods”, “god”, “supreme being” or any intelligence higher than man’s own, has, had, did or does exist. That may be poorly defined, but it is what I understand the term to mean. To reiterate my argument, “DNA, ………. is the equivalent of ‘machine code’ or some form of software language, because it has structure and sequencing, which means, by definition that it has ‘design integrity’. Which ultimately means there is no other logical or rational explanation than it is of some form of intelligent design.” And that my erudite friend, succinctly is my argument against “atheism”. DNA is reduced by logic to “intelligent design”, and it is silly to argue “intelligent design” with an avowed atheist. The complexity of the argument is already lost on you. In general terms, it means that software cannot create itself from a base of non existence. Ergo, it was designed intelligently and coherently. Ask Bill Gates or any other genius programmer of the late 20th century if that isn’t the general premise of software development. And that is what you have with DNA. Intelligent Design. Period. Whoever, whatever, however did IT, they, them, those or IT coherently designed DNA, it wipes away the ability to deny some form of unknown, maybe unknowable intelligence beyond our realm of reference. All we know is that we DON’T know what or who the IT is.


          1. First up, my handle is the name of my website. So honestly, I am glad it irritates you.

            I think your whole argument can be summed up as follows which goes back to my original comment. This is verbatim what you said.
            “I have hard evidence (and I mean HARD evidence) that proves several facts that do not fit into current the current mainstream scientific narrative, and I couldn’t get any of them printed in any peer reviewed publication if my life depended on it. Not that I have necessarily tried very hard.”
            You have not tried hard? Cleearly you do not understand the scientific review and publication process. Its hard work and it takes a long time, with multiple rejections and resubmissions etc.

            BTW: At least two of my published papers have taken more than a year to get published, due to process and resubmissions etc. This is science this is integrity, this is how it works.


            1. Part of the problem, I think, is that those outside academia have no understanding of the peer review process. To many people, it looks like an Old Boys’ club, with reviewers ensuring that only papers that fit the “accepted model” are allowed to be published. Those of us who do submit papers for peer review know that this is a completely unfounded view of what the process is. If someone submits a paper that only backs up the status quo, then it will more than likely not be accepted, unless it takes the form of a major review of the published literature. Papers that present innovative analyses, new data or better still, new hypotheses, are much more likely to be accepted, provided of course that they are rigorously argued. Scientific rigour is something that people like Brien Foerster and David Hatcher Childress appear not to understand. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming this to be mere ignorance on their part. There are some, though, for whom this sort of ignorance is decidedly wilful. This attitude seems to pervade the creationist camp.


          2. Radio carbon dating does not work much further back than around 50K years and will always result in erroneous results for older samples. This is nothing new and so called “creation scientists” seem to be the only scientists unaware of this limitation. Using the inevitable spurious “data” then conveniently “supports” their resultant disinformation.


          3. I hardly ever post on message boards, but the AMS dates on dinosaur bones that you have mentioned twice is just too much. I have to take the bait. Radiocarbon is the gold-standard of archaeological dating because we rarely deal with deep time. All chronometric techniques have a limited range of accuracy. C14 is fairly accurate within the range of tens of thousands of years into the recent past. But due to the same decay of radioactive carbon that makes the technique so predictable, and the use of samples for calibration, AMS dating is only accurate up to around 55 or 60 thousand years before the present. Objects that are older than that time frame contain too little radioactive carbon for the amount of C14 in the sample to be accurately measured, even with AMS.

            There are other means of dating that far exceed the range — but not necessarily the accuracy of C14 — that should be applied to something that you can reasonably assume is older than about 55 or 60 thousand years.

            It is OK to use one type of chronometric dating or another, but your a priori assumption about the age of the object will inform your conclusions about the data far more than the data itself.

            In this case, no matter your sample size (n = 65), applying C14 to a dinosaur bone is like plunging a kitchen thermometer into the sun and concluding that the surface must be no more than 300 degrees celsius.


    2. The Paracas skull are not the only conical and abnormal humaniod skulls. A good example can be found in the Chicago University dig from 2000 – 2011, by Paleontologist Paul C. Sereno and his team. They were originally looking for dinasaur remains and stumbled upon a human grave yard that operated for thousands of years, at a now dried lake bed – at Gobero, Niger. The internmnets were abviously done with care leaving behind flowers and other cerimonial items, placed withthe bound-up bodies. What is so unusual, is that the find demonstarted two types of humans. The first group called Kiffian were permineralized from a long term flood that covered the area to a heigh of at least 70 plus feet. These skull were dated to about 10,000 BC and have conical skulls, large eye orbits, with bone pertrusion brows, and they are exceedingly tall. Of the remains I saw, it took up an eight foot table without having the shoulders, neck and head displayed. The second set of burials, the Tenereans, are still calcium in deposite, are very similar to a skull and body height for today. These remains were dated to between to about 4,500 BC. The dating used extensive geologic diagraming of the ground morphology, and use of several methods of dating to include Optically Stimulated Luminescence for the periferal sand layers. So there you have it in one amazing find. A civilation with conical human skulls and out cropped brows, standing as giants at around 12,000 years ago, and a second group of skelletons just like modern man dating to 4,500 BC. And the bonus is that world Elite scientists admitt the climate changed throughout North Africa sevral times without flatulating cows, and automobiles. Now where have we read all of this before!


      1. Frank, if you want to make a plausible scientific case get someone to proof read what you type. Your English is awful, as is your interpretation of archaeological data. I bet you have never even been on archaeological dig of any scientific standing


      2. Frank, thanks for the fascinating lead about Gobero, Niger. However, from the pictures I’m looking at, the shape of Kiffian skulls does not even remotely approach the gross deformity of the Inca skulls. The differences between them and their replacements, who show up 3000 years later, seem more illustrative of human diversity and evolutionary dead ends, rather than a proof of alien visitors.


      3. ;Brian doesn’t talk about aliens, he suggests the Paracas people originated in the middle east where more such skulls have been found. The fact they are so unusual than ordinary human beings doesn’t mean other worldly origin. After the collapse of Atlantis it is possible survivors spread out all over the world and tried to pass on their knowledge and technology. It would make sense of the the amazing buildings, walls, tombs, temples, cities that were built around the world, particularly the pyramidal structures. More and more of them are being found and no common sense answer for the primitive peoples living there ie aboriginals.We may just have lost a whole section of our memories, our human history,

        Let us not limit our imagination until all the facts are in. There’s still so much of the world to explore. We may find some very surprising answers about where we started from.


  24. if you all are such sceptics about Foerster’s claims and are such ‘experts’ in the field, why have none of you taken samples yourselves and had the DNA tested so we can all know whether Foerster’s claims are true or unfounded.

    with just your words (and, frankly, no idea of what your credentials are), your scepticism is just as absurd as any of the claims being made by Foerster and Pye


    1. No-one has taken samples because there is no need. The skulls are human. It doesn’t take DNA to prove that: the morphology alone is sufficient. As Foerster is evidently in cahoots with the owner of the museum, I suspect that he controls all access to the skulls.

      If you search this site, you will discover what my credentials are. Suffice it to say that I have been working with human remains for almost thirty years. I am well aware of what to expect from a human skull and the Paracas skulls are 100% human.


      1. Typical. ‘Move along, nothing to see here’.
        A population of humans with noticeably larger brain size and several anomalous anatomical features. A bizarre, dangerous and painful procedure inflicted on children across several continents over long periods of time, often associated with megalithic stone works. Are you so jaded or certain of your worldview that you have no curiosity?


          1. So you’re not curious…?
            Where is your analysis?
            You have debunked (analysed?) Foresters claims, and repeated the conclusions of earlier research.
            Have you handled or even seen these or any of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of similar skulls that are found in South America and other places?


      2. I do not understand your certainty. These skulls are clearly very different from standard human skulls – not only in degree (size/volume larger than normal) but also in kind (two cranial plates versus three in normal human skull). It seems the only certainty is uncertainty, until one can get their hands on one and study it completely. Anyone who hasn’t done so who espouses “certain” conclusions would seem to have an agenda other than seeking truth, wherever it may lead…


        1. But the cranial capacity is within normal human variability. No mystery there. The alleged single parietal is simply a product of the obliteration of the suture, a well known phenomenon. Again, no mystery there. When you take into account the evidence that the Paracas people were relatively isolated, it becomes easy to see how certain uncommon genetic traits – relatively large cranial capacity and sagittal synostosis – could become much more frequent.

          My biggest problem with Brien Foerster and his supporters is that they show minimal understanding of human osteology yet feel empowered to shout about allegedly mysterious features of ancient skulls that to anyone with any knowledge of the subject are simply part of normal human skeletal development and cultural practices.


          1. I think taking cranial capacity variance at face value and applying it here is a bit of a stretch. First of all, how do we know what the cranial capacity really is? Secondly, there should be a ratio of eye socket size or cheek bone width to cranial capacity. Simply saying it is “within normal human variability” means if these skulls have “normal” size in the facial structure, but have the cranial capacity of Andre the Giant, then that IS a mystery.

            Furthermore, sagittal synostosis combined with the dramatically increased cranial capacity for multiple skulls CAN be explained by the small population, as you say – but is it the simplest (and most likely) explanation? It is, if you presuppose that homo sapiens is the only possible genetic source. If you were looking at ancient animal or dinosaur fossils, I would imagine most educated and reasonable people would believe they had come across another species…


          2. The problem IS, that you are making statements as if their universal certainty is a given, when nothing could be further from the objective truth. There is very little that is factually ‘Normal Human Development’. The fact that known different species, as well as racial groups have very different skeletal development characteristics, though hotly debated between the igalitarian advocates and the OOE adherents, means those same kinds of variation, whether between species, as is so visually demonstrable between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, or between racial groups, means that another species and or racial group, even though exinct, could and should be so identified as ‘different than homo sapien-sapien’. As is, of course the case with Neanderthal, Denisovan, Cro-Magnon, Australopithecina, Red Deer Cave people, Homo Floresiensis, Homo Ergaster et. al. All of whom have distincly different physical characteristics. So it is more rational, rather than less rational to accept so called ‘elongated’ skulls as representing a different hominin species status than any of the other above extinct species.

            You sound like you are advocating against an ‘alien’ association, and if so, you should have no qualms about saying so. I would agree with that position whole heartedly. That is, that the world wide phenomenon of ‘elongated’ skulls represent at most a separater hominin species and are NOT extraterrestrial or ‘alien’ in any way. That being given, there is little value assigning an igaltarian sapien-sapien viewpoint to them.


            1. To JJ, Regardless of what you call them, they ARE Humanoid skulls, and do fit, (somewhere) on the Hominin branch of the ‘Evo’Tree’.


      3. Right on the money Keith.

        It’s not surprising BF isn’t allowing anyone but his ppl to examine, etc. these skulls.I’m NO expert, but I’d still like to take a closer look, etc of these skulls.


        1. You guys have been arguing about what the argument is for weeks. For people wanting to argue they are 100% hominids then provide some type of evidence at least and the same goes for those arguing they are not then should so the same. Questions bring more answers not the other way around. A real scientist is never 100% certain and always continues to look at all evidence on both sides. Why is it that these types of skulls have been found all around the world? Why are these same skulls depicted in Egyptian hieroglyphics? There is no evidence to suggest that these cultures all over the world, without ever communicating, just all happened to wake up one day and decide to deform their childrens skulls with planks, something that should not even change the total amount of cranial space if they did anyways.


          1. No. Remember, the first rule of making a claim that goes against the mainstream is to provide evidence that the mainstream explanation is wrong. Those who are claiming that the Paracas skulls are aliens/a separate hominid species are the ones who need to demonstrate that. The default position that these are perfectly explicable Homo sapiens skulls is the one that stands until shown impossible.

            Of course there is no certainty. The idea of &ldwuo;proof” is restricted to mathematics (despite what lawyers might claim), which is why I talk about evidence all the time. To make the claims that Brien Foerster does about these skulls demands evidence that he has not presented. And, to judge by his public pronouncements (including the appallingly amateurish Wikipedia-derived The Enigma of Cranial Deformation, co-written with Daivd Hatcher Childress), he doesn’t know the first thing about hominin anatomy. That has to be a base from which to build. Either these skulls belong to the hominin lineage or they do not. Morphologically, it’s abundantly clear that they do. The next question is, do they belong to the genus Homo? Again, the morphology is pretty clear on that. The lack of a nuchal crest, lack of developed brow ridges and the presence of a mental process are all very clear signs that this is Homo sapiens.

            As for the idea that similar cranial deformations are &ldquo:depicted in Egyptian hieroglyphics”, the first thing to point out is that you’re not actually talking about hieroglyphs (the elements of the monumental writing system), but artistic depictions, both painted and plastic (no, not polymer-based, but sculpted). As I’ve pointed out before, we actually have the mummies of a number of people depicted with these elongated heads and their skulls don’t show that deformation. Whatever the reasons for this particular style of art, they have nothing to do with the true shape of the skull. It’s artistic convention. You are treating Egyptian art as if it depicts the world in a photo-realistic way. At no point in the history of Egypt was its art ever meant to do this. It showed an underlying, ideal reality. The Platonic forms of the world, if you like. The fact is that we don’t know what these depictions were intended to convey. Amenhotep IV is depicted like any other Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh, but after the development of Atenism as the state cult and his change of name to Akenaten, so depictions of people – not just him, but everyone – get these strange, elongated heads. There is no shame in admitting that we don’t have an explanation. But it’s certainly true that it has nothing to do with depicting people with strangely-shaped skulls.

            And as for your assertion that archaeologists explain these skulls by insisting that “these cultures all over the world, without ever communicating, just all happened to wake up one day and decide to deform their childrens skulls with planks” completely ignores a first principle of archaeological/historical investigation: find the date! Cranial deformation occurs in a number of cultures across the world but, for the most part, these cultures were not contemporary with each other. They had no contact. Their means of deformation were utterly different and specific to the culture in question, which is evidence enough for the independent origin of the phenomenon. Some use boards. Other used bandages. It’s pretty obvious to any mother that a baby’s head is pretty malleable, so a culture that placed value on a certain shape of head would invent ways of creating, enhancing and exaggerating that specific shape. Because these people are long since dead and buried, we can’t ask them why they did this to their children. As archaeologists, we try to understand the social reasons that might have made them do this.

            And, please, get over this idea that the deformation of the Paracas skulls “change[s] the total amount of cranial space”: as I’ve pointed out, these skulls capacities lie entirely within the normal distribution of cranial capacities for Homo sapiens.

            Provide some real evidence that these skulls cannot be explained as culturally modified human skulls and palaeoanthropologists and archaeologists will start to pay attention. Until then, they will rightly treat Brien Foerster’s statements about the anomalous character of these skulls despite his utter ignorance of human anatomy as undeserving of their attention.


            1. You dismiss the idea that cranial deformation was a feature in ancient egypt. I present again some of the literature related to this, which you did not respond to when I originally posted it above:


              The sociopolitical history and physiological underpinnings of skull deformation.

              Ayer A et al. 2010

              ‘In this report, the evidence, mechanisms, and rationale for the practice of artificial cranial deformation (ACD) in ancient Peru and during Akhenaten’s reign in the 18th dynasty in Egypt (1375-1358 BCE) are reviewed’….. ‘While evidence from ancient Peru is widespread and complex, there are comparatively fewer examples of deformed crania from the period of Akhenaten’s rule. Nevertheless, Akhenaten’s own deformity, the skull of the so-called “Younger Lady” mummy, and Tutankhamen’s skull all evince some degree of plagiocephaly,’

              and there is also the image posted above of the extreme similarity between an elongated skull from peru and the sculpture from egypt; you really think this is coincidence?


            2. Great post Keith. The alternos think that they don’t need any supporting evidence, and they fully expect all to simply take their word for it.

              There is evidence that the Neanderthals also practiced intentional skull modification.This practice certainly didn’t happen overnight.

              The few examples of Egyptian ‘elongated’ skulls we know of are the result of genetic defects…. these ppl were born this way-their skulls were NOT intentionally modified.


              1. You make bland blanket statements without any support whatsoever and use that statement to justify a position that is not only specious but specifically wrong. What you derisively say ‘Alternos’ think is one of those derisive statements. What they think is subjectively and entirely your own opinion. They do present bookfulls of supporting evidence for their view. Whether you accept that evidence as valid is another separate matter entirely. I am not going to argue their ‘evidenciary facts’ here, but dismissing them outright is as unscientific as you claim their viewpoint to be.

                Both Lloyd Pye and Brien Forster have made substantive claims as to the morphology of both the Starchild skull in particular and the Peruvian and other elongated skulls in general. Their work stands or falls on their own evidence. It is either true or it isn’t. If it is, (meaning DNA and c14 tests) then you have to deal with what those facts mean. If they are not, like any scientist from Darwin on that makes a claim that is later determined to be false, all you have is folks making scientific claims that turn out to be falsified. Falsification is part of the scientific process. Deal with it, and don’t freak out and character assasinate those who held the previous falsified view and or have different opinions than you. I don’t know anyone including folks writing this blog that have falsified (in detail) Lloyd Pye’s technical analysis of the Starchild skull’s morphology.

                You are a nitwit it you think Lloyd Pye and Brien Forster are any better or any worse than any other person making good or bad analysis of specific data and information. Even Einstein’s theories are being questioned regarding Newtonian Physics and Gravitation today, and even though Tesla said Einstein was a ‘parlor magician’, that does not make Einstein a charlatan. Neither is Lloyd Pye of Brien Forster or David Hatcher Childress. Regardless, you don’t have to like them or their viewpoint, just be as scientific in your criticism as you would expect for yourself.

                Character assasinating Brien Forster for being a Peruvian Tour Operator and using the attraction of Eleongated Skulls to book tours is no different than castigating an Egyptian tour operators using the Giza Plateau as a tour booking mechanism. There is nothing dishonorable in either. It is a process used in Universities today to bankroll scientific and Archaeological field exploration.

                No one, no thing, no position or analysis is all good or all bad. There is some positive and some negative value in every viewpoint and that applies to the three mentioned folks as well as it does to you.


                1. Skull modifications are indicative of social mimicking, as are tattoos, and nose rings today. So who were the Egyptians mimicking? An up close evaluation of the wooden/terracotta bust of the Egyptian god Horus will reveal his eyes are wide apart with no obvious ear structure, elongated face, and an extremely long skull, with brow extenders. So the answer could be that they were copying the style of the known gods. [who the gods were is another dilemma, and depends upon you humanist or religious view] The practice of skull modification was also found in the Americas in Paraguay and other central South American Indigenous cultures.

                  However, there is only so much deformity that can be attributed to skull modifications. It is similar to the physics dealing with the conservation of energy and the Carnot Cycle. You can’t make a skull with more surface area than what it already has. The proof in the pudding, sort of speak; do the skulls in question have more surface area than the average Neanderthal or Crow magnum skull. I will be they do – about 25 to 50 % more!

                  But then again, the New Magi may prefer to come up with a new technique for head twisting and pulling by suggesting a similar device based upon elongating the ears or perhaps neck ringlets! Sink me – it another Africa epiphany! Anything can become plausible when ignoring the obvious in favor of the politically or scientifically accepted correctness! Tally Ho – Royal Society!


                2. Pye and BF gave their opinions based on their assumptions and speculations. They made unsubstantiated claims regarding these skulls, and have yet to provide valid scientific evidence to support their claims. It’s obvious, BF and DHC do not abide by the scientific method but instead make false and misleading statements to promote their Ancient Alien agenda.

                  The dishonorable part is their making false claims, e.g.(quoting from above article) ” Brien Foerster managed to persuade Juan Navarro Hierro, director (and owner) of the Paracas History Museum (sic: on the sign outside the museum, the name is given first in English, then, smaller, in Spanish) to part with some tissue samples. He claims that he did this because “[t]he only way to establish the actual age, and possible genetic origins of the Paracas people is through DNA analysis of the skulls themselves”. Dating human tissue by means of DNA analysis is such a new technique that I can find no other use of this remarkable development in any other archaeological investigation. Of course, there is no such dating technique: this is Brien Foerster displaying his ignorance of archaeological dating techniques!”

                  Not to mention Dr. Melba Ketchum, a Texas Vet who became infamous for claiming Opossum DNA was actually Bigfoot DNA.


                3. Great comment John! This is probably one of if not the most accurate, scientific, and impartial comments on this thread. It seems that no amount of evidence will even have skeptics question the mainstream theories as they will argue over what counts as actual evidence every single time and say that any mainstream theories must be proved wrong first. That doesn’t sound like a scientific way to look at things. To me, the fact that there are hieroglyphics around the world depicting hominids with large than norm skulls is archaeological evidence. To me, the fact that these skulls have reportedly been found all over the world throughout history is evidence.

                  You bring up one of the best questions that scientists can never explain. If these cultures were actually installing ropes and planks on their children in order to alter the development of their cranium, why did they do it? More so, why have cultures all around the world without ever being in contact all have the common idea to alter their cranium??

                  Personally, I don’t believe they woke up one day and decided to start doing it, but were actually mimicking something like you said. It seems that one of the issues with under researched science is that not only will it always attempt to find the most logical solution, even in cases where logic is not explainable. For example, Cusco, Peru, where the Pre-Incan construction is significantly more advanced than the Incan construction, so much to the point that the Pre-Incan construction looks almost as if the perfectly cut stone blocks were literally melted together.

                  There is extensive evidence on ghosts and supernatural spirits and still science can explain let alone understand this. My opinion is that present mainstream science is not as open minded to looking at evidence that might contradict it. Add to that that the evidence would most likely refute evolution as we know it and also challenge the Church and you have a significant motive to make sure these areas of science do not get researched or have peer reviewed articles written on them in a non-biased and impartial format.


                4. Most of the comments on here do not even scratch the surface of the known facts about both the Starchild Skull and the Peruvian elongated skulls. Rather than dealing with facts, you all tend to spend your time castigating the character, motives and personal perspectives of the presenter of such info. Typical for Science and Education arguments. If you can’t argue the facts, attact the messenger. I personally am really tired of it. I am not going to keep talking to folks that are so biased and truely brain locked regarding this and so many other subjects.

                  I am not going to make Lloyd Pye’s case about the Starchild Skull again for him, because he did a yoeman job in two books on the subject. The case he made, is that the cranial morphology of the Starchild skull could NOT have been the result of cranial deformation for several reasons; and two, the skull symmetry (both sides of the frontal portion) were too exact to be the result of hydrocyphaly. In a nutshell, he argued that both conditions leave well known and well understood characteristic on skulls that have been effected by either or both conditions. And that the Starchild and some of the elongated skulls do NOT share any of those traits connected with either condition.

                  Anyone that would argue that a group of skulls that share similar anolomous characteristics are the result of a procedure that conventionally do NOT share those specific characteristics either does not understand morphology or is just delusional. Some Paracas skulls DO show some form of cranial deformation, but not the majority as I understand the evidence. Some also show some forms of hydrocephalus exposure. So, in my opinion, those should be eliminated from the evidence argument, as both Lloyd and Brien have done. That being said, there are many examples where the skulls show collective differences from modern human skulls, which appear to be significant enough to suggest modern DNA and C14 testing will provide further clarification on their age and relationship to modern human. It is a quite easy falsification step. Test the anomalous skulls to get a valid DNA profile and C14 age regression.

                  My understanding is that valid C14 tests have already been completed, but I could be wrong on that. In any case, there is no valid reason whatsoever, that the argument does NOT rest entirely on accurate DNA and C14 tests of the skulls That is all that any competent researcher wants. Test the damn material before you pontificate about the character of the persons asking for those tests. The skulls identified as ‘anomalous’ are either 100% homosapien sapien, or they are not. Their is no third alternative. Period. If they are 100% modern human, Lloyd and Brien are both wrong, and the arguments made on this forum are technicslly accurate. If the DNA tests show “other than human” then Lloyd and Brien are vindicated to whatever degree the tests show they are.

                  Because you don’t like the implications, does not mean that valid scientific tests should not be performed on the skulls. Same argument I have been making about the T-Rex hind limb that Dr.Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State found which contained “elastic collegan and hemoglobin elements”. Test the material Dr. Schweitzer. Please. Just test it. If the material shows no discernable carbon, then the material is older than C14 limits. If, on the other hand the material returns a date certain range, deal with it. All that would happen is the world would turn upside down from the falsification of “65 million year old dinosaur extinction” legends in our science and education materials. That is the scary result of actually falsifying our sacred tennats of science and education. Dinosaurs did NOT collectively go extinct 65 million years ago because we now have over 360 actual DNA tests worldwide of non fossilized dinosaur bones returning dates of between 12,000 and 42,000 year before present.

                  Lets open up our collective consciousness and do the same testing (both C14 and DNA) on the Paracas and Starchild skulls. Which is a straight forward falsification process. If you guys are vindicated, then crow from then on, but if you are not, then shut this site down and shut the fuck up. I am entirely happy to wait for those scientific test results. Are you?


  25. I am also wondering where your data about the cranial capacities comes from, seeing as you assert that their capacity lies ‘entirely within normal distribution of cranial capacities for Homo sapiens’


  26. My main point there was BF has yet to provide any valid evidence to back his claims. The Alternos, (NOT derisive, or meant to be degrading, simply what they are called….’Fringe’ is another) have a hard time accepting the fact that they are required to submit valid evidence to prove a given claim to Mainstream, (just like everyone else). It’s a part of the Scientific Method.

    I agree Mainstream could be more open-minded, but due to ppl like E. Von Daniken and Sitchin, they remain very skeptical of ANY Fringe claim w/ good reason.

    Why intentional skull modification was started, and practiced is a matter of contention. IMO, it’s a part of expressing their cultural identity…like wearing jewelry, a certain hair-style, tattoos, etc.

    I agree w/ JJ on this part: “My understanding is that valid C14 tests have already been completed, but I could be wrong on that. In any case, there is no valid reason whatsoever, that the argument does NOT rest entirely on accurate DNA and C14 tests of the skulls That is all that any competent researcher wants. Test the damn material before you pontificate about the character of the persons asking for those tests. The skulls identified as ‘anomalous’ are either 100% homosapien sapien, or they are not. Their is no third alternative. Period. If they are 100% modern human, Lloyd and Brien are both wrong, and the arguments made on this forum are technically accurate. If the DNA tests show “other than human” then Lloyd and Brien are vindicated to whatever degree the tests show they are.”

    The problem is BF won’t allow ANY independent researchers to examine and test the skulls.

    BF didn’t hesitate to pontificate about these skulls before any test results were received. His opinions are not facts. It’s not surprising, DHC doesn’t enjoy a good rep either among the Scientific Community, and their collab on their book which contains a fairly large portion of material that they copy/pasted from Wiki doesn’t help.


    1. The idea that BF “won’t allow testing of the skulls” is almost Saturday Night Live spoof material. Here is the reality on that. BF does not ‘Own” or “Control” any Paracas or Peruvian elongated skulls that I am aware of. There are several locations in Peru, from legitimate state museums to academic displays, (and some private displays) that house various elongated skulls, all of which are subject to Peruvian Law regarding antiquities. Several folks in Peru have gone to prison for running afowl of those laws. (The Acambaro Figurines, The Ica Stones, and Elongated Skulls and other funerary items to mention a few.)

      It is my understanding, that because it is a crime to remove extant artifacts from the country of Peru, no one is currently willing to ship any of the skulls or portions thereof out of the country for testing. Any testing to be done, has to be done through certifed Institution requesting release of material from the appropriate govermental agency in Peru. American institutions won’t test the material now, so it is a Dicksonian puzzle trying to figure out who has the will and power to get all of the pieces to aline so the testing can be done.

      In the meantime here is the case in chief made by Lloyd Pye about the Starchild Skull:

      The Starchild Skull is a 900 year old bone skull found in Mexico in the 1930s. The Skull has been tested and examined by various medical and scientific experts since 1999, and no condition or deformity has yet been identified that can explain its wide variety of abnormal characteristics.

      Starchild Skull Tests Conducted Include:

      CAT Scan, which proved the Skull was not deformed by abnormal fusion of the cranial sutures (the bone plates of the Starchild Skull are not stuck together in a way that stopped the skull growing properly and changed its shape)

      X-Rays, which showed the bone of the Skull to be uniformly thinner than normal human bone, that it had no frontal sinuses, and that there was no fluid or other abnormality between the brain and the inside of the skull.

      Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Analysis discovered highly unusual microscopic fibers inside the bone of the Skull

      Expert Analysis of the physical structure of the bone, which identified the bone as much thinner and lighter than normal human bone, but also discovered that it is much stronger than human bone, a feature possibly related to the fibers in the bone.

      Birth defects across the entire occipital and parietal areas, while not impossible, seem highly unlikely because of the remarkable symmetry exhibited in all areas of the skull, including those affected by the deformations. The terrain of the bone in the eye sockets contains incredibly subtle indentations and ridges that are perfectly symmetrical in both sockets, which simply have to have been formed by genetic directions rather than by deformations.

      The rear deformation extends from the crown to very near the foramen magnum, an area impossible to reach by any binding device due to the thick neck muscles (even in a child) that surround and support the skull-spine connection.

      Head binding cannot extend below the inion (the bump at the back of the head). Head binding leaves a gaping opening at the top where skull bones fail to fuse.

      DNA Analysis, which is preliminary and ongoing, has already uncovered both human and non-human DNA in the sample, and left experts optimistic that further testing will provide enough evidence to prove the Skull is a new species, or at least “different than human”.

      Full Disclosure: Lloyd Pye was a close friend before his death in Dec. of 2013. He was in the process of writing a book regarding “The Last Great Cataclsym-7,000 Years Ago”. with me prior to his sudden and fatal illness. I finally released the book this year under the title “Earth Epochs”.

      I did not agree with his analysis that the Starchild was a possible “Alien” or “Alien-Hybrid.” I argued with him that IF, through scientific testing the Starchild Skull, much like the Elongated Skulls were determined to be non-human, then the most those facts could argue is that the skulls were simply another terrestrial species of Hominins or Hominids, and the tests could NOT prove the ‘other than human’ remains were in any way associated with so called extraterrestrials or aliens.

      I think I was close to getting Lloyd closer to my side of the argument, but being a hand picked student of Sitchen, he tended to stay attuned to the “Interventionism viewpoints” contained in Sitchen’s work.

      My argument stands on its merits. IF DNA and C14 testing determine either the Starchild or the Elongated Skulls prove to be “Other than Human”, that does NOT mean they are anything other than another species of terrestrial hominins or hominids.

      In my opinion, all you egalitarians want there to be only one OOA progenitor. Sorry to spill hot tea on your rambles, but there are at least 9 and maybe as many as 14 known species of hominins from our historic and pre-historic past, and more coming to light every day.


      1. Can we have a definition as to what “alien” means? Superficially, I suppose it means extra-terrestrial, but it could be defined as, extra solar, inter-solar, or Galactic. However there is another possibility, inter-dimensional. Mathematical physics depicts a 10 dimensional cosmos. We represent the four dimensional universe, so where are the other dimensions? If major astrophysicists – to include the Jesuit priests running the Lucifer radio telescope – believe that there is life other than ours – out there in the universe, and NASA spends large sums looking for water and compliment atmospheres – like earth’s – then it is not urban legend, but qualified science to ask if something is “alien.” Additionally, Einstein told us to look for things that at the time we could not see or measure, and yet, we have found many things his mathematics declared existed – black holes for one. I suggest that the Paracas skulls may be inter-dimensional or a hybrid of human and alien – something the British Royal Society believes is possible, since they have been doing, and continue to do, genetic splicing of human-animal, human-plant DNA. As wild as this explanation may seam [it is NOT a speculation] – the fact is any number of major scientists and institutions would agree that there is other life somewhere in the cosmos. Therefore, consider the possibility that the Paracas skulls could be “NOT human,” and devise a series of strategies and experiments to prove or disprove the possibility of “Alien” origin. Simply, grinding away at plausible denials only fuels the fir of ignorance and bad science fiction.


  27. A decidedly different view regarding so called ‘extraterrestrials’. Throughout recorded history, and in our ancient past there are wit-nessed, photographed, documented or bone fragment-fossil remains from at least 23 distinctly different hominid-hominin body types. There also exist thousands of drawings, paintings, cave art, artifacts, weavings, figurines, frescoes and pottery depicting so-called ‘astronaut’ im-ages and some form of ‘saucer like’ or other aerial or ‘flying’ craft.

    Myths and legends abound from nearly all cultures around the world of ‘visitors’ that arrived ‘from the sky’ in some kind of aerial vehicle-craft, where they then proceeded to develop and teach agriculture, water management and other civilizing technologies to the locals, following which they abruptly departed in their ‘aerial’ vehicles, promising to return at some future or later date.

    In the 1950’s, Immanuel Velikovsky, Charles Hapgood, and others began to propose a chaotic, cataclysmic Earth, with short duration stable periods, followed by Near Extinction Level (ELE) catastrophic events which ‘wiped out’ or nearly destroyed the biological envelope of the earth. Shortly after that period, Zachariah Sitchin and Erich von Däniken grouped some of the various theories into an “Ancient Astronaut” theory.

    In the last several years, certain protagonists , and particularly Von Däniken’s hirsute assistant, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos have developed a collected hypothesis based on much of the above artifacts and associated myths and legends that meld the sightings, representations and artifacts depicting ‘crafts’ and ‘occupants’ into a polyglot ‘ANCIENT ALIEN’ theory. In addition, super-imposed over the “Alien” theory is an enormous umbrella ‘conspiracy theory’ that the Government “knows all about it, and is in fact “covering everything up.

    What makes the ‘Ancient Alien theory so scary, is that like any faith based ‘religion’, it is predicated on a stunning lack of evidence (hard artifacts) of either hominin or craft, let alone the first shred of proof of exactly where in the Galaxy, Universe or Multi-Verse these so-called ‘Aliens’ came from.

    Whatever, or whoever “They” are, like every other species on Earth, “They” are more likely rather than less likely to be part of the fabric of all carbon based life forms indigenous to this planet. It’s a little audacious, and not very scientific to single out one species and assign it a potential or possible non-terrestrial origin. Because, from what we know currently, the Starchild skull and the elongated skulls are more likely, rather than less likely to share some part of their DNA with other hominids and other carbon based life forms on the planet.

    That makes it very likely “They” are FROM this planet, and not from somewhere else out there in the Galaxy or Universe. Every single piece of information associated with “Their” various body types can be explained in terms of being an Original Terrestrial life form, easier than say-ing “They” are from somewhere ‘out there’. Please note that I never allude to the fact that ‘they’ might have gone out there somewhere, and then returned here to Earth (their home planet), or that some may still be “out there.” All those scenarios are possible, but not necessarily probable. Previous populations on this planet of all kinds of families of carbon based life forms have produced divergent and splendid panoply of variation in their family linage during particular short, shorter, and longer ‘Epochs’. (Or periods between ‘catastrophes’).

    The point was, and is….that some Earth based hominin group in one of the Epochs in the not so distant past had the capabilities of space travel. At least historical references seems to attest to that as a fact, as well as very clear reference to space travel in the Book of Enoch, The Sanskrit Epics, (Mahabharata and Ramayana) and the many other depictions of craft and occupants throughout history also attest to that fact. Because those ‘testaments’ exist, does not mean necessarily that either the craft or occupants are originally “FROM” out there somewhere else in the galaxy or universe. It was and is much more realistic to refer to unknown ‘Other Terrestrials’ as ‘Ancient Astronauts” than it is to call them “Aliens” or “Extraterrestrials.”

    “They” have significant DNA matches to other living organisms on Earth, which logically means “They” are more likely to be FROM here, than they are to be FROM somewhere ‘out there’. If there were a single piece of hard evidence of any kind, that could ONLY have come from some other environment than our Solar System and/or Earth, then I might listen to an argument that accounted for that particular piece of evidence, and then I would still argue that it is just as likely that the OT’s (Other Terres-trials) traveled OUT to that location, got the artifact and then returned.

    This Earth is just as likely to be their home base, with bases on the Moon, and Mars as any other scenario. The idea that ‘They’ had more time to evolve somewhere out there in space doesn’t meet the facts of our own growth as a civilization. Where is any proof of how long it takes a cultural group to attain space flight? We are the only example there is, (that we know about) and we went from burning people at the stake for their religious beliefs, to putting men on the Moon and then bringing them back safely is something around 250 years. It just didn’t take us very long to go from making fire with a couple of sticks to listening to Peter Jennings on the Evening News.

    ”Why” any other Hominin group or culture couldn’t do it is just rhetoric. It is a proven fact that it can be done, (because WE have done it,) so it is more likely, rather than less likely that BECAUSE it has been done is our recent past it most certainly could have been done in some pre-cataclysmic ancient past.

    The deepest natural resource (oil exploration) core drills go down about 55,000 feet. They all demonstrate layers that have random and often alternate patterns of material. Sandstone for several feet, then slate, or limestone, then sandstone, then silicate, then sandstone, then limestone, etc. Most layers average about 14 foot deep, or geologically speaking, give, or take, about 7,000 years.

    One is nearly 250 foot deep (red sandstone) representing nearly 120,000 years, though many are 2-5 feet deep. For the global surface to change from limestone (ocean bottom) to sandstone (Land) requires a catastrophic event that often was probably very close to an extinction level event. A good example is the Mt. Tubo event about 74,000 years ago. Molecular Biologists agree that the Human Genome Pool was narrowed down to about 5,000 breeding pairs of Homo sapiens at that time. What that evidence suggests is that every hominin culture that has grown into a full civilization has done so in one of the periods between cataclysms. And like us, in a fairly short period of time.

    If one of those cultures obtained interstellar space flight, as we are on the edge of doing, putting contingents of the culture into space to avoid a coming catastrophic event is not only logical but almost certainly true. Once living off planet for any length of time, one to two thousand years, their morphology would change to something different (in a weightless environment), and if the catastrophic event changed the electrostatic field of earth enough that it caused super giant plant and land animals to go extinct, then the OT’s probably stayed out there (Moon, Mars or other space Base) for a very long time after the deluge.
    And they probably haven’t completely adjusted to the current electrostatic field density (the current construct of ‘gravity’) on this, their home planet.

    And last, the OT’s do in fact share some DNA with other carbon based life forms on Earth. We have good DNA samples from both the Starchild and the Elongated Skulls. They both share some common DNA with other hominids as well as most other life forms. Note I said some. I am not advocating they are any closer to ‘Human’ than they are to a sea cucumber. They share some of the same DNA. That is what makes them more likely, rather than less likely to be part of the biological fabric of this planet.

    Hominids are a very tiny percent of the carbon based life forms on earth. The OT’s (based on the Starchild and Paracas Skulls DNA) share a significant portion of their DNA with ALL other life forms on this planet, which means it is more likely, rather than less likely that ‘they’ are an intrinsic part of the fabric of that biology. It is much more ‘fantastical’ to postulate “They” came from somewhere far-far away to Earth just to find they are a near perfect match to terrestrial DNA”, than it is to recognize “They” are much more likely to be an intrinsic part of the fabric of carbon based life forms of this planet, than any other postulate.

    To clarify my thoughts on the machine code nature of terrestrial DNA; There are two parts to DNA. One is what used to be termed ‘junk’ DNA which is understood as NOT having strings of ‘active’ or ‘functioning’ code, which now are understood as possibly being the ‘instruction set’, that when activated, defines the ‘blueprint design’ of the ‘replicate shell” or body, or chromosome structure) and produces (outputs) the code as a physical form, The DNA of that body contains the ‘instructions’ to replicate itself in its original environment, and that is the DNA that we can copy, duplicate, ‘read’ and analyze. The DNA at that level is environmentally specific, and so would vary widely from one biological environment to another. (As it does here on Earth).

    The master instruction set (to build or blueprint the specific chromosomes design) would be universal, but the result would be specific to a particular environment. So, if that scenario is true, I see no logical reason to assume any replicant carbon based life form (body) from any other system in the Galaxy or Universe to have any similarities at all to those from our planet.
    Only by some astronomically rare set of circumstances would the two even be remotely related. The only scenario I could even imagine is if the x-planet was “exactly” like Earth in all aspects, meaning Lithosphere, Biosphere, Density, G force, etc. Any change in ‘G’ force, with a change in the chemistry would radically alter life forms in ways we can hardly imagine.
    There is a distinct relationship between all carbon based life form’s DNA on this planet, where the similarities in both design and structure as well as what appears to be identical strings of DNA suggest a direct link between humans, hominids, hominins and the entire panoply of flora and fauna, both past and present.

    We share somewhere around 97% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, 94% with great apes, and well over 50% with a sea cucumber. We share less with the DNA of the Starchild. But that is for another argument. Why ‘interventionists’ insist of calling hominins ‘extraterrestrial’ when every sighting every recorded shows creatures and their craft as being ‘here’ (on Earth, the Moon and probably Mars) That could, or might make them ‘Other Terrestrials’. They are here as evidenced by tens of thousands of eye witnesses, tens of thousands of photographs, drawings, depictions, representations of craft and occupants. The “Other Terrestrials” or “OT’s” have 5-6 generally different body or exoskeleton shapes and sizes, they travel in craft that have 3-4 general shapes, and exhibit 3-4 specific non-gravitational characteristics including various degrees of transparency, including instantaneous visibility and invisibility. Craft also travel at incredible speeds, make right angle or reverse direction hi speed turns and appear and disappear on radar and other tracking devices instantaneously.

    They reportedly have been observed in some limited form on or near the moon, but that fact does not make them any more ‘extraterrestrial’ than a moon rover, other than the significant similarities.

    To speculate on where “They” are from is as meaningless as attributing any “purpose or meaning” to their observed behavior. At best we can document and categorize what is observed. The preponderance of evidence will eventually lead to some general conclusions, the most obvious being that craft behavior suggests some form of anti-gravity control, likely to be artifacts of an electrostatic field ‘envelope’, (actually, Los Alamos NL Scientists know that to a degree of near certainty).

    The above demonstrates that observed phenomenon of “Other Terrestrials” are in fact elements of actual dimensional craft and occupants, that they have been here as long as recorded history exists, and likely far into the pre-historic past. That, however does NOT support that “They” are “Extraterrestrial” or from somewhere else in the galaxy or universe.
    Without speculation or guesswork, “They” are “Other” and/or possibly “Unknown” terrestrials. If “They” share DNA with ALL of Earth’s flora and fauna, then “They” ARE from here. This is the most logical conclusion, based on the known facts. And it is the fundamental reason I don’t think so called ‘Aliens’ ever existed ‘Out There’ somewhere else first.

    The odds are astronomical against a biological envelope existing out there on some other planet in this or some other Galaxy, that matches exactly our environment, and THEN that environment producing a near identical body replicant of an Earth Hominid with DNA that matches ours, at least close enough to hybridize both. It is completely outside my realm of reference to even contemplate.

    Not only do I not think it happened, I don’t even think it possible. That statement however, does NOT suggest that I do not think other Carbon Based Life Forms exist out there somewhere in the multiverse. It is highly probable and almost statistically certain that they do. Because life as we know it is based primarily on the number one and number three most prevalent atoms in the known Universe, which are Carbon and Oxygen. And those are, as any 6th Grade science student knows, the atoms that when combined, make up a molecule of Water. It follows that if Carbon Based Life Forms are made up primarily from Carbon and Oxygen (Water) and those are in the top three of the most prevalent atoms in the Universe, then it is almost a statistical certainty that those atoms have formed molecules of water throughout the universe in every imaginable or conceivable environment.

    If carbon based life forms are a statistical certainty based on their universal water based nature, that does NOT mean they necessarily are composed of DNA strings as the building blocks of their life form, nor does it mean they would necessarily have any resemblance in any way to carbon based life forms here on earth. That being said, NOTHING is impossible, but some things are closer to impossible than just being improbable. The concept of extraterrestrial hominins is about as impossible as anything that is simply improbable can be.


    1. Well written…most of it made sense….
      till I reached the point where Mr.Jensen creates water from carbon?!!!!!
      H20 is water and doesn’t have an atom of carbon involved.
      Basic Chemistry might not be his forte. But he uses it and even point to being #1 and #3 elements in abundance in the Universe as a verifiable statistical fact on his argument.
      Sometimes I wonder how much is being said on the internet, without real data and/or facts considered with good scientific foundation. And because one or two or more statements sound about right or logical…we fail by falling into the temptation not to question and scrutinize everything said and consider that all said is true, correct and from good sources and that it makes sense and use it later as our own data base for future reference; sometimes because of lazyness, sometimes because our inability to verify everything said.
      So the first step for everybody here discussing the issue would be to fly to Peru and check the skulls personally.
      Second do your independent DNA studies.
      Third, only argue with arguments in the aerea of your expertise or find help from those who know and learn before making any statement.
      Because the oversight of just one bad fact or data in this delicate matter can imply the whole proposition is cheap and irrevelant and a candidate to be discarded.
      Be careful.


      1. Rebutting my argument by attacking a single word misused in context, and probably an editing error, is small, cheap and insulting. Cetainly, I know the content of H20. I, different than you, have a book published on the this and related issues, which makes me a subject matter expert on the argument. And you have a lead and pewter sword for an intellectual weapon.


        1. John J. I am not rebuking your argument nor am I against you.
          I am just asking anyone trying to proof a new point of view to be careful, accurate to the extend of what is possible, exactly because of the quote by Niccolo Machiavelli that you mention on your book: “There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old system, and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by
          a new one.”

          I am on your side, if finding the truth or defending the status quo are the sides in question.

          Regarding swords: I once was read on a wall the quote; “The wise do not tell everything they know, just enough to be understood.”

          To find the truth, one of the requirements is not only to be brave but:
          One must be humble of heart.


    2. John,

      A fascinating read. You obviously went to some length and effort, and I thank you for that. Not having the background in occupation and study to formulate a very astute picture of this ( elongated skull ) culture from a biological perspective, I’ve fixated most of my energies and time on what they ( presumably they ) created and built. This aspect I’m far better equipped as a civil engineer and land surveyor would be.

      I have, however, gave much thought into the Alien v Indigenous debate ( no one has ever called it that I’m sure, but me, you get the idea though ). Though massively less informed than yourself, it is still a relief that I’ve leaned towards what you’ve so eloquently described above.

      How would you liked to have been a fly on the wall for just a single day around that species?

      Thanks. And again, was an absolute pleasure to read… .


  28. Keith Keith Keith…

    A diligent Defender of the Faith. One might even respect that. But that’s where the respect ends. Much like an ‘ institutionalized prisoner ‘ in that you’re so indoctrinated you sadly can’t even believe that which you can physically touch and see.

    It’s the Status Quo or nothing. Correct, Keith?

    Are you tenured, Sir? I’ll presume so. Retire, friend. You’ll leave just as much a mark and legacy among your peer and this world sitting in the park feeding the ducks.


    1. I challenge you to demonstrate where I am indoctrinated as a Defender of the Faith. For one thing, archaeology is not a faith. Archaeology depends on the analysis of data, its interpretation and its use to formulate hypotheses about the past. Hypotheses are constantly subject to testing and, when they are found wanting, new hypotheses are proposed to account better for observations. I am fully open to having existing hypotheses overturned. I’ve been doing archaeology in one form or another for almost 40 years, 30 of them professionally. In that time, I have seen accepted explanations revised, re-revised, overturned and reinstated. That is how real archaeology works and it’s a process that pseudoarchaeologists like Brien Forster can’t get their heads around. They simply don’t understand it.

      So, Scott, it’s far from “the Status Quo or nothing”. Any archaeologist who presents a brand new hypothesis that better explains the data than previous hypotheses has their career made. Again, frauds like Forster don’t understand that.

      And I’m not tenured, as I don’t work for a university. I have no intention of retiring just yet, nor do I have any ambition to leave a mark and a legacy. My role in my profession is to do my best to understand and interpret the physical remains of the human past. I don’t matter: if you’s looking for an ego to attack, look elsewhere. What does matter to me and what I am passionate about is challenging people with limited knowledge and understanding of the past, like Brien Forster, who are trying to make money by duping the gullible.


  29. Keith,

    The world has moved on without you. You’ll discover the ducks enjoy oats. Healthier for them than bread

    Good bye,

    Scott Black


      1. Hello, Mr Fitzpatrick-Matthews:

        It’s been a while since people sparred here, but I thought I would add something that scientists have probably thought about long ago and will therefore only sound naive.

        CAVEATS: First, there is no chance of these skeletons being the remains of a new, non-African, hominid, species, let alone an extra-terrestrial. Those are extraordinary claims which required extraordinary proof that I don’t see. Second, i know nothing about the ancient public health of Peruvians.

        Is anything known about the incidence of congenital hydrocephalus, Arnold-Chiari Malformation, or the like among that population? For congenital cases, the symptoms would present shortly after birth. Perhaps some of those infants were chosen to be the subjects of the deformation since they were already obviously deformed. Inversely, and I wouldn’t be surprised about it at all, perhaps the traumatic act of skull deformation caused hydrocephalus. The swelling then only needed to be guided and shaped until the sutures began setting.

        Thank you and Happy New Year!


  30. As one of the other posters wrote – these are Hun skulls not alien. The Huns did things a little differently than your average Joe.


  31. The DNA results have since been confirmed, so your “skull binding” theory is debunked. Skull binding does not increase cranial capacity. And infant “boarding” leaves a flattened area which is not present on the Star Child skull. Further analysis indicates it is the skull of a mature adult, not a child. These beings are short with an enlarged, dual lobed skull. And their DNA is nothing like humans. Nice try, but the evidence is against you.


  32. Several issues come to mind… Where are the major scientific community even making an effort to test, verify these and the other discoveries while it’s left to a few individuals without the resources needed to settle the questions … There are Many skulls , not just one or two.. but dozens where the actual cranial volume runs from 25% to 35% greater than average modern human skulls.. This does not happen in cranial deformation as it only changes shape and does not change actual brain size… There are several cultures around the planet that use cranial deformation in the past so the question is Why? One group doing it could be a local tribal construct but when you have several separate and isolated groups doing the same thing then their is generally a Root cause such as observing such peoples with elongated natural head shapes and attempt to mimic what they saw as a superior species.. As for a disease process I would agree if it was a single skull or even a couple but there are dozens and so that speaks against such disease …. Also a feature of the natural elongated skulls is also the basic facial structure.. The lower mandibles are massive in comparison to modern human … These factors should have Real Anthropologists and assorted scientific communities running to get samples for far more than simple DNA testing… They should be beating down the doors to do spectral analysis of the bone, teeth and hair… They should be doing complete DNA strand constructions of a bunch of the skulls .. They should be doing MRI scans of known elongated skulls and the claimed natural elongated skulls for detailed comparisons… They should be doing electron microscopic examinations … If for no other reason to provide absolute evidence there is nothing to see…


  33. First visit here and you almost had me believing you until you got to the part where you compared the average Paracas skull capacity of 1,600 cm3 to peak human skull capacity of 1,800 cm3. The average cubic capacity for women is 1,130 cm3 for women and 1,274 cm3 for men. Source –

    Very disappointing that you would choose to behave so disingenuously. Not going to read any more of your rubbish.


  34. First and foremost: English is not my first language, so excuse the errors I may make. I have noticed some of you are keen to comment on grammatic errors.

    I started reading the debate with great interest, but my interest decreased the further it went, since everyone is just repeating themselves over and over and no new proof from the BF-believers seems to be presented.

    I for one do believe aliens must excist, concidering the vastness of the universe and the amount of other solarsystems in our galaxy. Believing that humanity is the only species with knowledge of advanced technology in the face of such a reality is in my opinion not entirely thought through.
    And before you start yelling about me being unable to think outside the box: yes I do love sci-fi novels.

    In fact I write sci-fi myself.

    But to be honest with you BF-believers: the stuff BF presents regarding the skulls is not credible, and maybe because I write stories, I recognize them when I read them. In this debate Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews side is the most plausible, and if the sci-fi guys don’t agree they will have to prove their part with credible facts to be believed. Facts are, after all, what a good sci-fi story must be based on, so if the facts aint good, nor can the story be.

    To use ancient Egypt as a proof of something occuring in Peru seems like a strange jump to me. I don’t know a lot about osteology, but I know some anatomy and I know a lot about ancient Egypt. It was not a part of their culture to elongate skulls. The few (very few) examples of mummies with elongated skulls that have been found in Egypt are more likely to be the victims of a congerital malformation due to the fact that the nobles in ancient Egypt sometimes had children with their siblings, children or parents. They were not aliens.

    Concerning the anatomy I would like to see the entire bodies and not just the skulls before I judge. If the skulls belong to aliens, then the bodies would look alien as well. Evolution is in this case the best way to judge between the two parts. Concidering the fact that the animal life in Australia has developed very diffrently from the animal life in other parts of the world only because of Australia’ s long geographic isolation, I conclude that even the anatomy of a humanoid alien must differ very much from the anatomy of a homo sapiens, since an alien species would have been developed on a planet thousand of lightyears away from earth. Honestly I think there would be more differences than similarities between our species and an alien counterpart.

    My conclusion, based upon the facts here presented and my own slight knowledge and some sensible reasoning, is that I have to side with Keith on this matter. The skulls are human. I f you want to convince me otherwise, you will have to provide plausible proof that thy are not. This far, nothing written from the BF-side makes any sense.

    I would love to see some serious science in the alien field. Sorry, but people who make things up do not help the cause to prove the existance of aliens.

    // Jo


    1. Very nicely written and I agree with what you said (I am also a sci-fi writer). I like to watch Ancient Aliens to see how far and how many times they will leap to try to connect incoherent dots…that and I love the views of the ancient sites and monuments.


  35. After having read ALL that i feel i need to make a comment, and maybe offer an outside point of view as i’m NOT an archeologisch/biologist or paleontologisch, but rather an engineer, and as an engineer who deals a lot with expected deformation patterns of various objects, i can say with some degree of certainty, just by looking at these pictures that….

    If you take a “normal” human skull and start deforming it intently in order to create a fashion trend that produces a more elongated skull. Ie if you were to take a “normal” human skull and make it pliable in order to elongate it but WITHOUT changing it’s volume…

    You would most definitely NOT end up with anything that looks like the paracas skulls. These skulls have clearly had something other than simply deforming done to them, as they have clearly become larger in the process.

    Now like i said, I have NO qualifications in terms of biology and so in that respect i’m forced to go on what is already said here, and what was said was that the volume was not increased… and i certainly don’t agree with that, based purely on observation. I think if you look at it objectively, anyone would reach the same conclusion.

    I must say that i am VERY curious to see these skulls researched by an objective and qualified faculty, and i’m saddened that the community has essentially completely sidelined these skulls and not even bothered to do the research. Isn’t anybody who is qualified at least a BIT curious about these skulls? Personally, i would be thrilled to get my hands on one of them and do some measurements on the bone density, volume, thickness of the cranial plate, etc etc. Even I, who am not qualified to make any conclusions as to the origin of these skulls, could do some measurements and rule a number of things out or give rise to further research (interest?!) from someone more qualified. SO my question is… why hasn’t this been done yet?!

    Also I find the claim that these skulls are “very far removed from homo sapiens” and “not part of the evolutionary tree” to be rather hard to believe based simply on what i’m seeing here. The skulls seem to be composed of bone, if they were really outside of the evolutionary tree of alien in nature, i find it difficult to believe they would made of the exact same “stuff” as life on earth. Secondly, they have a jaw, they have 2 eye sockets, a nose, ears… these must be the most unoriginal aliens ever. Clearly they are related to mammals, moreover, they are related to apes. Obviously these skulls either ARE human (that had something yet unexplained done to them), or they are some kind of crossbreed. In both cases this would show in the DNA and this would not result in something completely outside the evolutionary tree.

    I must say it’s very disappointing to read that these skulls were discovered almost a century ago, and all we have is some pictures to go on, zero data. If i’m reading all this correctly, nobody even ever BOTHERED to take any measurements from these skulls before simply concluding that they are “unremarkable” in that respect… They certainly don’t LOOK unremarkable. Now that’s just BAD science right there.

    If cleared a component for manufacturing based solely on pictures of said component that would make me a very bad engineer. If i cleared a component based on pictures that obvious looked abnormal, that would make me unqualified as an engineer! No, what i need to do is look at a sample, take measurements, write up tech sheets, do stress testing, etc… you know, go through the motions?

    So… why isn’t this being done? I’m just having a very hard time imagining there is no interest in this. So yeah, i don’t get it, and when people don’t “get it” it means they are missing a piece of the information… so what piece is that in this case? What am i missing here?


    1. Frank, thanks for the fascinating lead about Gobero, Niger. However, from the pictures I’m looking at, the shape of Kiffian skulls does not even remotely approach the gross deformity of the Inca skulls. The differences between the Kiffians and their Tenerians replacements, who show up 3000 years later from a different area, seem more illustrative of human diversity and evolutionary dead ends, rather than a proof of alien visitors.


    2. it will continue to be in the news until scientists address the issue in an humble, openly inquiring way to the satisfaction of those they love to portray as the figurative unwashed masses. How do they do that? Well, obviously not by drumming up a defensive, pre-judged, and painfully obvious attempt to preserve their own status quo. The very fact that mainstream responses to any outside-the-box speculation consist basically of ‘We know everything there is to know, there’s no mystery here, and that’s final! Stop talking about it – you are exasperating us!’ (and don’t forget to include the obligatory, condescending ‘sigh’) is enough to make any rational person suspicious of the motives of such dogmatic, hidebound researchers and theorists.


  36. So…ALL the skull samples would have the sagittal sysnostosis condition? Me thinks not. I do not think they are aliens, nor do I think it is head-binding. Perhaps another answer here. You went on quite a rant about the DNA, but I think you kind of skipped over the verbage ‘mtDNA mutation unknown…’. Unknown mutation can be found in just about any DNA. But yes, knowing the author, it is obviously slanted towards ‘it must be ALIEN!!!!’…you can hear that screaming between the lines. I’m not a fan of Forrester at all, but I do like Childress. When you pull him away from the ancient alien stuff, he’s actually a smart open-minded guy.


  37. documentary Sirius the braking of DNA of a little skeleton with elongated skull ended with unknown DNA “composition”. It is on You Tube. If you compare the pictures of binding skulls with those of elongated skulls, there are nowhere even close to the volume. In Tut’s grave were two mummies of kids with elongated skulls, as his mom’s head sculpture has elongated skull as well.


  38. really dislike how mainstream scientists, when faced with something seemingly outside the norm that regular people get excited about, become defensive and attempt to quash that excitement using ridicule and condescension. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to get an advanced degree and make a living as an archaeologist. However, most people have the capability of learning quite a bit about a given subject if they are interested in it. I really wish that, instead of implying that anyone who questions you is an uneducated idiot, you would instead acknowledge the excitement people feel and encourage their interest in learning. Instead of saying ‘there’s nothing unusual about these skulls’ how about ‘tests so far have not not shown these people to be anything other than ordinary humans.’ Whether you are able to see it or not, there is a big difference in those two statements, and only the second one could be considered accurate. You act as though you already know all there is to know about these skulls and that there’s nothing to see here, people, move along, now, when in reality you know very little. Mainstream scientists have put forth explanations for things that, time and time again, turn out to be arrogant, ethnocentric, or just plain old erroneous assumptions. I get the distinct impression that you – admit it – would absolutely HATE it if one of the amateurs you mentioned turned out to be right about something. That and some things said in the comments, like mentioning the Bible implies racism and that ancient texts are not to be considered factual makes me think mainstream scientists and their butt-kissing acolytes are nothing but a bunch of closed-minded and rather timid sheep.
    Oh, and what about the skull tested in February 2017 by Dr. Todd Disotell, molecular anthropologist at New York University? The Paracas skull he tested had Scottish maternal DNA. Not alien, but certainly alien to pre-columbian South America. I think that’s interesting, but you undoubtedly are already trying to come up with ways to refute his findings, no doubt with as much eye-rolling condescension as you can muster.


    1. “Not everyone has the luxury of being able to get an advanced degree and make a living as an archaeologist”. Luxury – yes, getting heavily in debt to get through university, doing a plethora of badly paid jobs to put food on the table while doing so is truly a luxury. Do you personally know many archaeologists who actually make a decent living – who have no issues with pensions or health care and a clear, guaranteed career path? I can count the ones I know on one hand.

      As for “but you undoubtedly are already trying to come up with ways to refute his findings” – you are, no doubt familiar with the concept of peer review?


    2. I for one would be absolutely thrilled if some of the unusual assertions made about the Paracas skulls was well validated by science. It would also be fascinating if SETI came up with a demostrably intelligent signal from beyond our planet, or thousands of other “ground changing” scientific results. The ones that really change our understanding of the universe significantly are the most interesting to me.

      But most fringe science claims are a dime a dozen, and seem to be largely a waste of my time. That doesn’t mean I know 100% of the claims to be false, or that I wouldn’t be thrilled if some of them turned out to be true – only that it’s a lot of work to sift the wheat from the chaff with an estimated low probability of valuable results. When and if an assertion turns out to be supported by solid evidence, see previous paragraph – YAY! I care not a whit whether the initial lead came from an amateur or not, only about the final scientifically validated results.

      You are right that most people can learn quite a bit about a subject if they are interested. However that’s not the essence of what science has brought into the world of men. The core of science is more about the wise and ongoing filtering of knowledge in order to discern that which is more likely to be objectively true. That is, you can learn a lot about the leading theories about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, but still have possess any scientific knowledge. More important than imparting (any kind of) knowledge per se, is imparting the exquisite balance between open mindedness and skepticism that science represents.

      I don’t actually find the writing of the scientists here to be dismissive of all questions; I do sense some impatience with the quality and tone of some types of questions (and assertions). It’s relatively easy to deal with genuine questions from people who are willing to listen to the answers with an open mind. It’s harder any of us humans to have patience with smug assertions or questions which reflect a person with an obvious chip on their shoulder or an belief system about which they have a far from open mind.

      So I do think your suggested rephrasing is better and more respectful, and I think it would be even handed if you also coach some of those making assertions and asking questions as to how they too could better phrase their own contributions. Respect goes both ways.

      I want to acknowledge one dynamic at play which is nobody’s fault. Suppose somebody, who has read or watched a given assertion, comes onto a forum and boldly makes that assertion. For them, it may be the first time they’ve publicly passed on that assertion (or question), or the first time in this context; they would understandably expect to be treated respectfully as they have not personally earned any disrespect here (say by building a bad reputation). However, from the other end, the respondents may have addressed that same assertion dozens of times, only to find it cropping up like crabgrass, and they can lack patience – also understandably. I fault neither side here, this just gives me more understanding and compassion for both sides. (It’s like having an unusual name that prompts many people to make the same obvious joke – to the joker it’s fresh and deserves a laugh, to the recipient it’s very stale and tiresome. Understandable from both sides).


      1. “That is, you can learn a lot about the leading theories about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, but still have possess any scientific knowledge. ”

        Oops, a slipped edit. Read that as “…, but still not possess any scientific knowledge.”


  39. I think you may not understand how science works. For one thing, every scientist is constantly on the lookout for something novel; it’s hard to get published much less win respect and acclaim, by merely validating current theory once again. Think of all the scientists whose names you know; pretty much every one of them became famous not by sticking to the existing orthodoxy, but by finding something new that expanded upon it, or changed its direction.

    Nor do you gain scientific recognition by “defending the mainstream” or conventional science to laymen. That’s hardly close to novel, much less does it show up in any professional record.

    However, the goal is not just “novel” but “novel and well supported by evidence”. Echolocation in bats, or plate tectonics (“continental drift”) are good examples; they did not advance to become widely accepted in science by convincing a few thousand laymen via popular books and TV; instead it was based on accumulating solid evidence that was convincing to other trained scientists.

    The more a scientist can find something which is both outside of existing knowledge AND also well supported by evidence, the more likely they are to become famous and successful in their field (and maybe beyond). The picture of scientists as seeking to avoid anything “disruptive” is completely false; their motivation is towards finding the most disruptive BUT rigorously defensible innovations they can.

    The more radical a claim, the more solid it’s evidence needs to be. A successful new theory needs to better explain existing evidence than previous theories.

    The sticking point is that need for solid evidence that holds up to rigorous scrutiny. That part of the processs is what tends to cause laymen to sometimes thing the science just isn’t open minded enough.

    In some ideal universe I’m sure that a pure science could exist where every hypothesis anybody (with or without relevant scientific training) suggests was assigned funded research teams to check it out in detail. Of course, that’s not this world, where attention and resources have signficant limits. Most working scientists very much need to justify the plausibility of what they spend time and money on – whether to somebody else or to themselves (you won’t get any scientific success by wasting a career investigating low likelihood leads from fringe sources, just because there’s a tiny chance of finding something). They follow what they find to be the most plausible leads.

    A scientist with some spare time to pursue random leads (not many do), is still going to have to prioritize the ones they think have the most potential to meet the two criteria I mentioned: novelty and solid evidence. An investigation is an investment of time and money, to be wisely spent.

    And a lot of fringe science claims show many earmarks of low credibility, abounding with falsehoods, misrepresentations, obvious lack of scientific knowledge or rigor, etc. If you see a dozen disreputable claims mixed in with a couple of legitimate unknowns (ie: possible subjects of research), it’s not a high probability. And you will probably have to deal with a number of crackpots and people deliberately seeking to force your conclusions, so finding real evidence will be extra work at best. Then, if your objective scientific investigation winds up not supporting their claims, they will denounce you and make it their life’s work to defame you. Very, very few will even consider changing their minds based on your work. While this doesn’t affect you nearly as much as professional disrespect from knowledgeable peers, why chance becoming an internet target, in investigating a low probability lead?

    Do scientists suffer from confirmation bias? Of course they do, they are human. However, the core of what we call science (as a way of seeking knowledge about the universe) really consists of heuristics and training to minimize that and other human biases; this is an approach which has gained intellectual respect because it has paid off so well (compared to more subjective approaches like introspection and persuasive rhetoric), in producing work that expands in our knowledge in a systematic way and which produces valuable results. That is, science is remarkable among human endeavors specifically in the degree to which it compensates for and minimizes human subjectivity and bias.

    While there can be dogmatic and hidebound individual scientists, the overall process of all scientists is among the least dogmatic. A true bit of novel (disruptive to the previous status quo) knowledge which indeed has sold evidence is more likely to (quickly or eventually) thrive in science than in an other human endeavor I know of. And likewise, an unsupported (or vague and unfalsifiable) assertion is more likely to wither in that soil.

    This relative rigor has earned science some respect in our culture; basically because it demonstrates that all opinions are not of equal weight, and that something wonderful happens when you systematnically and over a long period of time weigh them by evidence rather than be faith and belief.

    Ironically, practioners of “fringe science” can often be both incredibly disdainful (as well as ignorant) about mainstream science, as well as almost pathetically eager for any scraps of validation they can get from it. Science is all a bogus and closed minded institution, but we will gratefully wrap any actual or claimed approval we can get from it.

    So something like radiocarbon dating is bogus when it doesn’t serve our ends, and unimpeachable when it does. The degree of self-evident confirmation bias in fringe science is enormous, with limited efforts at doing any quality control.

    That said, I would love to read more about serious scientific study of the Paracas skulls. If some breakthrough in Archeology results, I’ll be pleased as punch, and some scientist’s career would take off. If not, I think something of some value can be learned about this ancient civilization.

    And in particular, I think it would be interesting to have CAT scan and xray and genetic and high quaility photographic data released publicly for a representative sample of the skulls (possibly after a reasonable embargo period while publication is being prepared). If the bell curve for volume of the elongated skulls was quite different than that of the broader indigenous population, that would be a valuable find, and would raise other research questions. (Apart from the conclusions which the fringe would jump to).

    Liked by 2 people

  40. This article is ridiculous ! Here we have an excellent example of “behind the desk science”, there have actually been doctors who have inspected the skulls closeup and they confirm the non existence of sutures, even in a child that was only weeks old.
    You sir are a fraud and should never ever comment on anything related to this topic !!


  41. Interesting that this guy writ on bad archeology and does not research him self. If we should take is “dirt throwing” person seriously he should do some real research him self.
    Its easy to just write, without doing research himself…
    Why would it be so strange if this was a new human kind? We find new ones all the time, Is it because they are so weird, and strange, and creepy?
    I find Forester kind of humble this days… Like he became increasingly surprised him self by the findings.
    (I do not believe the skulls are alien. But I do believe that the can be a new human kind)


    1. Do you do primary research yourself? Have you handled, examined much in the way of human osteological assemblages? Contributed to the archaeological record with with your observations?

      ” Its easy to just write”. You said it darling


  42. I just watched his short video. I thought the point he was making was that there was a culture from another continent that made its way to South America, and that the DNA evidence backed his claim. I didn’t hear him say these were aliens from another planet. He said in the video that the DNA matched that of people in the Caucasus region and that they migrated to Peru, perhaps by boat. Did he say he had other information that these are not human? Because it sounded like he was saying they were humans, but not from the South American area originally, and that they didn’t have the native Indian/Peruvian DNA.


  43. Hello Dear Readers,

    I’m the author of this research that could be very
    much set the end of the Atlantis search.

    This was and still is a hassle for historians, head of religions and
    politicians in general, we are all from India, and the Classic Civilizations as well.
    The Romans with their Togas were the West side of old India. Greeks
    were talking of old Indians scripts, Egyptians were the new born
    civilization after Atlantis.

    Do your math, Cheers, E.Ralbadisole.


  44. Members of those societies with the world’s lowest childhood mortality rates seem to have trouble grasping the existence of high childhood mortality from normally occurring causes. Inbreeding can certainly increase childhood mortality as demonstrated by the horribly inbreed Spanish branch of the Habsburgs. (They eventually went extinct because the last surviving heir could not reproduce.) But is NOT needed to explain why there is any significant number of dead children at all! Pre-industrial societies did in fact have a perhaps shockingly high childhood mortality rare from infectious diseases. Since we are here dealing with an agrarian society malnutrition adds to this. I can imagine societies with a childhood mortality rate of up to 80% dues to causes like these. You don’t really need any “exotic” explanations for that.
    I think it should be pointed out that childhood mortality started to decrease in Britain in the middle of the 18th century. This was due to better agricultural methods resulting in a more nutritious diet and better food security. As Industrialisation progressed better hygiene (plumbing, hand washing, food hygiene, not having to share bed with the ill) added to this. In contrast, the only medical treatment having any significant effect on childhood mortality is vaccination. (Yes, I largely trust vaccines.) But as Industrialisation spread across the world so did these things too. Childhood mortality is still decreasing throughout the developing world and especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.


  45. I believe “degenerated due to inbreeding” may just be a matter of poor wording, although of course it could just as well be an indicator of racialist pseudoscience creeping in. I’m actually not sure what word I would use myself, not “degenerated” but I can’t think of a word that doesn’t have the potential to be misinterpreted in a similar way…

    Anyway, I don’t understand why some dismiss the idea that the most extreme of the elongated skulls were the result of natural deformations caused by inbreeding combined with artificial cranial deformation. I know the argument is that because all of the unusual features can occur at random, they must have occurred at random among the Paracas skulls; hypothetically it makes sense, but all of those unusual features co-occurring in a significant number of individuals within a population —especially when said population as a whole doesn’t seem to have a higher-than-average occurrence of those features— is so low that it just makes more sense to assume that the section of the population with those features practised inbreeding.

    The most extreme of the Paracas skulls all have a larger volume than the Paracas skulls that are obviously the result of artificial cranial deformation alone, all are missing sagittal sutures entirely and have very distinctly visible parietal foramina, slightly larger eye sockets and longer faces in general. The top of the skulls also has a more “rounded” shape, closer to a “normal” human skull, than the less extreme ones that are clearly merely artificially deformed. I do acknowledge that all the other features could be potentially explained as effects the larger volume of the skulls had on the process of artificial deformation, but to me that sounds far too convenient especially considering the most extreme of the skulls are so much more extreme than most of the deformed skulls.

    If the section of the population with such features practised inbreeding for generations, the odds of those features being passed on and the rate of their co-occurrence would naturally increase. As such, personally I believe the theory that they were the elite of the Paracas society, practising inbreeding in an attempt to keep their bloodline “pure”.

    Whether or not they were influenced to do so by extraterrestrials is another matter entirely, which personally I won’t dismiss entirely because it’s not impossible… well, I don’t think it’s likely by any means, similar stories of inbreeding could have independently inspired people to begin practising artificial cranial deformation around the world, but who knows? It’s fun to think about, at least, but evidence should be what determines which way to go.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.