paracas skulls

Paracas skulls at the National Museum of Achaeology, Anthropology, and History in Lima
Ever since their discovery by Julio Tello in 1928, the bizarre Paracas Skulls have amazed and terrified in equal measure. Uncovered in a tomb in South Peru, and believed to be around 3,000 years old, the skulls feature strange elongated craniums which gives them a decidedly inhuman appearance.

In fact, some have claimed they could in fact be the skulls of ancient alien visitors who apparently frequented South America, with other clues including the Nazca Lines and stepped pyramids. Now, an expert on these skulls, Brien Foerster, has claimed he has scientific evidence to back up these claims.

The traditional logic dictates that the skulls were created via a process of 'binding' - in which rope and wood was used to change the shape of a new born infant's skull. This was not unique to the Paracas region, and was practiced all over the South American continent by indigenous tribes. Over 300 elongated skulls of different shapes and sizes were discovered by Tello alone, suggesting the process may have been widespread and used to illustrate a highborn status. The Paracas skulls are particularly strange, however, as they are 60% heavier than most normal skulls.

Foerster, the director of the Paracas History Museum, claims the skulls' DNA is categorically not human. Without informing them of their source, he sent 5 samples of the mitochondrial DNA from the skulls to a geneticist who returned with some rather shocking and ground-breaking results:
It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.
One geneticist even went so far as to claim the Paracas skulls are so different from humans' they would not be able to interbreed, claiming: "I am not sure it will even fit into the known evolutionary tree."

This has led some to conclude the skulls must belong to aliens who visited Earth long ago, perhaps the very same aliens who gave us the technology to build pyramids and/or Atlantis.

One prevailing theory, labelled the Ancient Astronauts Hypothesis, suggests intelligent extraterrestrial beings visited Earth and greatly changed our destiny. Some even suggest prehistoric and ancient deities and Gods could have in fact been technologically superior aliens whose skills and machinery was confused for divine power.

This theory isn't unique to South America, but also extends to practically every corner of the Earth. For example, below is an Indian painting apparently showing Rama return to Earth in "flying cars."
rama car
Are They Really Alien Skulls?

You're probably thinking, why am I reading this earth-shattering news on Moviepilot, and not, say on the BBC or CNN?

Well, no major mainstream journalistic organization has reported these findings, which should set alarm bells ringing. I'm sorry to burst your alien bubble, but it's very unlikely that there is anything extraterrestrial about the Paracas skulls.

A little bit of additional research - something clearly not done by the blogs which first posted the news - reveals there's a lot more going on here than meets the eye.

Firstly, the news was announced by Foerster on JustEnergyRadio - which, last time I checked, isn't exactly the global mouthpiece of the scientific of archeological community. The report is in no way linked to any academic institution (other than the Paracas History Museum - I'll get to that later) or any kind of peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Secondly, we do not know which geneticists actually conducted the work. According to Foerster, they want to remain anonymous (which is strange considering they've basically made the scientific breakthrough of the century), although the speculation is that those responsible are from the general pseudo-science community. names Lloyd Pye, the (now deceased) founder of the debunked Starchild Project as one of the recipients, while Dr. Melba Ketchum (the discredited Bigfoot DNA 'expert') is another. All told, these are not credible or reputable geneticists.

Comment: Nope. No credible or reputable scientist would touch this issue with a 10-foot pole. Which is why scientists working on such tests would naturally wish to remain anonymous. This guy obviously has no idea how the scientific community really works when it comes to controversial topics.

Thirdly, the Paracas History Museum is a private museum whose directors are also members of a paranormal tour group, Hidden Inca Tours, the major focus of which is elongated skulls. Throw in the fact Foerster has no archeological, anthological or scientific credentials, is a collaborator with other pseudo-historians of dubious credibility like Graham Hancock and David Hatcher Childress (the latter of which was named by Vanderbilt archeologist Charles E. Onser as "one of the most flagrant violators of basic archaeological reasoning"), and I think we're beginning to get an idea of what's going on here.

Comment: Nothing like a little insulting innuendo to make your point.

Don't get me wrong, perhaps the results did come back as non-human, but without knowing who conducted the research and without their results being peer-reviewed by the scientific community, these findings will never have credibility. Indeed, an explanation for non-human results could merely be that the research wasn't conducted properly, or the DNA samples had degraded beyond the testing capabilities of our anonymous geneticists. In that case a result that was essentially gibberish has been read as 'non-human.' As's Sharon Hill explains:
[S]cience doesn't work by social media. Peer review is a critical part of science and the Paracas skulls proponents have taken a shortcut that completely undermines their credibility. Appealing to the public's interest in this cultural practice we see as bizarre — skull deformation —instead of publishing the data for peer-review examination is not going to be acceptable to the scientific community.
So, will this information be given up to the general scientific community? Well, Foerster is dubious on that front, stating on Facebook:
Peer review will of course be considered, but this information belongs to THE WORLD, not a few academics...