Another Bone to Pick…With Peruvian Nephilim/Alien HybridsPosted by Frank Johnson on Feb 27, 2014 in Blog | 0 comments
Say the word “nephilim” at church and you’ll most likely be met with blank stares. Type it into any Christian internet or Facebook forum and you’ll ignite a firestorm of debate, name calling and one-up-manship more intense and ridiculous than the Easter Egg Hunt in “Ready Player One”. And less entertaining too. If you utter or key in the phrase amongst UFOgists, you’ll probably just get “aliens!”
I had been planning to do a blog about alleged nephilim/alien skulls for a while, but everyone else has beat me to the punch. C’est la vie. Anyways, I awoke the other morning to this headline.
DNA tests for Peruvian conehead skulls were in, and they had concluded…that the skulls were not fully human!
Well, well. Never heard that one before. Oh wait.
Conveniently, the announcement comes around the same time as news of the “Nephilim Skull Tour” through Peru during the month of May, and as of this writing there were a few open spots that needed filling. To be fair though, this trip seems to have been in the works for a little while, the earliest I could find with some digging was October 2013. Regardless, the tour is likely fascinating despite being misnamed.
So what on Earth is going on here? Have some sort of hybrid skulls been found? Do they prove the Genesis 6 (and other) biblical accounts of nephilim? Are they proof of an extraterrestrial breeding program in Earth’s ancient past and going on today?
The answer may surprise you.
Origin of the skulls
Unlike the Starchild skull, the Peruvian, or Paracas skulls are not really new. In several sources, the skulls were said to have been found by Julio Tello in 1928, and probably the most interesting and accurate background of the find is here.
But there’s a little more to this story. While the discovery of these skulls in 1928 Peru were a worthy find, this was not the first time coneheaded skulls had been found in South America, or even Peru. David Forbes wrote and submitted “On Aymara Indians of Bolivia and Peru” to the Ethnological Society of London in 1870, and in it he describes not only his examinations of the skulls, but those of his predecessors Mariano Eduardo de Rivero y Ustáriz and Johann Jakob von Tschudi who also had investigated the elongated skulls as early as the 1850’s. Undoubtedly, the people of Peru knew about them long before then.
So the idea of elongated skulls had been around for a while by 1928, when the Paracas skulls were unearthed, and the idea that they were anything but human never seems to have entered the discussion until recently with the idea of alien hybrid or nephilim breeding programs in the UFO literature and Christian fringe.
The prevalence of the 1928 date for the Paracas skulls and the neglect of the older dates and skulls is a tad unusual, but it is likely that the older dates just required a bit more digging, because they are tricky to find.
Of course the reason this blog has been written and these “nephilim” skulls are in the public consciousness are the recent news stories about genetic tests proving that one (or more?) of the skulls are not human. Not surprisingly there are problems with this. The first of which being: which skull(s) was tested?
There is a an alleged baby with a deformed skull (debunked here), there is a skull with red hair, and a skull that allegedly lacks a suture for the parietal skull plates (more on that one later). In addition to these particular three skulls, more than 400 elongated skulls have been found in Paracas alone, let alone in other sites throughout Peru and South America.
So, which one of the hundreds of skulls had the DNA analyzed?
In 2011, Lloyd Pye’s website reported that DNA had been obtained by author Brien Foerster for a geneticist to analyze. The Prison Planet article linked earlier is vague on this point. Lloyd Pye was quoted in October 2013 with a mention of a sample “2A” then a sample “3A” came up in February 2014 as reported by Brien Foerster. Whether that’s a typo from those being quoted, or two different samples is anyone’s guess.
In short, there is no way to tell what material was taken from which skull, and worse no way to tell who has been analyzing it, beyond the late Lloyd Pye and whomever has taken his place. At this point, it seems like Brien Foerster is running the show on the Peruvian skulls, but it’s difficult to be certain.
In a genuine scientific inquiry, this methodology and lack of clarity is anathema. Calling something “sample 2A” or “3A” may sound scientific, but is nothing but a cheap façade. And that’s really only the start.
In a situation like this, it would not be unrealistic to expect that each skull to be analyzed should be photographed (or at least clearly identified), assigned a sample number and an explanation of the methods of DNA extraction used before releasing any data to the public. In addition, methods to control contamination should be outlined or else any DNA test results obtained are next to worthless because samples could be tainted by other lifeforms and skew the DNA results. The skull enthusiasts may have no intention of submitting any of this to peer-review, but following the proper steps and processes of peer-review (like those outlined here) would only give them desperately needed credibility. Science requires that a result can be reproduced, but none of that can happen when little to no information has been provided in relation to test samples and how a conclusion was reached.
Even worse than the extreme ambiguity surrounding the test subject(s)/sample(s) are the individuals handling the DNA tests. First and foremost was the late Lloyd Pye of the Starchild Project.
Not only has Pye’s hucksterism maintained the Starchild Project for 15 years (until his death) he and the Starchild Project have proven themselves wholly incompetent (and then some) in the fields of genetics and the testing thereof. This alone should pretty much discredit any genetic test that they are part of, especially since he has a clear bias to promote the paleocontact theory.
Brien Foerster is not any better at “doing science”. Foerster somehow obtained samples from the skull(s). Possibly using questionable methods. Speaking of obtaining samples, how did he even do it? All of the skulls seem to be behind glass, in an allegedly secure area as evidenced by Foerster’s own videoography. If they are secure, procuring samples would seem unlikely.
Here is the video on the site of Coast to Coast AM where Foerster shows a five minute video of elongated skulls. Throughout the video, there are a series of “facts”, asinine questions and observations, most of which seem to fit into the “inflation of conflict” logical fallacy. Some of the points are:
- there was a sign saying “no filming” of the elongated skulls, which Foerster obviously ignored.
- really that is not a big deal as hundreds of museums have special exhibits they do not want you to film or photograph, because if people did film, the museum would lose money in ticket sales. Flash photography can also damage certain artifacts.
- I have tried to take photos at various museums and on occasion have been asked not to even of things on common display. In special venues, this is actively enforced like the time I tried to take a photo in the Loevre traveling exhibit (which is totally worth seeing if it’s still around)
- if it was so strict there was no filming allowed, how did Foerster obtain samples? How did any of the team go down and perform any investigations? A thorough investigation seems difficult if the skulls are all behind glass or under tight guard as was implied in the video.
- were they allowed to examine some skulls?
- were some of the skulls out in the open and samples taken by “five (or six!) finger discount”?
- were they allowed by the museum to take samples? if so, what kind of museum is this?!
- really that is not a big deal as hundreds of museums have special exhibits they do not want you to film or photograph, because if people did film, the museum would lose money in ticket sales. Flash photography can also damage certain artifacts.
- no researchers (apart from Foerster and his team, obviously) have studied the skulls or are interested in doing so.
- Foerster suggests a coverup of some sort, of course with no evidence
- if this is true, why are they on such prominent display in a museum and not being investigated “by top men” ala Indiana Jones?
- if there was a cover up, and it was essential to keep these skulls safe from discovery, how did Foerster manage to take a video with no one noticing? who needs John Drake or James Bond?
- seems like another case of inflating the conflict.
Even if Foerster did collect specimens legitimately, we have no idea what methods he used, what precautions he took for contamination, or even if he’s submitting authentic skull material. It would not be too much of a surprise for these test results to yield something other than human, which they seem to have done. Simply because he very well could have pulled a switcheroo by providing something else. Even giving Foerster the benefit of the doubt, contamination by mold or bacteria could also yield a non-human result.
Further, Foerster has no obvious training or education in genetics, which again disqualifies him to obtain, provide or test samples for DNA studies, even if he was able to do it legitimately. He appears to be a writer, and that’s it. Of most note is the fact that he:
“is associated with Lloyd Pye of the Starchild Project, who is analyzing the DNA of elongated human skulls of the Peruvian Paracas culture on his behalf. The preliminary results of this have been included in the recently published book that Brien co-authored with David Hatcher Childress, ‘The Enigma of Cranial Deformation: Elongated Skulls of the Ancients’.”
Foerster’s choice of having Pye, instead of a reputable lab, handle his genetic tests is telling, as is his connection to Childress.
As if this genetic test couldn’t lose any more credibility, Melba Ketchum (self-publisher of a Bigfoot DNA study) was rumored to be attached to the DNA analysis. That rumor has been dispelled to an extent, though she reportedly did have some small hand in the Peruvian skulls case at some point.
“the geneticist quoted is not Ketchum. However, there is still admission that she is involved, with different samples. The quote is ‘These results are not from Melba Ketchum; she has other samples.'”
At this point, the DNA test(s) has ceased to be a scientific endeavor and has spiraled into a circus sideshow.
But wait, there’s more!
Somehow, a hair(s) that was allegedly found during an alleged alien abduction has entered the fray. Trust me, the less specifics that you know about that “abduction,” the happier you will be. I mean it. (Highlight to see…………………………..what I mean if you really have to know: A single strand of “alien/hybrid” hair was tied around his penis. Told you. not happy now, are you. Come back whenever you are ready. Better? OK.)
This alleged “hybrid” hair is actually pretty unremarkable. There is a book about this “hybrid” hair, and one reader of the book found the evidence for the “alien/hybrid” hair used in this study to be extremely…wanting. (bold added) This was one of the reasons I didn’t buy the book when it came out. The reviewer said:
I find it astonishing that one can draw any conclusion that what was found was alien (book title)? The analysis tells us, that this was simply Human DNA. A rare Chinese type DNA and a possible rare Basque/Gaelic type DNA (p77) or this rare Asian Mongoloid DNA (p78 & p224) take your pick. And the author tells us that it is – rare, grafted, CCR5 protein and so on, who said this was rare… it sounds all very human too me. With a population of 1,306,313,812 (July 2005 Ethnic groups – Han Chinese 91.9%, Zhuang, Uygur, Hui, Yi, Tibetan, Miao, Manchu, Mongol, Buyi, Korean, and other nationalities 8.1%) in china today, I can tell you nothing is rare.
The central story is suspended by one miserable thread, for example, how does Chalker identify what is or is not alien hair/DNA? How could you tell unless you took it off a recognised alien to do a match? In fact the hair looks very human too me (see book images).
I am also suspicious when an author tries to anchor or graft their hypothesis onto what seems to be another profession, by a reference or association with that profession. In this case a law and police investigation process. For example Chalker uses the word “Forensic” 70 times. When in fact, Chalker is not trained in Forensic Science nor do we find anyone listed in the book trained in the profession.
Then we have this mystery called “forbidden science” (p67) and the “Invisible college” (p67). Now I can understand the problems that would come about if a scientist steps out on a limb and works outside the mainstream, but in this case Chalker’s DNA analysis if processed in an accredited laboratory would be fully backed by that institution, so the need for anyone being put out to burn is redundant, the laboratory would stand by its results, they analysed a “hair sample” that is all, nothing odd about that. But no, Chalker works in a mystery, when in fact the whole process is everyday normal and the need for these mysteries is stupid.
So that brings me to who did the analysis, well from what we can find out…. I don’t know? A group called Anomaly Physical Evidence Group (APEG) (p70) did the analysis? Again nothing, not one person or laboratory name, who are these biochemists? So how does the reader verify the credentials of the technical work? Not very forensic to me. And if this was an astonishing discovery, one would expect “Biochemists” would jump on a paper to take the credit. But no… they are going to work through the author (Public face p70), well that’s what the author tells us. He even tells us that it is “my APEG team”, that is right readers “my”? (p190).
So what was the start point to the Alien Hair find? Well would you believe Khoury, in his own words: “I had a head injury, and I was on a lot of medication” (p23) – Hit on the head! And hit with a shovel or should I say shovels (p24)! Can you find any hints of a prosaic cause, well I can! Then Khoury tells us that he was taking Codeine Phosphate (p24) and as he states “lots”. Did you know that one of the side effects of lots of Codeine is hallucinations? But the author does not list any side effects. Then add in Prozac and Voltarin. What happened to the medical reports or even a doctor’s name? Nothing, zero, zip.
Forensic my eye, Khoury did his own sample collection and then placed that in a plastic bag (p25), so how did Chalker proved that it came from Khoury’s body?
The book does cover other well known cases, my favourite and I would say the best case is the Kelly Cahill encounter (1993) (p50). However, rather than read it in this book, try and find Cahill original book (Encounter, Harper Collins, 1996, ISBN 0732257840), it is very good and worth the effort.
I could go on, but there are too many things to list. I think the author has over stepped his position or qualifications (Chalker is not a biochemist) and tried an interesting form of word association to sell us a weak story that stands on a lot of “Ifs & Buts” around hidden so called APEG mystery biochemists.”
So how does this “alien hybrid” hair relate to Peruvian mummies? Read on…
A recent episode of Coast to Coast A.M. featured a discussion of the results of a specific “RAMAN spectrography” (Raman is also broken down here and here). Basically, the Raman process is a nondestructive way to analyze the chemical composition of an object, and what molecules something is made of. Though that is pretty cool, and reliable, that’s really it. The graph being discussed with George Noory is below, the Y (vertical) axis represents the intensity of the light reflected from the scanned object, X (horizontal) is the wavelength.
This graph is said to compare a normal hair, a dyed hair, a Paracas skull/mummy hair (again with the details!) and the “hair of the alien” hair. Unfortunately, for people getting excited over this spectroscopy, and the “nearly identical” slope the “alien hair” shares with a mummy, there are a few things to consider. First, the dyed hair has a similar slope up to a point, yet nothing much is made of this. Second, while the slopes may be similar, that does not mean they are related in any way. Third, the mummy hair, and the “hybrid” hair emanate different intensity and wavelengths of light via the Raman method as demonstrated in the graph, so even though they have a similar slope, there are some differences in the chemical makeup.
While the graph and alleged similarities in slopes looks impressive, referencing this “alien hair” probably doesn’t do much to help the case to make the mummy skulls non-humans. Not only was the “alien hair” found to be human as shown above, it was never proven not to be as outlined by a blogger’s breakdown of an analysis of the Raman results.
“the mummy hair and the hair from the abduction victim matched proving the mummy was a hybrid. According to Marzulli the hair from the abduction victim was a nephilim hair that got stuck to the victim when he had sex with the hybrid. He offers no proof that this was a nephilim hair.”
All indications from the “Hair of the Alien” book seem to point to that same hair being 100% human. Although there are claims of it being some sort of hybrid, alien or otherwise, none of those have been proven in any meaningful way. If the Raman results indicate any sort of a match, then the Peruvian skulls are 100% human too.
Not that similar slopes even indicate a match. A Raman spectroscopy was performed on the hair of Isaac Newton, Robert Stephenson (a rail worker), a modern gray hair, and a hair from a cow. Note that Stephenson’s and Newton’s produced a strikingly similar slope, but this does not indicate a relationship outside of the hairs being grey. Even more surprising is that the cow hair, despite some obvious differences, produces a slightly similar slope! Does this mean anything in terms of relationship? Probably just that they share some of the same fundamental chemicals. But also note that they each have different intensity and wavelength, as does the modern grey hair. Looking at the graph on the right, one might be led to believe that the top slope (Newton) and the bottom slope (cow) have more in common than the human grey hair in the middle. Obviously that is not a correct interpretation.
Below (Hassan, Edwards & Wilson)
Fig. 1. Left: Raman spectra of hair of Isaac Newton, Robert Stephenson and bovine keratin for comparison.
Right: Raman spectra of hair of Isaac Newton, modern grey hair and bovine keratin.
There’s a lot more though. Unfortunately, there are some things to consider about Raman spectroscopy, things that may explain why the “hybrid” Raman results are similar, and things that explain how they are not. Things that may explain where errors could have come into play, thus skewing the results. For starters, hair analysis is not easy to do, even by professionals, and thus far, no one on this case has been accused of being one of those.
“chemometrics methods…although useful in the information they each provide, they do not allow selection and analysis of specific criteria…Hair analysis is complex, and generally, there is a large amount of data generated which makes it difficult to evaluate.”
“Even though we are quite familiar with the physical and chemical characteristics of human hair, the identification of hair fibres remains a complicated area. Upon initial observation, hair on a head of one person appears to be the same as those of the next, the most obvious difference being the colour change. However, at the molecular level, hair is expected to vary between individuals on the basis of genetically related factors, diet, cosmetic treatment, and weathering. Studies have shown that drug intake of hair fibres varies between different ethnic groups, indicating possible variations between the chemical composition of hair fibres from people of different races.”
(P184-185, Panayiotou, 2004)
In short, from one head of hair to another, there are a wide variety of differences that come into play, in all likelihood, the “alien hair” and the Peruvian mummy hair probably have some chemical differences by virtue of them being from different individuals.
Despite the general reliability of the Raman test, there is also the possibility that it produced an error. Nowhere in the Raman analysis and comparison of the various hairs is there any discussion of controlling fluorescence (washing out the data/signal), which is a key item to address to gain accurate data. If this study had been following any sort of real experimental methodology, this would have been addressed. Or at least should have been.
“A major problem encountered in the conventional Raman technique is that of fluorescence which can totally swamp the weak Raman signal. This is particularly a common phenomenon when analyzing biological materials such as in this case human hair.”
(Panayiotou, 2004, Pg 123 Section 3.6.1. Preliminary studies)
Then we come back to the samples. Again, regarding the Peruvian skulls, there is no way to prove or fact check that what was submitted was actually from the skulls, and no way to know if the sample(s) was contaminated or how they were obtained. The “alien” hair falls into the same category, it could be hair from anything or anybody. Further, how did the people investigating Peruvian skulls procure the “alien” hair for comparison, and how do we know it was not hair from another mummy or even the same mummy? Like in the collection of DNA, the utmost care in sample collection is absolutely essential to get an accurate test result. The below quote is in reference to FT-IR Micro-spectroscopy, but it is not unreasonable to apply this same rigorous standard to the Raman method. Especially given that the second quote corroborates it.
“Prior to commencing any research, it is important to take into consideration the sample collection and preparation methods as they relate to the sample being investigated. In the case of hair analysis, there are a number of compounding variables that can limit the interpretation of the hair results…
Hair analysis from a particular individual is fraught with a series of uncontrollable variables and unknown data. It should be obvious that uncontrolled variables and unknown data belie making any precise forensic analysis. The precision and standardization associated in the analysis of hair fibres is often related to the amount of hairs taken from any subject. Unless a uniform sample is taken from which all analyses are done, the validity of the analysis can be called into question. It is therefore very important to analyse a number of different hair fibres from the same head, in order to eliminate the variation differences within the single head.”
(P188, Panayiotou, 2004)
Unless noted elsewhere, there is only one “alien” hair, or at least a very limited supply, and an unknown quantity of Peruvian mummy hairs. Providing the quantities of each is essential in determining how they arrived at the result that was achieved.
Applying the above logic to Raman Spectroscopy, emphasis added:
“like most tools when used with skill and the correct approach, Raman spectroscopy can be of great assistance in identifying unknown materials or components. To do this successfully the maximum information about the sample should be obtained and borne in mind during the analysis and it is essential to be aware of problems which can lead to an erroneous result…In a practical interpretation it is essential that all available information is used and that the possibility of contamination is considered. There are a number of examples in the literature of this simple precaution being ignored and important conclusions drawn on data which subsequently were shown to have arisen from a contaminant.”
“It is important not to lose sight of the overall picture. If simple information on the nature of the sample is ignored, answers can be generated which common sense tells us are impossible. The very different intensities of Raman scattering from various vibrations from different molecules in a matrix can easily lead to this sort of wrong interpretation. A polymer bottle may contain sulphur. Polymers are weak scatterers whereas sulphur is a strong scatterer. The fact that the spectrum is dominated by the sulphur peak does not mean that the polymer is largely sulphur. This is a rather trivial example but this mistake is easy to make when two organic molecules are present in a matrix.”
This gives rise to many questions, some repeated from earlier for emphasis.
So again, who collected the samples and controlled contamination at every step? How many samples from each specimen are there so that a standard can be established? How was the “alien/hybrid” hair from the “Hair of the alien” book obtained by the Peruvian team? If this same “alien” hair was determined to be 100% human, as the “Hair of the Alien” book seems to indicate, how is the hair that of an alien/nephilim hybrid? If the “alien hair was human and the Peruvian hair is a match, how are the Peruvians non-human? Who performed the Raman Spectroscopy? Were Pye and Foerster or one of their associates the ones? If Pye and Foerster submitted the items, why should we believe any results that they, or the items that they submitted for testing generated? How can we trust that they submitted the items for testing that they said they did? Why have they not released a full report that can be read, or if they have why is it not readily available? Foerster’s website has a “research” section, but there is nothing of value in it. This would seem to be a good place to put such a report. How do we know the spectroscopy chart and graph represent anything and are legitimate? Would wider availability lead to closer scrutiny and holes in the hybrid Peruvian skull theory? The Starchild Project at least made an attempt to LOOK legitimate, and as a result has been criticized and sufficiently debunked. If this were to happen with the Peruvian skulls, they would be far less marketable as “mystery objects”. Is that why data is so hard to come by?
Until these questions are answered, there is enough doubt to dismiss the DNA results of the Peruvian hybrid skulls entirely, and the same goes for the entire Raman Spectroscopy comparison. Even if the experiments and results are trustworthy, the “alien” hair is 100% human, and if the Peru skulls are similar in any way, they are human too.
The DNA studies seem to be fraught with potential for error and misrepresentation due to the involvement of Pye (or Starchild project), Foerster, and Ketchum (even if she has limited involvement). Given the errors in the Starchild project, if this team performed the DNA testing and/or the Raman spectroscopy, their results should be questioned and critiqued to the fullest extent. The entire Raman spectroscopy and analysis is not all that scholarly when compared to work like this. Yeah. At the very least copy and adapt their methods.
Skull Deformation: Aliens and Nephilim not needed…Surprised?
Since the DNA and Raman Spectroscopy of the nephilim/hybrid skulls rests upon a sinking foundation of quicksand, how is it possible these skulls possess such unusual and “inhuman” features?
In at least one skull possibly more (hows that for clarity?) the lack of a “parietal suture” is mentioned, partially it seems, to prove how different these skulls are from human baseline. Indeed, a missing piece of anatomy would be an incredible piece of evidence.
Even more, the hybrid skull enthusiasts are perfectly correct that some, and I would venture that every single one of these skulls have no parietal suture. In fact, neither do you or I.
Because there is no such thing as a parietal suture. Take a good look.
This is a very elementary mistake, so much so that it’s a shock no one else has picked up on it yet. It’s such a basic mistake, that one of my friends and I, who are perfectly inept in the area of human anatomy, picked it up as soon as we started examining the claims. That’s an incredibly sad state of affairs indeed.
But even if the skull(s) lack the SAGITTAL SUTURE (which connects the two parietal plates and is likely the one the Peruvian team is talking about) there are some good explanations as to why and how this suture could be missing. First, of course is outright misrepresentation. Intentional or otherwise. Many of the elongated skulls do have the sagittal suture, but due to severe deformity, it is not where it ought to be. It seems that there are some people photographing the skull from an angle that pretty much omits the area that the suture appears on the elongated skull. Emphasis added.
“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.”
And even if there are skulls that were legitimately missing a suture, that too is easily explained. Due to the practice of headbinding, “missing” sutures are not:
“entitled to be considered natural productions; if the evidence to prove their artificial origin is allowed due weight, the partial or total obliteration of the sutures in all those skulls which I examined must be regarded as so many proofs of the application of compression in infancy…”
Further, head binding to make heads longer could quite possibly fuse the sagittal suture, turning it to bone. That process is called “ossification”. It also affects brain growth as well.
“Premature closure of the sagittal suture, the most common form of craniosynostosis, causes elongation of the skull in the anteroposterior direction.” ( McCance, P. 573)
“Sutures can calcify and turn to bone with age.” McCance, P. 1346)
“Some sutures, although present during childhood, are replaced by bone in the adult. Such a suture is called a synostosis (sin’-is-TO-sis; os- = bone), or bony joint — a joint in which there is a complete fusion of bone across the suture line. An example is the frontal suture between the left and right sides of the frontal bone that begins to fuse during infancy.” (Torrora, P 242)
“fused sutures act as barriers to the brain’s normal growth, forcing the brain to expand in abnormal directions and thus creating a visible skull deformity. He observed that, acting as the underlying and expanding matrix of the skull, the brain and its development and growth directly and strongly affect skull growth and shape. He noted that when a suture is synostosed, the rapid force of brain growth is restrained and altered because the brain cannot expand in the direction of the synostosed suture. The brain and the skull shapes are thus forced in dimensions perpendicular to the fused suture as a consequence of a compensatory growth along the adjacent open sutures. This theory is still commonly accepted today”
(Ridgeway, P 362)
This Ridgeway article does go on to describe a variety of skull deformities including triangular shaped and long heads as well as environmental and genetic factors involved with the deformity. There are even genes that are known to cause certain deformities, though none of them are as extreme as the Peruvian examples. Interestingly, longer heads seem to involve fused sagittal sutures, though again, not as extreme as the Peruvian skulls. Given that the Peruvian elongation was intentional, the process of becoming longer may differ from that which was discussed in the article, but my suspicion is that it would only serve to make the elongation more uniform as compared to a natural deformity.
With the head binding potentially causing the suture to become fused, the brain would be forced to develop and grow in an irregular manner and in unusual directions. It is my hypothesis that this could account for the extra brain volume mentioned by those touting these as any sort of hybrid skull. The bound head’s brain would be unable to grow in the usual directions, and thus forced to expand in unusual directions, making parts of the skull bigger than normal. To be certain, an expert opinion would be needed.
Essentially, everything about these skulls is within normal human parameters, especially once the effects of skull binding are considered. There is not anything going on with the skulls that would require them to be alien hybrids, nephilim or anything else. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise does not have their facts straight or is selling something, though there may be other options available.
These nephilim news stories surfaced quite suddenly, with little real information like most of these types of claims, rejecting completely any sort of scientific approach. Samples were procured and tested by questionable means, by amateurs and showmen. The same amateurs and showmen (Starchild Project) who have already demonstrated incompetence in the area of genetics with the Starchild skull. The other main party, and the one causing the greatest stir, is Foerster who is co-author of a book with an individual who has regularly demonstrated shoddy research in regards to the Olmec culture (and THAT individual wrote a book about the Olmecs). In addition to the problems outlined, basic anatomical research was ignored and misrepresented, thus creating a sensational story.
A hair analysis was performed. Of the two hairs causing controversy, one hair was sufficiently proven to be human, or at least its alien origin has not been proven. If it does match the Peruvian hair, the Peruvian mummy is human too. “Preliminary” DNA test results were released without any corroborating data to back them up. A claim of “something other than human” was made, with no proof and in light of proof to the contrary. Certainly a contaminated specimen could generate a nonhuman result. The only real conclusion was that more testing needed to be done. Conveniently, a Peruvian “Nephilm Skull Tour” (with seats that needed filling) is occurring just a few months (May, 2014) after the original press coverage of “non-human” status was announced.
Since there is an incredible amount of doubt attached to every arm of this “investigation”, calling these “alien hybrid” or “nephilim skulls” when nothing concrete has been presented is nothing short of fraud. At best, it’s a misunderstanding of the facts. In either case, there is no cause to call these anything other than cone-shaped skulls.
These skulls are mysterious and interesting, worthy of study, but calling them something they are not is just wrong, especially if it’s for financial gain. These skulls, while real skulls, are about to become another misrepresented fraud in a long list containing the Minnesota Iceman, bigfoot in a freezer, crystal skulls and a host of others. Except that these skulls were actually people at one point.
Where Does it go from here?
My theory is that before long, an incomprehensible report will either appear in Ketchum’s journal (with a steep price tag) or a website like Starchild Project with the final results of the Peruvian skulls’ DNA. The results will be either vague and need further study, or will prove they are not human. But like the claims of the Starchild skull, there will be no substance behind them. Expect several books, movies or TV specials to be made, each containing the “shocking truth” by most of the parties involved. Said movies will be just as inconclusive as these original test results were, or will misrepresent the facts to make them appear otherwise and in a few years no one will remember them.
Special thanks to: D. Cheeto-fingers (GIT!), Mark, Neil and Johnny! You were indispensable.
McCance, K. L., & S. Huetger. (1998).Pathophysiology The Biologic Basis for Disease in Adults and Children. 4th Ed. St. Louis, Mosby.
Torrora, G. J, & S. Grabowski. (2000).Principles of Anatomy and Physiology. 9th Ed. John Wiley &Sons, Inc..
Ridgeway, MD, Emily. B, and Howard. Weiner, MD. (2004). Skull Deformities. Pediatric Clinics of North America, PP 1-29.
Hassan, N. F. N., Edwards, H. G. M., & Wilson, A. S. (n.d.). Raman spectroscopic analysis of an important preserved specimen of human hair.
Panayiotou, H. (2004). Vibrational spectroscopy of keratin fibres a forensic approach. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/15953/1/Helen_Panayiotou_Thesis.pdf