DNA Tests Show Paracas Skulls Not Human

a reply to: tanka418

I'm from more of a technology sector, and within the software engineering/Technology community there are these things we call "White papers". They typically contain the condensed result of and aspect of an engineering project...like the behavior of data in a relational database, or some other really simple to grasp topic. These things are almost never "peer reviewed", and the industry and technology gets along, actually, some better than the science sector.

Same here. Technician/Consultant, etc. You know all the fancy words already. Yes, in some ways we do fare better than the academic community. It doesn't take long in the tech industry to find the weaknesses and/or strengths of a new idea. Perpendicular Recording Technology comes to mind. It had a few naysayers after the white papers came out, but it is now a standard. Also that processors needed more current to run faster, leading to a barrier in sheer processing power. Now it's understood that processing power does not depend on current alone, and that barrier has been broken. Two small examples that peer review probably would have poo pooed had that been the deciding factor.

The "Peer review" is now being used as an excuse to reject valid data, in order to quash a hypothesis that is in "ill-favor" for some individual, The argument is typically accepted by those who, for what ever reason, do not want to do their "Due Diligence". And, thus much knowledge is overlooked for some unacceptable period of time.

Exactly. Love science, scientists and academics. Where would we be without them? But sometimes they are their own(and our) worst enemy.

There is already a thread on that, it is probably a hoax, at the very least it is faux science.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
There is already a thread on that, it is probably a hoax, at the very least it is faux science.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So...just HOW did you determine that this is faux science?...especially in view of the fact that; there is NO science being shared...only opinion. By the way; that opinion is better informed than you.

This seems a whole like the "it's not peer reviewed" excuse for rejecting unknown, possibly useful data.

When One claims that something is a hoax or based on faux science; some real science is required to support the claim...just like you would demand from him...

Yay or Nay: I don't know, but I do have a question:

Where's the beef?

a reply to: Agartha

I am not sure quite what you are saying to me as i didn't come down on either side of the fraud or not argument over these skulls.

I did notice that the research you refer to is dated 2002 through to 2008. Now Forester makes the point that today we have much better techniques albeit these are very, very expensive and getting funding for this testing is extremely hard. I made the point there are enough institutions out there who would hate to have any authenticity to these skulls.

I do know at the moment we are being sold a complete 'pup' regarding earth's history. On the one hand we have the biblical lot with god getting busy making universes and getting stuck in right down to a tiny planet in the outskirts of one of billions of galaxies in which he takes a personal interest and, even more intriguing a personal interest in one only group of human ants there in some remote area and time.

What I do know is that we have another source of information contradicting God's version about our past, that hasn't been interfered with by vested interested parties as is carved onto clay tablets. This tells us we existed alongside other beings.

I only have to look at those skulls to know they are not right for my physiology. Forester makes the point that the bone structure of the skull itself is physically different to our skulls which knit together in segments. The Paracas Skulls do not knit in segments. Another thing that is interesting is Pye's observation that hominid arm bones are different to human arms in the length of the upper arm. He also made the point that the only way the Leakeys got their funding was because they had to look only for certain pointers with ancient bones. In other words, research can prove whatever you wish to emphasise and leave out information equally important which would alter the outcome of the points you wish it to show.

Looking at those skulls they may have human faces, but the shape of the skull and the necessary bone structure to support the muscles to hold and turn that monstrosity of a skull, seems to me IMHO not to be of human origin. They look as different to us as apes do. Apparently these skulls occur around the world which takes me back to my above comments. If the tablets from the City states libraries are correct - and who can say they are not - that at some time not only did we have neanderthal, who link to the early hominids as they did not share our neck bones, but we seem to have had some other species tripping around our planet with not only shocking skulls, but equally shocking coloured hair to match, which humans seem to have wanted to emanate by binding their own skulls to look like them and with what dna evidence we do have, we cannot rule out that they didn't breed with them! Truthfully, I am pretty sure I would have a heart attack if I woke up lying next to someone looking like that.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Klassified
I think it's interesting that any time something like this gets posted, all anyone has to do is post an article saying it's a hoax, and voila! It's a hoax. And peer review is a joke in cases like these. If I'm a scientist whose livelihood is corporate or government funding, you don't really think I'm going to objectively review your research, do you? Right. Lol.

That said. I have to agree this may be more about profits, than it is real science. But the jury is still out for me.

The "Peer review" is now being used as an excuse to reject valid data, in order to quash a hypothesis that is in "ill-favor" for some individual, The argument is typically accepted by those who, for what ever reason, do not want to do their "Due Diligence". And, thus much knowledge is overlooked for some unacceptable period of time.

Sure, theres valid data in the peer review..

But, pertaining to conspiratorial/controversial issues we see here on the board; archeological, medical, climate etc, I have trouble trusting any of it.

Lack of due diligence? maybe..

What do you expect in a system ripe and rank with deceit?

a reply to: tanka418

I commented plenty on the previous thread, if you want to know my opinion, read it there. FYI this issue has been done, dredging it all again is something I do not need to do.

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Klassified
I think it's interesting that any time something like this gets posted, all anyone has to do is post an article saying it's a hoax, and voila! It's a hoax. And peer review is a joke in cases like these. If I'm a scientist whose livelihood is corporate or government funding, you don't really think I'm going to objectively review your research, do you? Right. Lol.

That said. I have to agree this may be more about profits, than it is real science. But the jury is still out for me.

The "Peer review" is now being used as an excuse to reject valid data, in order to quash a hypothesis that is in "ill-favor" for some individual, The argument is typically accepted by those who, for what ever reason, do not want to do their "Due Diligence". And, thus much knowledge is overlooked for some unacceptable period of time.

Sure, theres valid data in the peer review..

But, pertaining to conspiratorial/controversial issues we see here on the board; archeological, medical, climate etc, I have trouble trusting any of it.

Lack of due diligence? maybe..

What do you expect in a system ripe and rank with deceit?

SCIENCE

I expect a report of ALL scientific data gathered...even IF there are parts that I can not understand, because the science is beyond me, it will still contain recognizable logic that can be followed.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: tanka418

I commented plenty on the previous thread, if you want to know my opinion, read it there. FYI this issue has been done, dredging it all again is something I do not need to do.

Well...I'm not involved with that other thread, and I did read it...there was no science there either.

This case is so far, only peoples opinion, based on ...

As schuyler said: "where's the beef?" Or I guess in this case...where's the science. You having based an opinion on ...well actually nothing, doesn't speak well for your analytical skills, and would seem as though you accept the popular view without regard to its accuracy.

Notice that in every story about this, the geneticist and company who completed the tests are UNNAMED.

Don't believe everything you read....

Old bones that are gonna thrown back into the closet for someone else to find.

Want me to sound like Batman?

"Mortal after all"...O wait that was from Prometheus wasn't it?

originally posted by: bkfd54
thetruthwins.com...

Here you go Op. Haven't read it yet but saved it for later.

Not sure what happened to people's attitudes towards helping others when asked.

Have a great day

You sir, are an example of a gentleman, and honest human being

OP, nice catch, and thanks for the heads up on this discovery. Eagerly awaiting more information on this and the remaining skulls.

My opinion on the matter; someone taught evolved monkeys how to hunt, farm, agriculture, read astrological alignments and events, mathematics, how to build mind boggling stone structures, language written in symbols and spoken of tongue. .

The monkeys didn't evolve into half human half apes and so on... and just spontaneously knew and thought of all that listed above..

Monkey see monkey do, monkey told, from who?

Those are SOME highly intellectual subjects of the mind to learn and understand. Wouldn't surprise me if a long head had a larger brain, therfore higher intellectual capacity, thst taught the monkey man..

How's that?

Thanks for the heads up, and thank you bkfd54 for providing link that apparently was such an issue for others

this is 100%? in reality, these DNA tests will determine your or my DNA with a probability of 50%, I can tell fortunes two matches and get results not worse

originally posted by: Elementalist
Eagerly awaiting more information on this and the remaining skulls.

Well, the story was published 17 months ago, and still no sign of the "report", however he has books and DVD's to sell you....

originally posted by: mangust69
this is 100%? in reality, these DNA tests will determine your or my DNA with a probability of 50%, I can tell fortunes two matches and get results not worse

Not sure where you got that 50% stuff, but, modern DNA analyzers can determine your DNA, sequence, and marker alleles with much higher accuracy than that...

Even the simplest of DNA test (autosomal can determine your ethnic background with very high accuracy. An analysis of Y-DNA or mtDNA can determine IF the donor is terrestrial or not.

Unfortunately, in this present case, we are not given any of these DNA results, so we are completely in the dark.

Interesting.
My understanding, without detailed research, is that the South American tribes were quite warlike and spiritual/superstitious, both to their own "people" and that of other tribes.
Looting, raids, ritual sacrifices, witchcraft, slavery, religion, greed, all seemed to be quite normal to them. (perhaps modern civilization is not much better?).
The possibility that the Incas/Aztec/Mexicans etc etc perhaps "bred" these long head people for their own reasons as above, is not out of the question.
Perhaps the hatred/ignorance of these long head people, could have also lead to a genocide by other tribes.......were Incas etc actually a civilization 3000 years ago? or just "Indians".
Were'nt these skulls found in some sort of mass grave?
Perhaps they were sacrificed over a period, or all at once.
Much like humans seem to do for the past 100 odd thousand years or so.
How "close" are they to modern human dna......aren't Chimpanzees 98-99% "Human".
Why could'nt there be other "great apes" in South America, like the Orangutan or the Gigantopithicus, that man decided to get rid of?.
After all, they did find the little Hobbit in Indonesia, that is suppose to be different to modern man.
I would think of sensible realistic alternatives first, before thinking of space Aliens or "God" like creatures fallen from heaven.
Perhaps the great flood didnt wipe them out .....

originally posted by: draknoir2

Is this junk still being peddled?

We learned about this back in grade school social studies in the late sixties. Second grade, in fact. The teacher was beautiful and of Incan descent. At the time I thought she was making it up.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Your teacher: likely wrong and peddling the 'accepted mainstream' thought.
Wikipedia: just people's opinions formed on the 'accepted mainstream'.

a reply to: daftpink
Well, there are those handy (or annoying, depending on your point of view) references as well.
So it's not really just a matter of opinion.

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: draknoir2

Is this junk still being peddled?

We learned about this back in grade school social studies in the late sixties. Second grade, in fact. The teacher was beautiful and of Incan descent. At the time I thought she was making it up.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Your teacher: likely wrong and peddling the 'accepted mainstream' thought.
Wikipedia: just people's opinions formed on the 'accepted mainstream'.

Perhaps, but said teacher, Wikipedia, and the "accepted mainstream" have enormous bodies of open, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support them, whereas the alternative fringe has, uh, well, some YouTube videos, and a guy peddling books and DVDs.

originally posted by: CirqueDeTruth
One of my favorite subjects...

Made miserable, with people's inability to suspend disbelief for just one thread, and talk about the impossibilities/possibilities/probabilities.

Screw it. I'm out.

S&F for you MRuss. The Paracas Skulls are one of my fascinations. I'm not surprised we are finding more and more new humanoid species, the deeper archaeologists dig.

CdT

Sorry CdT but the motto of this site is DENY IGNORANCE