DNA Tests Show Paracas Skulls Not Human

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
And, I think you already know that none of us has access to those datasets.

How do you even know that they exist then?

I wouldn't spend to long on this, he/she has mentioned "data" in another thread and "refused" to link to it, discuss it, post any of it etc for various petulant seeming/imaginary reasons.

Who do people post known hoaxes?

a reply to: randyvs

Maybe some people thought it would be rude to answer the questions brought up in your post since they were directed to ATS Member Harte.

So I will repeat them here for Anyone Listening:
As a genuinely curious person who has not yet made up their mind, I would like to know the following:

Why are there no sutures or segments in the skulls?

How did this become a global fad at a time when these cultures had no contact between one another?

And I'll add my own: How did they achieve increased volume and mass through cranial binding?

I'd like these answered here, in this thread please.

Further speculation by me: If these skulls really were something astounding... Could it be that some people decided the best way to deal with them (as in, hide the truth about them) was to assign their "agent" to play the part of a huckster/hoaxer/conman, purposely ruining his own reputation, refusing to release actual results, selling books and DVDs, refusing to name geneticists or other scientists because there are none, and just acting suspicious in general?

Now anytime they are brought up, they can be easily dismissed and ridiculed simply by attacking the MAN, while the SKULLS themselves remain shrouded in mystery... No conclusive data is ever released. And that can easily be blamed on the man... People will just say he does not want the "real truth" to be known, because that will be the end of his money making scheme...

Which doesn't make complete sense, because even if they are revealed as normal human DNA, there are still some very big questions about these skulls... No sutures. Enlarged mass and volume. Who knows what else?

If the absence of sutures and the enlarged volume are just rare genetic deformities, why were there so many all in one place? Why did the same genetic mutation happen to occur all over the world, and why aren't we seeing it today even though there are more people alive today? Why did they all have red hair? (the ones that were found with hair attached)

So, even if we could conclusively say they are human, there is still a scientific mystery, and money to be made, And he could have the respect of the scientific community... It almost seems like he would make the same, if not MORE money...

But the way things are now, everyone can just say "that stupid mean Brien Foerster won't reveal the truth about the skulls because he's a lousy good for nothing con artist!" And maybe he is a con artist, just not in the way you're thinking... He could actually be assisting the coverup.

Of course, this is all just speculation and I have no way of knowing what the truth really is...

a reply to: 3n19m470
www.abovetopsecret.com...



seems like the motto is still in use

Hitchen’s razor states: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
Enuff said.

a reply to: gillyp17

Thank you. I looked around but not on that page. I guess they just stopped displaying it in many of the places they used to.

a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah, that's the problem for me, kinda... There is no conclusive evidence for or against the ascertation that these skulls are special... Except, for me personally, I can't just dismiss them, because they exist, and just by looking at them, one can fairly assume that they are deserving of further study. Why is further public study being blocked, and by whom?

a reply to: 3n19m470

It's not being blocked, by anyone. In fact the "Star Child" skull was studied. Results came back human. The idea anything is being blocked is proven false because it's actually been done.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Harte

Lastly, there is no reason whatsoever to exclude head binding as the cause of any elongated skull ever found. Claims of elongation beyond the capability of head binding that are made by Foerster (or Pye) can be (and have been - by me) shown to be utter nonsense.

#### Forester!
I can't believe you're serious. This amounts to an ancient
fad, that caught on globally, as you explain it. No telephones
no teenagers and no fashion designers in Paris. And you don't
even identify a source because according to you they are all copies
And there are some implications to be made even if that turns out
to be truth.

Where is Foerster's source? Where is Pye's source?

And, yes. I know about what the AAH believers say about the implications. That's just a matter of faith - what you choose to believe, and is utterly unevidenced - like these DNA results.

originally posted by: randyvsBut you haven't even spoken to the lack of sutures that are
missing in these otherwise perfect examples of human skulls.

Actually, I have. But not in this particular thread. link1 link2

Head binding still goes on today, by the way. Well, maybe not today, but in modern times.

originally posted by: randyvsI also don't understand what you've seen that convinces you that I haven't? What is that? Please I want to be as convinced as you are either way? So convince me.

For one example, I have seen that the statement that the cranial capacity in some of these skulls is beyond human parameters is a lie.

A lie. A flat-out, bald-faced, unabashed lie.

Why lie about that?

Foerster is a tour guide, not a museum curator. He sells and leads tours of sites connected to the AAH. He glommed onto Pye's claim after Pye died as a means of drumming up ticket sales.

Harte

If this was real wouldn't it be all over BBC

Or BNC

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah, that's the problem for me, kinda... There is no conclusive evidence for or against the ascertation that these skulls are special... Except, for me personally, I can't just dismiss them, because they exist, and just by looking at them, one can fairly assume that they are deserving of further study. Why is further public study being blocked, and by whom?

It has in detail have pottery even in the British museum. What happened wad a local con man opened up a mueseum. In it he made all kinds of weird claims this DNA test was done through the same individual who claimed the star child was an alien. he was put in touch with them through the ancient aliens show. He's been told on multiple occasions by local archeologists this was done through bounding even tried to tell him they had pictures on some textiles ext. He refuses to believe it local archeologists stopped dealing with him his museum and tour company. Mostly because he kept bringing things to them and wad caught altering the Remains. Claimed he found it that way but would bring them a mix of Monkey and human skeletal remains. He tells you he has a PHD just doesn't mention it's in accounting or business management been a while and to lazy to check.

He has no arc hologram training and breaks another rule of archeology context they find a skull dig it up and goes on display no archeological work is done at the site. though interesting there are skulls like this all over the world. The more fascinating part would be why would people do this now there is a Topic. Is it to emulate a god a person an alien just hiw would humans learn wrapping a child's head leads to deformations??

a reply to: Harte

Did I say #### Forester? I think I did Harte! We agree on capacity
that's why I didn't bring it up. IDK, I just don't find the mainstream
version of history making sense all the time either. But #### Forester!

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Harte

Did I say #### Forester? I think I did Harte! We agree on capacity
that's why I didn't bring it up. IDK, I just don't find the mainstream
version of history making sense all the time either. But #### Forester!

I agree with you on Foerster.

Unfortunately, it is he (and formerly Lloyd Pye) that assert the claim you asked about - the sutures - along with the cranial capacity claim.

You can't address the claim in any other manner, as no one else is telling this lie about the skulls.

The mainstream version of history is evidence-based. When new evidence is found, the view is changed. For example L'Anse aux Meadows.

Whether a particular topic of mainstream history "makes sense" can only be determined in context with the evidence used to determine the hypothesis that the particular topic is associated with.

Many things don't make sense. Rational thinking, however, requires that a legitimate claim be based on evidence. What you refer to as the mainstream is restricted by this idea to evidence-based claims only. The flights of fancy that can be found on the internet are not so restricted.

Harte

a reply to: 3n19m470

Of course, this is all just speculation and I have no way of knowing what the truth really is...

And there it is right there! And who do we fault for this Harte?

No conclusive in depth study would even be believable at this
point. Is that why there isn't one? DNA and all?

a reply to: Harte

Many things don't make sense.

Thank you for your time Harte, nice volley!

a reply to: DAVID64


firstlegend.info...

Brian Forester.... is using the doormat of fringe reality to build up a mysterious landscape with very questionable 'evidence'...

3 competing and undisclosed testing facilities is the norm...not just one tester as is this case of Paracas skull/bone DNA analysis

in the link posted above, there are 3 versions of nephilim and rephalim, not too much different than the other...
the scheme (referencing Nephelim from Bible source) stinks but it does capture a corner of my interest of off-worlders who once screwed around with gene & DNA modification of the indigenous peoples

originally posted by: Phage
Sorry, I seem to have missed that. You did speak of "knowledge of our peers" but that did not seem to have much to do with the dissemination of information, more of a building on prior work. That's good. That's fine. But it doesn't really help with separating wheat from chaff when it comes to claims.

You seem to have missed quite a lot...not too surprising. Or are you being deliberately obtuse? You are trying, in vain, to make some sort of difference between the "White Paper" and a "peer review"...as IF one was used for the dissemination of information and the other not. We both know that the real difference is one has had its procedural validity checked, by a third party, the other has not. We both further know that this third party check is a non-essential, almost useless operation, since I, or someone in my position, is fully capable of checking that ourselves...don't need a third party.

And, I am truly sorry that the "peer review" is so inadequate for disseminating information, would seem yet another reason to stop giving it so much "credit", especially when so little is due.

I suppose that all of y'all should stop using modern computers, they have not been "peer reviewed", so there is no way to validate any result you might obtain..

Seriously though, too much stock in the peer review, allowing it to become a convenient excuse to reject potentially valuable data. I know it probably saves some time, after all, you can take a "paper" from some unknown scientist, that has been reviewed by another unknown scientist, and attempt to move forward. As opposed to taking a paper by some unknown scientist, and simply moving forward.

And as for the evaluation of the "information" in the paper; I'll just evaluate that for my self, since even IF it was peer reviewed, I (or you ) would do that "auto evaluation" anyway...so...Whitepapers are more efficient, and equally effective.

You should check out the science behind "vertical recording"...you tell us all which came first; the peer review or the White Paper.

ETA:
Here is a "white paper": theconversation.com...
I suppose it has no merit.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
And, I think you already know that none of us has access to those datasets.

How do you even know that they exist then?

Well you see, that is where you have missed the understanding part of communication...I NEVER SAID they had any. in fact, if you go back an re-read my comments you will clearly see that that was one of my complaints; they are holding that data ransom to sell their damn book!

originally posted by: skalla

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
And, I think you already know that none of us has access to those datasets.

How do you even know that they exist then?

I wouldn't spend to long on this, he/she has mentioned "data" in another thread and "refused" to link to it, discuss it, post any of it etc for various petulant seeming/imaginary reasons.

Ya know...sometimes it is actually better if the other party does a wee bit of the work themselves, helps them grasp the data better...sometimes.

Then again, there is a great deal to be said about "due diligence"...something many out there, like you, don't seem to want to do...that's your bad.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Who do people post known hoaxes?

IF you think this is a hoax, I invite you to actually prove it...

A task that will be impossible without the requisite data...which we don't have.
Seriously, with that statement of yours, the originators of this could attempt to compel you to provide proof you can't get...and gain unwarranted support for their krap.