Must be a desperate time for TV news media . . . or the same old same old.
We’re treated today to reports of “alien like” skulls found in a Mexico archaeological dig. You can click on the link to discover that it’s just more elongated skulls — of the type known from this part of the globe and places like Peru — that results from head wrapping. (Contrary to ancient alien silliness, there is no genetic or other bio-medical evidence these skulls are anything but human — but such data aren’t going to matter to that crowd). I just get a kick out of how the media will use the alien thing as a means to get viewers to watch their report denying the alien thing.
And please don’t use the comments space to tell me about the research of Lloyd Pye and “starchild skull” — I’m well aware of it. And my own geneticist contact (my own “go to PhD” for all things genetic) has already read through the report Mr. Pye has on his website. (He came away pretty unimpressed). I’ve not posted his thoughts here yet. I’m waiting for the next piece of Pye in the sky on the skull for that.
I was reminded of the (in)famous Acambaro (Mexico) clay dinosaurs this weekend by a list of famous archaeological hoaxes / conundrums sent to me. In case you had not heard of these before (see pictures below), you can get a nice overview on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, these often appear on Christian websites in “support” of creationism (but others have wised up and admitted they are fakes).
How do we know that they are fakes?
You’ll notice if you read the overview that things like fresh manure and fingerprints were found in the sites from which these figures were removed, and the sheer number (over 32,000) indicates chicanery (native inhabitants were paid for each figure by the Waldemar Julsrud, the ”discoverer,” ca. 1944).
All that aside, the article and various websites note that thermoluminiscence dating techniques yielded a date of ca. 2500 BC for the figurines. The methods used proved erroneous. Here is a two page overview of the subject and problem from the University of Pennsylvania Museum publication, Expedition. That short article alludes to a study of the figures published in 1953 in the scholarly journal American Antiquity (vol. 18:4 : 388-389) by Charles C. Di Peso. Here is that article.
Lastly, a more recent report and scientific dating analysis has been done on the figures, proving conclusively they are fakes. That article is entitled, “Thermoluminescent Dating and the Monsters of Acambaro” (American Antiquity 41:4 [Oct. 1976]: 497-500).