If you’re interested in phony DNA research to prop up ancient alien hybrids and alleged nephilim skulls, you’re in luck. Two recent posts came to my attention today. They’re both long, but well worth the time.
Next we have (drum roll, please) a real archaeologist weigh in on the skulls – Keith Fitzpatrick Matthews on the Bad Archaeology blog. Keith’s essay, “The Paracas skulls: aliens, an unknown hominid species or cranial deformation?” is nothing short of devastating. In particular, pretend anthropologist Brien Foerster, a participant in the upcoming “Nephilim Skull Tour” comes out looking very bad, even dumb. (Just read it). This essay deals a bit with the DNA issue, but focuses more on the forensics of the skulls themselves.
Where’s the verse in the Bible again about nephilim having elongated skulls? (crickets chirping)
Professional archaeologist Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews, the force behind the Bad Archaeology blog, recently posted a series of articles detailing the (poor) research techniques and (flawed) argumentation of Graham Hancock. Here are the links to the series:
I’ve blogged about the famous Nazca lines before (“Doodling and Chicken Scratch of the Gods“), both in terms of why they have nothing to do with aliens and to expose readers to the thoughts of scholar-anthropologists on their manufacture and meaning. I recently came across an essay posted last December on the Ancient Aliens Debunked blog that pertains to the alleged Nazca astronaut that’s definitely worth a read: “The Nazca Astronaut Man: Owl-man or Fisherman?” The post focuses on the relief under the right elbow of the “astronaut” and the “spaceman’s” clothing. It makes a good case that: (1) the relief is actually a fish held on a line, next to a fishing pole (certainly has a fish shape when you look at it closely) and (2) the clothing is traditional Peruvian garb. It’s an interesting post. I’m betting an expert in Peruvian art could find analogous examples.
It’s been a while since I posted anything about the Nazca lines. Fortunately, some thoughtful material has appeared this year online that I thought worth sharing (translation: the analyses at the links below didn’t come from the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens series).
The Archaeological Fantasies blog recently posted two items on the Nazca Lines (no idea why the author varies the Nazca spelling):
The essays are interesting and informative. Producing these symbols on the ground does not take high alien technology or alien foremen guiding the primitives from above in a UFO (see the first post — Joe Nickell, with three helpers, produced a 440-foot condor image like the original in just over a day, using nothing but “a knotted rope, stakes, and a T-square they constructed from two pieces of wood”). Nickell’s own article on the lines is footnoted in the post, but here’s a link: “The Nazca Drawings Revisited: Creation of a Full-Sized Duplicate.”
If you’ve surfed the web at all in the last day or two you have probably heard about this “discovery.” One piece I saw on Yahoo News described the skeletal remains in the picture below as those of a “giant-headed mummy” with a “triangular skull.” It must be alien — right?
At first glance, the “giant-headed” description may cause readers to zip right past the fact that the specimen is twenty INCHES long. Here is another picture you likely won’t see on the archaeo-porn websites seeking to derive up their hit traffic. It puts things into perspective.
The specimen is most likely an infant whose head was wrapped to achieve the shape, as I have blogged about before (and lots of infants have misshapen heads without wrapping anyway). This is the opinion of the discoverer, at any rate (if it really is a discovery, as opposed to a hoax). But that of course doesn’t deter audience-seeking web journalists from using words like “alien” and “extraterrestrial.” But iust couldn’t be the result of head-wrapping, known to have been practiced over nine millennia, including in Peru.
Otherwise, is it just me, or are several of the teeth in the skull a different color? And maybe it’s my imagination that the jaw is also out of proportion. I’m sure there’s no hoaxing involved. I’m also sure the Colts will be in the play-offs this year.
At any rate, at least one report I read noted that there appears to be the remains of an eyeball in the right eye socket (pardon me while I ignore the fact that if this is ancient that shouldn’t be there). But if by some material this non-bone material survived all this time, that would be prime DNA testing material. We can all wait now for the “oh, if only we had the funding [and please help us with that]” lamentations that will likely follow (either that or “the scientific community won’t allow us to test it”). My money is on this turning out to be another in the long line of “finds” that do nothing but perpetuate the cherished mythology.
In a stunning turn of events for mainstream journalism, factual material about the Incas has surfaced in an internet news article. (Usually it’s claptrap about what some speaker says at a conference dedicated to aliens and “earth mysteries”).
Archaeologists announced today that a 1000 year-old temple presumed to be mythical has been discovered in Peru. I can hardly wait until some yahoo discovers “space ship glyphs” on it.