Those of you with an interest in the elongated skull paleobabble (that they have something to do with aliens or nephilim) will find this short essay of interest. It’s from the Hot Cup of Joe blog. It’s basically an overview of the methodological problems of the research and testing put forth by Lynn Marzulli and Brien Foerster on elongated skulls from Peru.
Sadly, there’s nothing new here. Claims of submitting the skulls for testing without revealing the identity of those doing the tests, which labs did (or are doing) the work, failure to follow protocols that everyone who does this sort of testing for real follow, etc. I just don’t understand why Christian researchers somehow feel compelled to be secretive, sloppy, or cavalier in research. Would you want a plumber who just did things his own way? A tax attorney? A pediatrician? How about a hair stylist? To quote Captain Obvious, research isn’t valid unless it can be validated. That means going the extra mile in careful method; transparency in sharing data, method, and results; and of course peer review. Instead we get the kind of amateurish work that mimes the “secular” ancient astronaut carnival. The tragedy is that, if there really is something to discover, the way the research has been done puts the whole effort under the pall of suspicion out of the gate. Sigh.
I’ve blogged before about artificial cranial modification in antiquity. It’s actually pretty well understood in terms of the how, but not necessarily the why. There are several academic journal articles at this link specifically about Peruvian skulls. The most exhaustive recent scientific study on these skulls is Tiesler’s work, The Bioarchaeology of Artificial Cranial Modifications: New Approaches to Head Shaping and its Meanings in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and Beyond. These skulls are well known.
I’ve also commented before on non-artificial cranial malformation, where the skull does not form as it should. Among the terms associated with this condition is craniosynostosis. I mention this condition because, as the Wikipedia overview makes clear, various brain sutures (including the sagittal suture — see the essay on the elongated skull — may not be visible due to early fusion. In fact, in some conditions, sagittal sutures may not even be visible in X-rays.1 Anyone with access to medical journal databases can discover that strange skull features like elongated shape and (apparent) absence of sutures isn’t proof of nephilim or aliens (and I’m still waiting to see the verse in the Bible about how nephilim had elongated skulls).
None of these data are going to matter, of course. But I’d hope that the lack of transparency and obfuscation would matter. Christian researchers ought to be among the most diligent in this regard to be above reproach. Maybe someday we’ll see that.
And in case you’re wondering, there’s no DNA evidence that the Starchild Skull is anything but human (see here, here, and here, in that order). (Thanks to Mark for suggesting the inclusion of these links after the initial post yesterday).
- See page 370 of this journal article for an example. ↩
Why would there be nephilim in South America anyways?
Hey sir,
This is another example of a post that will soon be lost to cyber space once it is pushed off your “most recent” feed. It will be still searchable under advanced search but it won’t show up when you click on “Paleobabble” in an attempt to read all posts under Paleobabble. Same goes for the other links as well. In order for a post to show up under Naked Bible Blog, UFO Religion, or Paleobabble, it must have the gold, green or purple icon.
The last podcast to be posted to drmsh is episode 104. You just released episode 111. All of them are on the podcast page with comments closed… but drmsh is missing 7 episodes. Now if you don’t want them to appear on drmsh because of comments etc. that’s one thing… but if you desire them to be on your site as well as on podcast page, that is not what is happening.
Just wanted to respectfully let you guys know what’s going on with your site. Not complaining. From this end it just seems like there are some coding errors that are being overlooked.
Respectfully,
Nathan
you need to email Trey about this (his email address is on the podcast site). I don’t know anything about making the sites do anything.
With all due respect, Mr. Heiser, it’s apparent that you have not done your homework regarding the derogatory comments about LA Marzulli, Richard Shaw and Brian Forrester’s work on the elongated skulls of Peru and their other work regarding the Nephilim. Have you even watched any of the Watchers series full episodes or read any of the books on this topic? I have watched all 10 of the Watcher’s series and some of the printed material. No where do I recall that they are putting forth the ancient astronaut theory. When they don’t identify a source it is at the request of the source. All through the series there are experts giving their opinions on findings and testing. Apparently either you have a professional jealousy of these men or your eyes are not open. Either way, I pray that the Lord will speak to you regarding putting down of another Christian’s work without having thoroughly gone through their material in order to be 100% sure of what you are stating. God bless.
What is the name of the lab where testing occurred?
Where are the test results for public review?
Who were the scientists who did the testing?
These are NOT unreasonable questions / requests. If you don’t want Christian research to be above reproach, then I’d say it’s you who have a problem. I don’t get data from TV shows. Anyone can say anything on a TV show. Scientific data needs to come from, and be confirmed by, precisely what I’m asking for. Again, what I’m asking for is completely reasonable. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist — I just want to know that the research is in fact real. Not providing the data suggests there’s something to hide.
Even Steven Greer (who has had some serious ethics allegations thrown at him) did the sorts of things I’m asking for (in regard to his Atacama “alien”). Christians ought to do the same and more.
Mr. Heiser .. your comments reflect those of someone who has never watched the information presented on either the Watchers Series DVDs or the written matter.
Who are you to be demanding their evidence? They have not asked for a peer review by you or anyone else to my knowledge.
They have never (to my knowledge) ever put forth an “Ancient Aliens” (as in Space men) supposition in all the years I have followed these Three men (Marzulli, Shaw or Forrester). I believe they put forward the “extra (other) Dimensional” idea…as that presented in Scripture….as in the dimension where YHVH and the angles reside. The Truth.
Neither have they supposed the skulls to be Nephilim but rather skulls of Hybrid crosses as the result of genetic manipulation of Human DNA…although someone who Briefs through what they say might JUMP to that conclusion.
What is your research background on Human or other Skull composition other than reading someone else’s decades old work who by the way never did any REAL examination of the “like” skulls (the skulls not cradle boarded) or even acknowledge the possibility?
Need I go on? Your comments echo of those put forward by someone who are closed to new (old) possibilities and answers to questions posed throughout the ages… as angles and prophets of old longed to understand…or maybe they did understand better than you.
I have read some of your work, most recently “The Unseen Realm” and I might add that my copy of that has MANY yellow sticky notes where I disagree with some your theories. The only true Expert on any subject is Yeshua … anyone else’s “ideas” are just that…. their Suppositions.
Jim
BTW The Watchers DVDs are not T.V. shows as you would know IF you watch one.
This doesn’t address the actual issue – transparency in the process. And the Bible doesn’t teach any view of dimensions — that’s our language, so we don’t actually know what the overlap is with ancient thinking.
It would for me, especially since there’s been a lot published on these skulls (e.g., the ones from Paracas).
I feel no shame in asking for people to be transparent in presenting evidence for their claims.
mentioning a university isn’t giving us the name of who’s doing the work, making the methodology public and transparent, or submitting the results to peer review. I want the department identified, the person(s) doing the testing, what sorts of tests are being done (in precise language), how the testing is peer-reviewed. Mentioning a university is the sort of vague offering that lets people appear transparent without doing the stuff of real transparency.
You can’t rebut a request for transparency — unless you are transparent.
I’m still waiting.
See my followup to Marzulli’s rant that failed to provide the transparency I asked for:
https://drmsh.com/earth-to-lynn-marzulli/
So, where are the items I’ve asked for?
See the other replies and my follow-up post to Marzulli. I just want lab name, scientists’ names, specific methods in research, research results, etc. subjected to peer review.
Is peer review really such a foreign concept? Maybe I’m assuming too much.
So, where are the items I’ve asked for?
See the other replies and my follow-up post to Marzulli. I just want lab name, scientists’ names, specific methods in research, research results, etc. subjected to peer review.
Is peer review really such a foreign concept? Maybe I’m assuming too much.
Short answer to your question: I don’t know. (“nothing” is an even shorter answer).
That’s possible – so why not just say so? Folks would understand that.