Gaint? Alien? Or Perfectly Normal?

Jumping to the head of the lengthening queue comes Is Peruvian Mummy a Giant Toddler?

Back in late November – yes, Mr Thomas is that late in getting to the story – it was reported that a mummified skeleton of a toddler with a 20 inch head had been found in Peru. What possible explanation could there be for such a find? Mr Thomas is going with Giants:

Some say that giant humans are too incredible to have been real and that the Bible’s references to them are fiction.

However, many extra-biblical records corroborate the existence of giants, including sober accounts from early explorers like Magellan and ancient texts like the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Hebrew Book of Enoch, and the Book of Giants.

Now, a mummy skeleton found in Peru looks like a giant toddler. If that is indeed what it is, then it adds more weight to the idea that giants were real.

The ICR’s position on Gilgamesh is tat it is a corrupted, derivative work based on the original Genesis story (everyone else has a more-or-less opposite view). The Patagon’s encountered by Magellan were a hoax and/or an exaggeration. That doesn’t leave any credible genuinely extra-biblical (that is, indisputably separate from the Jewish religion) giant accounts in B.T.’s list. Skipping past the evidence that the skeleton is indeed that of a toddler:

If the youngster had fully matured, he would have qualified as a giant. The skeleton has other unique features, including large eye sockets, a unique molar structure, and an unusual shelf on its chin. Ritos Andinos Museum Director Renato Davila said, “It’s 20 inches tall, which doesn’t coincide with the stereotypes of humans.” Some anthropologists are reluctant to call it human.

Who are these anthropologists? There is a citation there…to the Daily Mail: Is this an alien skull? Mystery of giant-headed mummy found in Peru. You can see why people refer to the paper as the Daily Fail, can’t you?

Let’s take a look at this article, then:

A mummified elongated skull found in Peru could finally prove the existence of aliens.

The strangely shaped head – almost as big as its 50cm (20in) body – has baffled anthropologists.

It was one of two sets of remains found in the city of Andahuaylillas in the southern province of Quispicanchi.

‘Scientists are baffled’ – always a good sign.

Davila Riquelme said three anthropologists, from Spain and Russia, arrived at the museum last week to investigate the findings and agreed it was ‘not a human being’ and would conduct further studies.

He added: ‘Although the assessment was superficial, it is obvious that its features do not correspond to any ethnic group in the world.’

The remains of an eyeball in the right socket will help determine its genetic DNA – and clear up the controversy if it is human or not.

And there’s a controversy too. Lots of red flags here.

The remains bear a striking resemblance to the triangular crystal skull in the 2008 Indiana Jones film Kingdom of the Crystal Skull – which turned out to be of alien origin and have supernatural powers.

The ‘journalist’, Paul Milligan, may need to be reminded of the fictional nature of said movie. Additionally, the skull looks nothing like the ‘Crystal Skull’ – this one has the forehead going up and up, while the C.S. goes back. And many, many other differences with what is, when it comes down to it, a movie prop.

The Mail article isn’t completely credulous, however. After the article finishes there is another section, entitled “The truth may lie in a simple piece of cloth…”, which begins:

The alternative explanation for the bizarre discovery is that the skull was artificially deformed as part of a tribal ritual.

The practice of skull elongation – to signify group affiliation or social status – dates back 9,000 years.

Aha. So, the alien stuff was for what, exactly?

To return to Mr Thomas’ article, we find that he doesn’t even mention the existence of a caveat. Presumably he read it, but if he did he’s not telling us. I’m going with intentional deception here – reasonable doubt seems to have been exceeded.

I’ll try to catch up with everything else soon. The Forlow’s are in Canada this week, apparently, which helps.

Happy belated Darwin Day, btw. I didn’t do anything for it – I don’t have to. We’re doing ‘human evolution’ in Biology right now, and this morning was spent viewing the second episode of Walking with Cavemen and looking at skulls. Just another day, far far away from religious fundamentalists…

3 thoughts on “Gaint? Alien? Or Perfectly Normal?

  1. The reason he didn’t mention head binding is because that would disprove his claim within the 0.38 seconds it takes google to find something. Seriously, the second image on a google search is OF A CHILD WITH A FREAKISHLY LARGE HEAD DUE TO HEAD BINGING.

    He’s either ignorant to the point where he has no right commenting on this story or being deliberately dishonest. Some might suggest he simply believes these skulls to be different from bound skulls, in which case why didn’t he offer a refutation? “Skeptics would say these are just bound skulls, here’s why they’re wrong…”

    If he’s so right then that shouldn’t be so hard to do. But he hasn’t, so I think the first two options are the only ones applicable.

    And seeing such blatant misrepresentation of facts thoroughly annoys me.

  2. Pingback: Cavefish; Kimberlite Pipes; and the Joke’s on Frank Sherwin « Eye on the ICR


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s