October 27, 2020 By Joseph P. Farrell

On a few occasions I've blogged about those strange elongated (and apparently humanoid) skulls that were found near Paracas, Peru several years ago. My approach has been one of guarded skepticism and at the same time, my usual "high octane speculation." My usual method when indulging in such speculations has been (1) to assume for the sake of that speculation that a strange or anomalous story is true, and then (2) to speculate on its implications.

Well, today's story from V.T. who spotted and shared it deserves a big thank you, because this latest development brings more into focus what my previous speculations on these strange skulls might imply:

DNA Results Show the Elongated Paracas Skulls Are Not Native American

These strange skulls, as the article notes, are more than a mystery, because as previous stories on DNA studies have evidenced, they - whoever "they" are - were not any sort of native American Peruvian population. Indeed, given their shape, and rather large craniums, it's difficult to see how they're native anywhere else on Earth either, which raises some intriguing questions (again, following the above methodology) that we'll get back to. Previous articles on the subject have pointed out the strange phenomenon of skull flattening and elongation practiced by some ancient human societies, possibly in imitation of these strange people.

But this article contains something that caught my eye, which appears to be a new development in the story:

Some DNA analysis has shown that the elongation present on the Paracas skulls was not the result of artificial cranial deformation but by genetics.

Some of the Paracas Skulls have a cranial volume which is up to 25% larger and 60% percent heavier than conventional human skulls.

While ‘head binding’ can alter the shape of the skull, it cannot alter its volume. (Emphases added)

It's that statement about the enlarged and elongated craniums being a genetic characteristic that intrigues me, and leads to today's reallyhigh octane speculations in the form of some questions. Assuming that the DNA shows the results to be human, or of the genus homo, then several questions arise: (1) if of the genus homo, then how do "they" fit into the story of human evolution, if at all? (2) What is the age of the skulls? (3) If they are not genetically related to the human evolution story, did they arrive here from somewhere else? But (4) if they are related to homo sapiens or even to homo sapiens sapiens, does the DNA analysis indicate that they might have arisen as the result of some sort of experiment in genetic engineering? A crucial question in this regard is that of whether or not an example of any entire female intact skeleton of the group has been found? If so, is the hip bone considerably larger to accommodate such a large skull during live birth, and if not, how then were "they" brought into life? And if no intact skeletons exist, then yet another question occurs: why preserve only the skulls?

And by the same token, if we're looking at some sort of elaborate fraud or hoax, the question is, why?

I am not sufficiently informed about the details and ins-and-outs of the Paracas skulls to answer these questions nor even to know if they've already been asked and answered.

That said, and granting the proposition that this is not some sort of elaborate hoax for the sake of speculation, then I suspect that  regardless of any answers that might be there, we're looking at an extraordinary mystery that may require the standard model of human history and evolution to be revised, if not considerably revised. Indeed, I'm reminded by these skulls of the Mayan story of the genesis of mankind in the Popol Vuh, where humanity was created in some sort of primordial "masculine androgyne" state, that had to be split apart into the sexes because in that state, humanity was "too smart" and some sort of threat to the "gods." Even stranger is that the Popol Vuh's idea of a primordial "masculine androgyne" appears distantly echoed by some versions of the Talmud of Genesis 1:  "Male and female created He him" with all the Talmudic, and later, Christian Patristic speculation that this androgyne was split apart in prevision of the Fall, a tradition that appears as late as  Jon Scotus Eriugena in the 9th century. Explaining how the same idea shows up in Talmudic, Patristic, and Mayan writings adds even more to the mystery, and it may be that these strange skulls might eventually shed some sort of light on that as well.

See you on the flip side...