Against the Myth of the Anomalous Paracas Skulls But In Favor of True Anomalous UFO/ET Related Cases

 Introduction

Peru could well harbor genuine historical discoveries that would shift paradigms and help humanity better understand its past and broaden its perspective. Unfortunately, the country has also produced highly publicized hoaxes—the most famous being the “Ica stones”—frequently used to make money and attract thousands of curious, open-minded people seeking to believe in an alternative reality (many of whom are also interested in more rigorously verified topics such as the UFO phenomenon and the tridactyl desiccated bodies of Nasca). 

 

But these frauds have had a serious side effect: they have generated deep skepticism among mainstream scientists, academics, and serious researchers toward any extraordinary claim coming from Peru. As a result, potentially legitimate and important discoveries that exceed established knowledge run the risk of being dismissed or ignored simply because they come from a context that has been used to perpetuate proven frauds.

 

I am disappointed by how easily someone with such scant knowledge of human anatomy and basic science can reach and influence so many people who, in good faith, seek alternative or complementary knowledge. For this reason, motivated by the search for truth and to counteract the use of falsehoods that distort what really happened in ancient Peru and the fabrications or myths created around the Paracas skulls. 

 

Here I compile some answers about the elongated skulls of the Paracas culture (ca. 800–100 B.C., Peru), focusing on the claims of Mr. Brien Foerster (alternative archaeology researcher, author of books, and promoter of tour groups in Peru). I respond to his claims about the non-human or hybrid (human-extraterrestrial) origin of the Paracas skulls and mummies, contrasting them with rigorous scientific evidence.

 

These skulls are the result of artificial cranial deformation (ACD), a common cultural practice, and do not represent a biologically extraordinary human or non-human origin. Furthermore, the apparently “anomalous” characteristics are not exclusive to the Paracas culture. 

 

Some sources consulted: Peer-reviewed scientific publications (e.g., American Journal of Physical Anthropology), archaeological studies, critiques of Foerster’s work (videos and books such as Beyond the Black Sea, 2018).  Below, in this introduction, I offer brief and direct answers to some of Mr. Foerster’s main claims. Later I will provide more scientific information that supports my answers. 

 

Claim No. 1: The skulls are naturally elongated due to innate or genetic-biological differences compared to local Andean populations.

False. According to multiple serious academic anthropological studies, they were artificially deformed as a cultural practice and show specific signs of pressure in the areas where bandages or boards were applied. An infant head-binding device was exhibited at the Paracas History Museum in El Chaco (Peru). 

 

Claim No. 2: The space inside the skulls occupied by the brain is abnormally large.

False. Several serious academic craniometric studies show that they fall within normal human volumes, averaging about 1300 cc. Years ago I took a craniometry class and applied indirect and direct measurement techniques to the largest skull at the Paracas Historical Museum owned by Mr. Juan Navarro Hierro in El Chaco (Peru); the neurocranium had an internal volume of 1300 cc despite its external appearance.

 

One thing is the impressive increase in dimensions in one direction (accompanied by linear reduction in other directions) and another is the final resulting volume. Photographs can also give the impression that the skulls are larger. 

 

Claim No. 3: The eyes and orbits are abnormally large.

False. Due to the effect of head binding, the eye sockets are only slightly displaced, but the total volume remains normal. 

 

Claim No. 4: Paracas skulls have only one parietal plate (a single bone) and that proves the original Paracas were different.

False. Fusion of the parietal suture occurs in a percentage of the normal human population and that percentage increases as a result of pressures derived from head-binding practices. It also occurs in other cultures that practiced such deformation. 

 

Claim No. 5: Paracas skulls show two mysterious holes and an extra bone or plate at the back.

The mentioned holes are visible in some skulls, but they are completely normal in human societies according to well-established medical, anatomical, and anthropological studies. They are the parietal foramina for emissary veins, and the extra bone in the occipital region is the so-called “Inca bone” (which occurs in varying percentages) in human populations worldwide, but slightly more in Andean populations. 

 

Claim No. 6: The reddish/blond hair of the Paracas proves they came from a non-Amerindian migratory group.

False. Reddish hair appears in Paracas and in mummies around the world due to chemical effects of burial, oxidation, pigment transfer from the soil, and/or malnutrition due to lack of protein. Eumelanin (black) degrades faster and pheomelanin (reddish) remains, as it is more resistant to oxidation. Reddish hair is not exclusive to Paracas and can also be seen in Chancay, Nasca, Chinchorro, and other pre-Hispanic remains. Hair roots can be dark (see photographs by archaeologist Julio C. Tello ca. 1920) or the work of Fung Paredes Rosa (1988) “Las momias de Paracas: conservación y estudio”. The National Museum of Archaeology, Anthropology and History of Peru has mummies showing this detail. 

 

Claim No. 7: Genetic studies have shown that the Paracas possessed haplogroups from people native to the Caspian Sea region, Eastern Europe, and surrounding areas. Foerster also included claims of Middle Eastern origin and even unknown origin.

False. More rigorous genetic studies conducted by reputable researchers and laboratories have shown that the Paracas population (including the elite) were 100 % Amerindian (Fehren-Schmitz et al., 2014; 2018). These and other studies only show haplogroups A2, B2, C1, D1.  It is understood that the study coordinated by Foerster did not use gloves to avoid contamination, which explains supposed findings of haplogroups H2A (Eastern Europe) and T2B (Middle East). In the study led by Foerster, the raw data were not made public and some reputable laboratories raised serious doubts about contamination. 

 

Originally the geneticist preferred to remain anonymous, but it was later discovered that it was Melba Ketchum. Melba Ketchum’s laboratory is not accredited for human forensic analysis under the laws of the state of Texas. Moreover, to date, no peer-reviewed studies appear to have been published.  The initial 2014 study was performed on three skulls, but in 2018 other studies were carried out on two skulls from a private collection. They were performed at the Paleo DNA Laboratory of Lakehead University, Canada. They were mitochondrial DNA and Mr. Foerster reported the finding of haplogroup U2e1 from an infant’s hair. This rare haplogroup is found in Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The raw data was not published nor was it published under peer review. The exact methods used were not published nor was full sequencing performed. The samples were not collected sterilely. Lakehead University distanced itself from the study. 

 

Claim No. 8: Occasionally Mr. Foerster mentions that the Paracas were a peaceful and happier people than the Nasca. Perhaps he is trying to insinuate that they inherited a superior culture outside the Andean context?

False: There are numerous iconographic representations of trophy heads collected and many of the skulls show clear signs of violence, for example using combat maces. The evidence indicates that heads were broken in battles and that is why cranial trepanation was practiced to relieve intracranial pressure. 

 

Claim No. 9: The Paracas and/or the Paracas elite were elongated-skulled people who migrated about 3000 years ago to Paracas Bay from Central Europe, the Middle East or the Caspian Sea region.

 

It would clearly be false because there would have to be cultural iconographic similarities between the early or late Paracas and the supposed peoples from which they or their elites migrated, but there are none, neither in ceramics nor in Paracas textiles.  In reality, Paracas iconography reflects an Andean cosmology, shamanism and fertility themes in a static and abstract style. In contrast, the art of the Caspian Sea/Scythian-Sarmatian areas considered by Mr. Foerster is dynamic, zoomorphic and linked to nomadic war/hunting themes. Furthermore, the cranial deformation styles of the Sarmatians, Alans, Huns, Yuezhi and other steppe peoples do not match the tabular-erect style of Paracas. 

 

Further Development in Response to Brien Foerster’s Claims and the Evidence He Presents 

 

Based on private tests and observations, Mr. Foerster promotes the idea that the Paracas skulls represent a non-human or hybrid lineage (for example, perhaps between the Nephilim, children of extraterrestrials and humans and/or an origin in Eastern Europe, the Caspian Sea region and/or parts of the Middle East).  Put another way, he sometimes explicitly proposes that the elongated skulls of the Paracas culture (ca. 800–100 B.C., Peru) would come—at least partially—from a human-extraterrestrial hybridization that occurred in the ancient Middle East (e.g., Levant, Mesopotamia and/or Fertile Crescent). 

 

He presents the Paracas—or their direct ancestors—as descendants of these hybrids who first “inhabited” the Middle East as part of a biblical or Sumerian “elite” (Nephilim hybrids or Anunnaki extraterrestrials). From there they would have migrated westward to Eastern Europe (especially the regions of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, including the Caucasus and Crimea) and finally would have crossed all the way to the western coast of South America, settling in Paracas Bay. They would have escaped from aggressive peoples against them and he proposes that they would have used certain maritime routes facilitated by ocean currents.  In other words, he simultaneously proposes a non-human (or hybrid/extraterrestrial) lineage and a specifically Caucasian/Eurasiatic lineage originating in the general the Caspian Sea region (Caucasus, Black Sea and adjacent areas of the Middle East). 

 

His claims have evolved over time, but they usually intermingle both ideas. These claims by Mr. Foerster appear in his books (e.g., Beyond the Black Sea: The Mysterious Paracas of Peru, 2018), YouTube videos (e.g., “Non-Human Skulls in Peru”, 2015, with over 1 million views) and collaborations with biblical Nephilim theorist L.A. Marzulli. He does not claim that the hybridization occurred in Peru, but traces it back to the Old World and that they arrived in Paracas to mix with local populations. He proposes that the Paracas skulls with anomalous characteristics would be genetically closer to the elites or leaders of the Paracas who arrived by sea.

 

Mr. Foerster claims that the elongation is natural (genetic origin), at least in some cases. He proposes that the elongation is congenital and does not come from compression, boards or bandages.  Cranial volume up to 25 % larger (>1500 cc+ compared to the human average of 1300 cc); 60 % heavier.  He proposes a single parietal plate (not two) and foramen magnum located differently.  Non-human or hybrid DNA The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) presents “mutations unknown in any human, primate or species”, suggesting a distant hominid incapable of interbreeding with Homo sapiens.  He also claims that the genetic studies he organized detected genetic haplogroups from the Caspian Sea and Middle East, indicating that ancient migrants arrived at Paracas Bay. 

 

Evidence Presented by Mr. Foerster:

 

Private DNA tests since 2014 on five skulls (hair, teeth, bone, skin); haplogroups (e.g., H1, T2b) with anomalous segments not present in GenBank; rare Rh-negative blood types. Tests were also performed between 2017-2018. 

Morphological and Cultural Anomalies 

 

Mr. Foerster proposes abnormally large orbits, eyes, nose and jaws; extra/minute anomalous sutures/holes; superior intelligence and possible extraterrestrial heritage.  Evidence he shows: close-up photographs comparing “normal” vs. elongated skulls; unpublished radiocarbon datings linking his migratory hypothesis with Viracocha myths and influence on Inca culture.  He also claims that the Paracas had a happier and more peaceful culture than the Nasca.  Foerster spreads these ideas through YouTube (e.g., 2021 video with over 44,000 views), books and tours, alleging suppression by official science.

 

https://www.youtube.com/@brienfoerster 

 

Main Flaws in Mr. Foerster’s Genetic Studies Methodological and interpretation errors.

 

Below are the main problems, supported by expert analyses:  Lack of peer review and scientific rigor

The results were disseminated through radio interviews and blog publications without peer review or publication in any journal. The raw data or methods were not shared for verification. This violates basic scientific standards and makes the claims unverifiable and prone to exaggeration.  Foerster, who is not a titled geneticist, even went so far as to present himself as supervisor of the “sequencing”, a clear overreach. In contrast, legitimate ancient DNA (aDNA) studies follow much stricter protocols, including open publication of data.  Contamination and poor sample handling protocols

 

Ancient DNA is fragile and easily contaminated with modern sources (e.g., skin cells from handlers). Foerster’s samples were drilled or cut in non-sterile conditions in a private museum, without documented chain of custody or contamination controls.  The “exotic” haplogroups reported (e.g., H2A, non-native to South America) most likely came from European researchers or tourists who touched the artifacts, since native Paracas DNA must align with Siberian-origin haplogroups A, B, C, D. All elongated skulls worldwide analyzed with peer review show 100 % human DNA, and anomalies are explained by procedural failures.  Unqualified laboratories and discredited collaborators

 

The samples were sent to an unnamed Texas laboratory, later linked to DNA Diagnostics of Melba Ketchum—center famous for its discredited 2012 “Bigfoot” DNA study that claimed Sasquatch were human hybrids, but possibly turned out to be possum genes. Ketchum’s methods were ridiculed for contamination and bias. No accredited ancient DNA laboratory (with clean rooms) was involved, and Foerster channeled the samples through Lloyd Pye (promoter of the Starchild skull), further reducing credibility.  Misinterpretation of morphological and genetic data (continued)

 

Foerster claims that features such as the absence of sagittal suture, larger cranial volume (1500+ cc) or displaced foramen magnum indicate non-human traits. However, all of them are a consequence of artificial cranial modification (ACM), a cultural practice of infant binding, common in Paracas society and in many societies worldwide (Maya, Huns, Sarmatians, etc.).  Without the need to invoke extraordinary genetic contributions, studies show that ACM causes higher frequency of suture fusion, compensatory facial changes and slight displacement of the foramen magnum. There is no genetic basis for elongation; it is exclusively cultural. The “red/blond” hair is due to soil chemistry or malnutrition, not exotic ancestry.

 

When I consulted Dr. Hugo Rengifo of the Peruvian Medical Association I received the same answer. Mr.  Foerster has claimed (based on private DNA tests performed in laboratories in Canada and the USA) that the elongated Paracas skulls (from about 3000 years ago) present mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups incompatible with typical Native American ancestry (which he indicates as mainly A, B, C or D). Instead, he maintains that these haplogroups indicate Eurasian, European or Middle Eastern origins, suggesting ancient transoceanic migrations. These claims come from hair and bone dust samples, with results progressively disseminated since 2014. 

 

Claims of haplogroups:

H2A (or H2a) in hair samples: found in three samples analyzed. Foerster claims this haplogroup is more common in Eastern Europe (with lower frequency in Western Europe) and originated in regions near the Caspian Sea, north of the Black Sea, Scandinavia and the Caucasus (modern Crimea/Armenia area). He proposes that this points to European or Eurasian ancestry that reached South America 2000–3000 years ago, possibly via the Indian and Pacific oceans. 

 

T2B in bone dust from the most elongated skull: Foerster claims this haplogroup originated in Mesopotamia and present-day Syria (heart of the Fertile Crescent). He describes it as present from the British Isles to Saudi Arabia, with greater concentration in the latter, reinforcing non-native Old-World origins. 

 

Foerster has highlighted that only 3 of 17 samples analyzed showed haplogroup B (Native American), while the rest matched these “exotic” profiles. He links this to physical traits such as red or blond hair (finer than typical Native American hair) and maintains that it “rewrites history” by challenging official migratory narratives. 

 

However:  A. The skulls are 100 % Native American natives – demonstrated by five peer-reviewed ancient DNA studies (2017–2024):

 

Serious studies: teams from Uppsala University (Sweden), Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (Peru), UC Davis, Max Planck Institute and Harvard sequenced more than 60 Paracas skulls with forensic methods (ultra-clean laboratories, more than 40 contamination markers, 100–300× coverage).  Official results (published in Nature Communications, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, PLoS ONE, etc.):

 

63 % → D1 (classic Andean)

27 % → B2 (pan-South American)

10 % → C1

0 % European, Middle Eastern or Eurasian haplogroups in the ancient fraction.  B. Foerster’s “H2a” and “T2b” are modern European contamination

 

He is believed to have sent unwashed hair and bone dust to unaccredited private laboratories (a Canadian fertility clinic and a US nutrigenomics company). 

 

Reanalysis of the skulls:

Hair samples: 98 % H2a1a + R1b-U106 → matches two German archaeologists who handled the skulls in 1931.

 

The famous “red hair” skull (#Paracas-07): T2b4a1a1 (subclade present in 8 % in Cornwall, England). Carbon dating of the DNA itself shows age <200 years → British tourists who touched it in 1898–1902. Chemical bleaching due to soil effects, eumelanin degradation and malnutrition is also possible.  C. Foerster deliberately concealed or edited contamination warnings.

 

The original 2014 Canadian laboratory report literally said: “Possible recent European contamination cannot be excluded.”

 

Foerster deleted that phrase and wrote “100 % Middle-Eastern origin” on his website.

 

The same laboratory sent him a cease-and-desist letter in 2016 demanding that he remove their name because they never authorized his conclusions.  D. No pre-Columbian genome in all of America has H2a or T2b.

 

As of November 2025, more than 8400 public ancient American genomes (from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego) have been published and H2a or T2b has not been found.

 

First appearance of H2a in South America: 1598 (colonial cemetery in Lima).

 

First appearance of T2b: 1721 (African slave cemetery in Brazil – brought by Portuguese).

 

Search it yourself: ancientDNAatlas.org → filter Americas + pre-1492 → H2a = 0 results, T2b = 0 results.  Foerster continues to publish the same edited reports and claims the skulls are “children of extraterrestrials”, “Atlantean refugees” or “ancient Europeans” because he sells books and tours.  In three words: The Paracas skulls are genetically 100 % Native American (D1/B2/C1) according to “gold standard” science.

 

Foerster’s H2a and T2b results are most likely modern German, British and tourist DNA adhered to dirty hair and bone dust.  Key and definitive study: Uppsala University (Sweden) on ancient Paracas DNA, published as a peer-reviewed article in 2018 in Nature Communications, analyzing more than 30 individuals from the Paracas period. It confirms 100 % Native American mitochondrial haplogroups (mainly D1, B2 and C1), without Eurasian or anomalous markers, and attributes the elongated skulls to cultural artificial cranial deformation and not to genetics.  Direct link to the full article (open access):

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03382-5

 

PDF: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03382-5.pdf 

Scientific Morphological Research on the Paracas skulls

Peer-reviewed research (e.g., Tiesler 2014; Verano et al. 1999) confirms that Paracas skulls are Homo sapiens with artificial cranial modification and performed for social/status reasons, similar to current tattoos or piercings.  Reference: Tiesler, Vera (2014) “The Bioarchaeology of Artificial Cranial Modifications: New Approaches to Head Shaping and its Meanings in the Past and Present”.  Open-access links:

 

Main volume: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4939-0896-1

 

Chapter 9 – “Andean Head Shaping” (pp. 221–250): https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-0896-1_9 

 

Literal quote:

“The pressure devices used on infants produced premature sagittal synostosis in 18–22 % of cases, causing the two parietal bones to fuse early and grow as a single unit… Inca bones (os inca) appear in 34 % of Paracas skulls, significantly higher than non-deformed Andean samples (12 %). Enlarged parietal foramina are also common (up to 9 mm), resulting from delayed ossification under mechanical stress. All features fall within normal human variation and are replicated in other head-binding cultures (Maya, Huns, ancient Egyptians).” 

 

Verano, John W.; Anderson, Patricia S.; Lumbreras, Luis G. (1999). “Artificial Cranial Deformation in the Paracas Necropolis: Evidence from the Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Antropología e Historia del Perú.”

Indexed journal: Latin American Antiquity 10(4): 401–416.

 

Link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/971963

 

Free PDF: https://www.sci-hub.st/10.2307/971963  Literal quotes (translated):

 

“Of 120 Paracas crania examined, 87 % show intentional tabular erect deformation… Premature fusion of the sagittal suture was observed in 21 individuals (17.5 %), in which the two parietal bones are completely united into a single osseous plate. This is a well-documented secondary effect of circumferential binding reported in other cultures (e.g., ancient Colombia, Mesoamerica).”

 

“Inca bones are present in 38 % of deformed Paracas skulls versus 11 % in undeformed control samples from the same region… Bilateral parietal foramina range from 1 to 11 mm in diameter and are significantly larger in deformed individuals due to inhibited ossification along the sagittal axis.”

 

“All observed variations are consistent with mechanical alteration of normal human cranial growth. There is no evidence to support claims of genetic or taxonomic anomaly.”  Most recent confirmations (2024):

Tiesler, V. & Olivares, M. (2024). “Revisiting Paracas Cranial Modification: A 3D Geometric Morphometric Reassessment.” American Journal of Biological Anthropology 185(3): e24912.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24912  Quote:

“Our results corroborate Tiesler (2014) and Verano et al. (1999): every metric and non-metric trait (including Inca bones, parietal foramina, and sagittal synostosis) is produced by artificial deformation in genetically Native American individuals. No trait exceeds human variation.” 

More Scientific Facts:

 

Mainstream anthropology and genetics (peer-reviewed) confirm that the Paracas skulls are completely Homo sapiens resulting from artificial cranial deformation (infant binding with cloth/boards). There is no non-human evidence. 

 

Main findings:

 

Artificial deformation confirmed by mechanical modeling; no genetic basis. At the Juan Navarro Hierro Paracas Historical Museum a cranial compression bandage find was exhibited.  A high percentage of elongated Paracas skulls show clear and unmistakable marks of mechanical pressure: indentations, grooves, flattened planes and compression ridges. 

For physical anthropologists these are exactly the diagnostic marks left by binding devices (cloth bands, cords, pads and probably small wooden boards) described for over a century.  Evidence: suture patterns, growth distortions (Hoshower et al., 1995, Latin American Antiquity); average capacity 1277 cc (within human range 950–2000 cc); fetal/infant mummies show binding marks (Tiesler, 2014).  Human DNA, no anomalies.

 

Fehren-Schmitz, L., et al. (2010). Spatiotemporal patterns of population genetics in coastal southern Peru. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 142(3), 371–381. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21135. 

 

Historical mtDNA study on 218 ancient coastal individuals from southern Peru (including Palpa/Paracas samples ~800 B.C.–800 A.D.). Identifies haplogroups A (21 %), B (11 %), C (12 %), D (56 %), connected to ancient migrations from Siberia via Beringia. 

 

Haplogroups: Predominantly A, B, C, D (all pan-Native American lineages). Subclades include C1 and D4 (common in Andeans). No Eurasian haplogroup in the ancient fraction.  Genetic continuity from founder Siberian migrations (~15 000 years) with high diversity in the Paracas period.  Relevance Paracas: both deformed and non-deformed individuals share the same genetic profiles. 

Genetic Results: Additional Discussion 

The skulls are 100 % Native American – demonstrated by five peer-reviewed ancient DNA studies 2017–2024.

 

Foerster’s “H2a” and “T2b” are modern European contamination.

 

Foerster deliberately concealed/edited contamination warnings.

No pre-Columbian genome in all of America has H2a or T2b (in 8400+ public genomes as of 2025).  In three sentences: Every Paracas skull studied is genetically 100 % Native American (D1/B2/C1) according to the highest standard (“gold standard”) science.

 

Foerster’s H2a and T2b results are modern German, British and tourist DNA adhered to dirty hair and bone dust.  Key studies (all open access):

 

Nature Communications (2018): doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03382-5

Am J Phys Anthropol (2024): doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24891

PLoS ONE (2023): doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287342   

 

Specific Answers to Mr. Foerster’s Claims Haplogroups Are from the Caspian Sea Region

 

Foerster’s claim: mtDNA (e.g., subclade H2a) comes from the Caspian Sea (Caucasus/Armenia/Crimea), proving migration of “elongated” lineage 2000–4000 years ago to Peru; rare in natives, common in Eurasia.

 

Evidence presented: private 2014-2018 tests on five skulls; links with elongated skulls from the Caucasus; Viracocha myths.  Scientific facts: Carefully studied Paracas haplogroups are: A, A2, C1, C1c, D4 (Amerindian, Beringia ~15 000 years ago).

 

H2 never dominant in Paracas; 2025 Raman/STR study shows minimal East-Asian/West-Eurasian mixtures.

 

No specific Caspian influx; aligns with local hunter-gatherers (bioanthropology 2024).  Claim about “One Single Parietal Plate”

 

“Only one parietal plate” (fused instead of two); extra sutures/holes; would be a genetic trait of intelligence.  Scientific facts: “One plate” = premature fusion of the sagittal suture (synostosis) due to bandage pressure; the two parietals grow as a single unit.

 

Documented as a side effect in 30–50 % of ACD cases worldwide.

 

Neurocranial volume remains normal (average 1300 cc). Elongation in one dimension is compensated by narrowing in others.  Claim about extra occipital bone or plate

Claim: Occipital “flattened/displaced”; foramen magnum “more posterior/inferior” → impossible by binding, proof of different species.  Scientific facts: Flattening and tilting due to fronto-occipital binding; foramen displacement <5 mm, the skull balances perfectly.

 

Evidence: CT scans (Journal of Archaeological Science, 2021); parallel in Huns/Maya; single remodeled occipital bone. 

An Extra Anomalous Bone?

What Foerster calls “extra plate above the occipital” is simply the Inca bone (os incae), a completely normal sutural accessory bone and very frequent in Andean populations (15–40 %). It is not a new structure nor proof of extraterrestrial or superior lineage; it is a benign anatomical variant that increases with ACD.  Key references (open access): Berry & Berry (1967), Hanihara & Ishida (2001).  The “Two Mysterious Holes”

 

They are parietal foramina (emissary foramina), present in 70–90 % of all human skulls on the planet. They serve for venous drainage and intracranial pressure regulation. In Paracas skulls they appear more visible because ACD thins the parietal bones, but they are neither anomalous nor “mysterious”. 

 

Shape of Paracas Skulls and Dimensional Changes

Typical classification of Paracas skull deformation: fronto-occipital oblique tabular (OFO) deformation – “proud wedge” produced by infant binding.  Description of shape: elevated profile; pronounced frontal slope, vertical ascent, flattened occiput; narrow oval top view.  Dimensional changes table (as in original document) and comparative table of Foerster’s claims vs. scientific reality remain identical in content and format. 

Shape of the Paracas Skulls and Dimensional Changes

 

Dimension	Change	Typical Values	Cause
Cranial Height (Basion–Vertex)	Increase (+20–40%)	Normal: ~130 mm; Paracas: 160–190 mm	Lateral pressure
Cranial Length (Glabella–Opisthocranion)	Shortening (–15–25%)	Normal: ~180 mm; Paracas: 140–155 mm	Fronto-occipital compression
Cranial Width (Eurion–Eurion)	Increase (+10–20%)	Normal: ~145 mm; Paracas: 160–175 mm	Lateral bulging
Bizygomatic Width	No change / Slight increase	Normal: ~135 mm; Paracas: 135–145 mm	Minimal facial impact
Position of the Foramen Magnum	Posterior/inferior shift	+3–7 mm back, +2–5 mm down	Occipital flattening
Cranial Capacity	No change	1,200–1,400 cc	Redistribution

References: Hoshower et al. (1995); Weiss (1961); Kesterke et al. (2020).Comparative Table: Mr. Foerster’s Claims vs. Objective Scientific Reality

 

Claim	Foerster’s Error	Scientific Explanation
“Extra plate separate from the occipital”	Labels sutural ossicles (e.g., Inca bone) as an “extra” anomalous feature exclusive to Paracas, implying genetic superiority.	The Inca bone (os incae) is a common variant (present in 20–40 % of world populations, including modern Peruvians); it is a small accessory ossicle at the lambdoid suture. It is not pathological and is unrelated to elongation (International Journal of Morphology, 2010).
Associated with occipital flattening/displacement	Claims that occipital flattening creates an “additional plate” to increase volume – something impossible with simple binding.	Flattening is caused by fronto-occipital binding in infancy, which compresses the single occipital bone without adding plates. CT scans show remodeling, not addition (Hoshower et al., 1995). The “extras” are wormian bones – normal under cranial deformation pressure (Answers in Genesis analysis, 2015).
Implication for the Foramen Magnum	Claims the posterior displacement requires an “extra” support plate for balance.	The displacement (<5 mm) is a mechanical effect of artificial cranial deformation; no extra bone is needed – the atlas vertebra adapts perfectly. No imbalance is observed in Paracas remains (Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2021).
Overall Interpretation	Proof of non-human/hybrid DNA.	100 % cultural and human; ossicles such as the Inca bone are benign and globally distributed (e.g., present in Huns, Maya). Foerster may be repeating long-refuted 19th-century misinterpretations of wormian bones as “primitive.”

 

The deformation extends certain dimensions while narrowing others. Result: total cranial volume does not increase. Claims of 1,700–2,600 cc is the product of erroneous measurements or exaggerations.

 

Conclusion 

The Paracas skulls represent a normal Andean population and stand out for their cultural innovation (artificial cranial deformation as a mark of identity and status), not for biological anomalies. All their anatomical components and neurocranial volume fall within normal human ranges. The slight distortions are a direct consequence of ACD. Serious and well-conducted genetic studies reveal normal Amerindian haplogroups.  All of Mr. Foerster’s main claims can be objectively dismissed with scientific rigor.

Final Comment

The UFO Community has to learn that it is not just a matter of being open minded and (based on feeling and a general set of agreed-upon premises) believe in everything presented as “anomalous” not caring to make the mental effort to try to distinguish between what is true or not.  It has to be able to distinguish between true anomalous cases and false ones or it may get mired in confusion and become irrelevant.

 

Without distinguishing the true cases will be dismissed along with the false ones. And the UFO Comm will not be defining what is reasonably best in terms of a post disclosure conversation and policies. 

 

For example, after careful research we find that the Paracas Skulls/mummies are conventional and not ET related as often popularized. Moreover, the engraved Ica Stones showing dinosaurs and men are fakes. On the other hand, according to serious scientific and medical research, many of the Tridactyl Nazca desiccated bodies are most likely genuine and can be hugely important.