Interesting Artifact From Peruvian Desert Awaits Further Investigation

a reply to: vonclod
Maybe it is sunken in compared to the way they were

Maybe Brien Foerster can buy Eric Von Danikens defunct chariots of the Gods theme park?

a reply to: MysterX

To me, it's about the hit-rate. It's cool to be bringing out the odd curiosity and pushing tour sales on the back of them.

When it turns to creating papier mache gaffs and setting up videos with 'experts,' we're off into bold lies and fraud. I feel sorry for those who've gone for a 'trip of a lifetime' and spent their savings on someone who's actively lying and deceiving them.

Another point is how Brien Foerster's numerous finds aren't documented. They turn up in his museum and YT with no provenance beyond his say-so that he 'stumbled' on a grave site on a walk one day. *If* he found a genuinely curious skull, it'd be useless in the eyes of archaeology because he's ruined the site and passed it around for anyone to maul with.

Very interesting find if real.

Here's the DNA analysis in advance...if real...

There will be 2 analysis done...in which one will refute the other.

result: inconclusive

a reply to: Kandinsky

Agree with that pretty much 100%.

But on balance...imo, it's well known some people fleece the gullible, we've all been alive long enough to know this about some people...but even though, we shouldn't allow that knowledge to taint all of our thinking.

TinEye result... 0 Results
Searched over 16.550 billion images.

like google similar image search but more elborate result information when such a thing is found.

Who knows? Several independent reviews and samples of the thing; cataloged and indexed and teams involved is my suggestion.

originally posted by: seattlerat

originally posted by: BiffWellington
Why are we tip-toeing around the obvious?

The huge eyes? The elongated skull? The tapered chin? The tiny, slit-like mouth?

Clearly a monkey.

Owl monkey has similar features without jawbone. Could the odd eyes be the result of something placed in the sockets, similar to the way coins were placed on the eyes of human corpses?

Gets the prize. Animal worship, a deity, a pet perhaps?

Wouldn't be the first time someone buried animals in caves or tombs, whatever. Humans were involved judging by the eye sockets adorned with stylized markings. Those aren't natural, aleens din do it, neither did its kinfolk.

Imagining some kid burying his pet goldfish or tweety bird (wipes tears from eyes).

Fluffy skull fibres? Paper mache pulp. If he went this far, he could have at least smoothed out the edges ffs.
PS, since when are eyelids make of skull bone and preserve in the same way? Didn't think this one through very well.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Look at the fuzzy fibers underneath the paint around the hole in the bottom.

Well hello human back at'ya

That was something I noticed too. The eyes too, I would think would be sunk.

a reply to: skyblueworld

Has anyone considered the eyes being made of a similar hard material to that of trilobites ?

Their eyes were made a single crystal calcite, which created a double image effect... perhaps that could explain the apparent slit down the eye, a way to deflect the doubling effect?

Great find

Amazing!!! I need to know about this!

If this is so "earth-shattering" why does Mr. Foerster ruin the provenience by removing it?

Surely someone with his experience at "finding" things would know what to do?

Fiber sticking out of the bottom of the skull? Really?

Let's just say I have my doubts as to the veracity of this "find". 'course, once Foerster's name becomes involved that is a surety.

a reply to: zazzafrazz
Indeed, not that I would be in the know as to what an alien skull is made of, but the "skull fibers" make it appear to be something other than bone. If the skin is preserved as claimed, then either it is not ancient, or it has been treated as a sort of leather. Not to mention that there would likely be other body parts equally preserved nearby.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
*If* he found a genuinely curious skull, it'd be useless in the eyes of archaeology because he's ruined the site and passed it around for anyone to maul with.

This is 100% true.

I joined ATS today just so I can reply to interesting things like your post. Cool find! a reply to: skyblueworld

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: skyblueworld

Brien Foerster finds more 'anomalous' artefacts than almost anyone else in South America. He's nearly up there with Klaus Dona when it comes to discovering and promoting no-provenance objects.

At heart, he's an ex-pat with a tour business to run and a decent life-style to sustain. Nothing wrong with that and it's in the same ball park as going on a ghost tour of some old location. A lot of people enjoy a good ghost hunt without having to believe it's all real.

The team of Brian Foerster has taken samples of the skin and bone for DNA and radiocarbon testing in prominent laboratories in North America that they are working with already.

It looks more like papier-mâché. The fibres along the edge of the hole at the base of the 'skull' are what you see when thin sugar paper has been soaked really well. The video linked by Skywatcher44 makes it look even more like a sideshow gaff.

It could have looked better if the creator had made a more realistic skull and added the papier-mâché skin afterwards. At least then we'd be able to argue about the jaw and eye-sockets. Instead there's this so-called skull that has no moving parts and no cavities where eyes or nasal passages could have been.

The second 'specimen' that he 'can't believe they would be fake,' looks so fake I can't believe those four adults can sit there and say otherwise.

Foerster's a fraud. I wouldn't believe Brian Foerster if he told me his name was Brian Foerster,

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: skyblueworld

Brien Foerster finds more 'anomalous' artefacts than almost anyone else in South America. He's nearly up there with Klaus Dona when it comes to discovering and promoting no-provenance objects.

At heart, he's an ex-pat with a tour business to run and a decent life-style to sustain. Nothing wrong with that and it's in the same ball park as going on a ghost tour of some old location. A lot of people enjoy a good ghost hunt without having to believe it's all real.

The team of Brian Foerster has taken samples of the skin and bone for DNA and radiocarbon testing in prominent laboratories in North America that they are working with already.

It looks more like papier-mâché. The fibres along the edge of the hole at the base of the 'skull' are what you see when thin sugar paper has been soaked really well. The video linked by Skywatcher44 makes it look even more like a sideshow gaff.

It could have looked better if the creator had made a more realistic skull and added the papier-mâché skin afterwards. At least then we'd be able to argue about the jaw and eye-sockets. Instead there's this so-called skull that has no moving parts and no cavities where eyes or nasal passages could have been.

The second 'specimen' that he 'can't believe they would be fake,' looks so fake I can't believe those four adults can sit there and say otherwise.

Foerster's a fraud. I wouldn't believe Brian Foerster if he told me his name was Brian Foerster,

Harte

I wouldn't fall off the chair if it wasn't

a reply to: Harte

its real name = fraudy mcfraud-face

Thought of one more option. A falcon or other raptor used for hunting back then. Revered bird buried ceremoniously.

Of course the beak is missing, decayed?

a reply to: skyblueworld

Really interesting however when I searched about this online all I found was websites trying to get me to sign up to the websites clicked on or for ebooks they are offering. The video I found here.



Shouts nothing but money making program to get people talking about this. Came from this website > Link

So not sure how real this is, as always I hope for the day they find something to show whats going on in our worlds but this just seems for money, sadly and I hate to ever say that.