The Dolicocephaloids, or real, live Coneheads. Mysterious skulls that are found in Chile, Peru, Malta, and Iraq. Other skull types were found in North America that fit an average man's head inside...but, they had DOUBLE rows of teeth!
Anyways...to get you started on this paleological odyssey...check out these articles (with pictures) and tell us your thoughts on this mystery.

www.biped.info/articles/missingrace.html
www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6.htm
www.starchildproject.com

My thoughts?

Why is it that theories like these are never presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Is it because mainstream science is just here to re-enforce the status quo, or is it because these theories never leave the realm of pseudo-science? In case you haven't noticed, I'm definitely a skeptic on these issues.

Right away, doubts are cast on the credibility of the first article, because 1) the article appears on an obscure, anti-evolution website that seems to preach some sort of alien creationism theory (as opposed to being published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal), and 2) it was written by a contributing editor to a paranormal magazine (as opposed to a scientist, or even anyone with relevant experience or education in the field). Not looking good already, before I even read the article.

The article itself is interesting in that, even though the article is many thousands of words long and took me quite a while to read, it never seems to really present any evidence to prove it's assertion. In fact, under the heading "The Best Evidence", is a reference to a book written in *1851* by a man who is a "doctor in philosophy, medicine and surgery"...fields that are nearly entirely irrelevant to the topics being discussed (which would be archeology, anthropology, genetics, etc)...bear in mind that being a surgeon in 1851 essentially meant being handy with a hacksaw. If the best evidence for your point is an obscure, forgotten book written by a non-expert over 150 years ago, maybe you should rethink your position?

Throughout the article, numerous references to archeologists uncovering "elongated" skulls are made. The important point to consider here, is that all the archeologists who uncovered said skulls agree that the elongation was due to self-inflicted cultural head-binding, which is a well-documented practice amongst certain peoples, and is analogous to several other practices, such as foot-binding among the chinese. The only people who don't agree that these elongated skulls were caused by head-binding are the author of the 1851 book, and the author of the article, who claims that the head-binders were inspired by a race of *actual* "long-heads"...and twisted into this whole mess is the assertion that the existence of such a race somehow contradicts and disproves evolution.

Like most pseudoscientific literature, the article is poorly written, rambling, and jumps freely from point to point without ever really proving any single assertion. It's heavy on speculation and light on factual evidence.

The second (and presumably third...the third website seems to be down) seem to be entirely unrelated to the first. The assertion here is that a single specimen of a malformed skull represents either A) an alien, or B) an alien-human hybrid (called a "starchild").

The entire presumption is based on a logical fault that is common in pseudo-scientific reasoning, in which a simple, mundane explanation (in this case, that the skull is simply a deformed human) is passed over and brushed away on the basis of some small inconsistency (either real or conceived), is then replaced by an even more improbable and factually-lacking theory. There is a false dichotomy presented, which relies on the mistaken notion that disproving one theory would automatically prove another...in this case, the author seems to believe that by disproving the theory that the skull is a result of deformity, it proves that the skull is an alien-human hybrid, despite the fact that his theory has many more holes and factual inconsistencies than the original theory. This is the same type of argument used by creationists who think that if they can poke holes in evolution, it automatically proves creationism.

For a more in-depth debunking of the "starchild" skull, refer to this well-written article by the New England Skeptics Society: http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=37

I didn't see any reference to a "second row of teeth" or being able to "fit an average man's head inside" one of these skulls, but that sounds interesting. Were they on the third link, maybe?

--Cooncat, explaining the Unexplained and De-Bunking the Bunk at Ninjashoes since 2006!

i got a question ninja...where the hell do you find these?

Another part of Evolution..................

damn what a trip