10148 replies to this topic

[zoser]

Imaginarynumber1, on 30 December 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

I think zoser edited the wiki page on artificial cranial deformation:

[/sup]

Interesting.

[zoser]

Myles, on 29 December 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

No evidence there

No evidence there to support the mainstream theories.

Yes I agree Myles.

It's good that the classic theories are being debunked at last.

[zoser]

seeder, on 29 December 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

jesus mate research!!!!!!!!!!!

Pursuing the defect line is just doomed to failure.  No single birth defect can explain a culture with skulls like the Paracas.  Too many anomalies.

[zoser]

Oniomancer, on 30 December 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

Speaking of videos...


Here's the famous Petrie core or song and story:



Notice the healthy sheen, not unlike a golden retriever, despite the ridges. Accepting that, one way or another, this was done with some method of boring, how do you suppose it got like that? There's no vitrification, because you can clearly see the course, none vitrified crystalline structure and there's no reason to polish the core. The only conclusion then is that whatever did the boring polished as it went, and since a core drill, either hand powered or sonic, either uses abrasive grit or creates it along the way, we may freely assume that this grit is the likely culprit. There is therefor every reason to expect the same thing from the same types of tools. The lesson here then. to mangle a phrase, is all that glitters is not glass.

This biggest smoking gun with this sample is literally written all over it.  It's a great picture and I'm glad you posted it.  How do you explain the high feed rate.  Dunn did a test where he used a copper pipe and it didn't produce these marks.

Dunn measured 0.1 inch per revolution on the above sample!  Nothing they had could do that.  More evidence of high technology.  And as you say it's vitrified!

The picture totally supports my summary!  How can it not?

Edited by zoser, 30 December 2012 - 09:05 AM.

[zoser]

Imaginarynumber1, on 30 December 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:

Just the unsubstantiated claims about brain cavity size, eye orbit and using that Brian guy he's been plugging the last 50 or so pages as a source.

I'm only half joking about think that he edited it.....

Brien with an 'e' not an 'a'.

[zoser]

Imaginarynumber1, on 30 December 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

I was gonna say, he'd just post another vid about something completely different. I gave up on this tread quite so time ago. There isn;t even debate with someone like zoser. He switches topics and moves goalposts so much that it's not worth the time.

Not true.  I have concentrated on two issues:  Skulls and precision work.  I even went to the trouble of summarising my findings so far and providing the original sources of the photographs.  I haven't as an example covered ancient artwork, myths and legends in any detail, or anything else that may support the AA theory.  Just those two topics.

I have been very open and honest in a drive to find key evidence.  Why not join in if you are interested instead of complaining all the time?

[DingoLingo]

zoser, on 30 December 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

I haven't as an example covered ancient artwork, myths and legends in any detail, or anything else that may support the AA theory.  Just those two topics.

well not in this thread maybe.. but in others.. and I pointed out when you put up the australian aboriginal art work what they actually were..

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 30 December 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

Zoser mentioned the different shape of the eye sockets a couple of times, but all that can be explained by hydrocephalus and the Incan way (head binding) to cure it. If the bones of the brain cavity can be remodeled, than so can the other bones near it.

Personally I find the idea I posted about in my former post quite intriguing: that head binding could have been a way to succesfully cure hydrocephalus, and that inbreeding in tight knit mountain and valley communities of Peru and Bolivia could have passed on a genetic skull design flaw, a flaw that caused hydrocephalus.

What about increased mandible size and different cranial suture?

I really do believe you are clutching at straws again with all this birth defect or deformation nonsense.

Just like the precision stonework where no one witnessed it being done or described it:

Show me an example from the 20th Century of tribal cranial deformation that resulted in anything like this



I'm staggered that you always go along this dead end reasoning all the time.  There is no precedent for anything like this in recorded history.  Anyone who has looked into skull binding would realise that this is what happens:





These are the results in adults of derformation and furthermore it's easy to tell where the binding occurred.  Foerster has samples that do not resemble the cone head picture above yet he can tell where they have been flat boarded.

I 'm amazed that you fall into this trap every time Abe I really am.

Summary:

No single prosaic explanation can account for the complete list of anomalies with the cone head skulls.

There is no precedent for what we see with the cone heads.  Classic deformation produces very different results.

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 30 December 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

Similar to skull deformation, hydrocephalus is as old as humans are. It's my opinion that humans are predisposed to hydrocephalus and skull deformation due to upright posture and the unique design of the skull, spine and circulatory system of the brain. The key sign in hydrocephalus is a rapidly developing oversized head. People, community healers and especially mother's most likely knew the signs of hydrocephalus long before recorded history. The signs are easy to see.

Closer inbreeding in tight knit mountain and valley communities of Peru and Bolivia could have passed on a genetic skull design flaw such as an undersized cranial vault relative to the size of the brain. As mentioned above, craniosynostosis can cause an increase in intracranial pressure but so can a condition called craniodysostosis such as an undersized base of the skull, especially the posterior fossa.

Wild speculation at best.  Let's see what the DNA reveals.

Just one little flaw in the above:

How come close inbreeding in tight knit communities has produced no such results in more recent times say over the last thousand years when migration was much more prevalent?  It doesn't work Abe does it really?

These skulls turn up in a few distinct places around the world and are very ancient.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 30 December 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Wild speculation at best.  Let's see what the DNA reveals.

Just one little flaw in the above:

How come close inbreeding in tight knit communities has produced no such results in more recent times say over the last thousand years when migration was much more prevalent?  It doesn't work Abe does it really?

These skulls turn up in a few distinct places around the world and are very ancient.

Wild speculation?. But you mentioned opinions by specialists, well, here is one. A real one, that is.

That close inbreeding doesn't give the same results nowadays is because the tribes got mixed with other tribes, like with those who conquered them (like the Incas did) and the genetic flaw was "Mendeled" out.

And the skulls can be found all over the world, but the same principle may apply to those other areas.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 30 December 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 30 December 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

What about increased mandible size and different cranial suture?

I really do believe you are clutching at straws again with all this birth defect or deformation nonsense.

Just like the precision stonework where no one witnessed it being done or described it:

Show me an example from the 20th Century of tribal cranial deformation that resulted in anything like this



I'm staggered that you always go along this dead end reasoning all the time.  There is no precedent for anything like this in recorded history.  Anyone who has looked into skull binding would realise that this is what happens:





These are the results in adults of derformation and furthermore it's easy to tell where the binding occurred.  Foerster has samples that do not resemble the cone head picture above yet he can tell where they have been flat boarded.

I 'm amazed that you fall into this trap every time Abe I really am.

Summary:

No single prosaic explanation can account for the complete list of anomalies with the cone head skulls.

There is no precedent for what we see with the cone heads.  Classic deformation produces very different results.

The explanation I posted is from a specialist who said that the Peruvian skulls could be the result of head binding as a CURE for hydrocephalus. That is different from head binding as a cultural thing for beauty.

The effect on the rest of the skull of someone growing up with a cured form of hydrocephalus by means of head binding is not known. It could well explain the heavier jaw, the different eye sockets, and so on.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 30 December 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

well there's your problem Abe, you're suggesting an answer that doesn't involve aliens.

[Abramelin]

So you, Zoser, think *I* am clutching at straws.

You are clutching at straws offered by a guy who thinks some Peruvian mountains are actually huge carved out faces.

You accept the research of a guy filling a skull with sand to know the volume of a skull, I accept the knowledge of a guy who is a true specialist in brain surgery and related things.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 30 December 2012 - 10:28 AM.

[Abramelin]

Wearer of Hats, on 30 December 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

well there's your problem Abe, you're suggesting an answer that doesn't involve aliens.

I know. Zoser accuses me of clinging to commonly accepted scientific views, but I will bet a dime he will not find what I posted elsewhere. It was an idea of someone who I think has more knowledge of brains than a Foerster.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 30 December 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Wild speculation at best.  Let's see what the DNA reveals.

Yes, let's.

But people are waiting for more than a year now.

I have this feeling that those who asked for the DNA to be analyzed already know by now it's not from an 'alien'.