zoser, on 01 January 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:
Hydracephalus doesn't make sense because it is a debilitating condition and doesn't produce the cone head effect. Is he specifically talking about cone heads or other deformed skulls? It all sounds highly theoretical anyway with no supporting evidence.
Why? As I said it's the only theory that fits all the facts considering all the different types of relics.
Either he is lying, or he actually did study hundreds of skulls, of which many were deformed ones.
And based on that I trust his word more than that of a dentist or someone working in a museum.
"Hydracephalus doesn't make sense because it is a debilitating condition and doesn't produce the cone head effect. Is he specifically talking about cone heads or other deformed skulls? It all sounds highly theoretical anyway with no supporting evidence."
It does make sense if the headbinding was performed to correct the hydrocephalus, as he suggests. This headbinding would result in the huge coneheads that you think belong to either another and unknown human race, or aliens.
You, again, willfully ignore what I posted about his theory and how that explained the large coneheads and the smaller cone heads.
Add to that the fact that the DNA results are a year or more overdue (kind of suspicious if you ask me), and it makes his theory even more plausible.
.
Edited by Abramelin, 01 January 2013 - 03:29 PM.