902 replies to this topic

[Harte]

It appears that, in the absence of evdence for "secret caves," all the fringies can do is point and yell "Christian!!!"

Harte

[Abramelin]

me-wonders, on 05 January 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Excuse me, but I do not want to read all the post that criticize the notion of alien intervention.  It would be fun to discuss this topic without the critics.  Might there be away to make that possible?

Anyway we know the people in Peru deformed the heads of their children and that these are human skulls, but I think we can question what lead these people to do this?  Why would they even think of doing such a thing to their babies?  Hum, the images will not post, so I hope you follow the link, but only if you enjoy the fun to wondering.  Please, ignore my post if all you want to do is attack and tear apart people who enjoy speculating.  



https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=859

You may want to start with a post by Zoser in another thread in another forum on UM, and then read onwards:

http://www.unexplain...20#entry4593074

Or you start with an entry in my blog:

http://www.unexplain...8#commentsStart

.

Edited by Abramelin, 05 January 2013 - 04:51 PM.

[TheSearcher]

me-wonders, on 05 January 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Excuse me, but I do not want to read all the post that criticize the notion of alien intervention.  It would be fun to discuss this topic without the critics.  Might there be away to make that possible?

Anyway we know the people in Peru deformed the heads of their children and that these are human skulls, but I think we can question what lead these people to do this?  Why would they even think of doing such a thing to their babies?  Hum, the images will not post, so I hope you follow the link, but only if you enjoy the fun to wondering.  Please, ignore my post if all you want to do is attack and tear apart people who enjoy speculating.  

Cranial deformation like you mention occurs since quite a long time and was practiced all over the world. For example, early examples of intentional human cranial deformation predate written history and date back to 45,000 BC in Neanderthal skulls, and to the Proto-Neolithic Homo sapiens. (ref. here)  The earliest written record of cranial deformation, that I am aware of, dates to 400 BC in Hippocrates' description of the Macrocephali or Long-heads, who were named for their practice of cranial modification (ref. : Hippocrates upon Air, Water, and Situation: upon Epidemical Diseases).

As to the why of Cranial deformation, well it was probably performed to signify group affiliation, or to demonstrate social status. It could also be aimed at creating a skull shape, which is aesthetically more pleasing or has more desirable attributes that way (ref. Gerszten and Gerszten, 1995)
For example, if memory serves, in the Nahai-speaking area of Tomman Island and the south south-western Malakulan (Australasia), a person with an elongated head is thought to be more intelligent, of higher status and closer to the world of the spirits. In Mayan society it was a matter of social status as well.

Edited by TheSearcher, 05 January 2013 - 04:56 PM.

[questionmark]

TheSearcher, on 05 January 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Cranial deformation like you mention occurs since quite a long time and was practiced all over the world. For example, early examples of intentional human cranial deformation predate written history and date back to 45,000 BC in Neanderthal skulls, and to the Proto-Neolithic Homo sapiens. (ref. here)  The earliest written record of cranial deformation, that I am aware of, dates to 400 BC in Hippocrates' description of the Macrocephali or Long-heads, who were named for their practice of cranial modification (ref. : Hippocrates upon Air, Water, and Situation: upon Epidemical Diseases).

As to the why of Cranial deformation, well it was probably performed to signify group affiliation, or to demonstrate social status. It could also be aimed at creating a skull shape, which is aesthetically more pleasing or has more desirable attributes that way (ref. Gerszten and Gerszten, 1995)
For example, if memory serves, in the Nahai-speaking area of Tomman Island and the south south-western Malakulan (Australasia), a person with an elongated head is thought to be more intelligent, of higher status and closer to the world of the spirits. In Mayan society it was a matter of social status as well.

not to mention that there are a series of medical conditions (cradleboard deformity, plagicephali, foramen magnum, and morbus chiari) that to this day spontaneously appear in a number of infants. Some of these deformities, especially the plagicephali, set a fashion trend among some tribes after which children, especially women, were purposely deformed to match the new trend.

[TheSearcher]

questionmark, on 05 January 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

not to mention that there are a series of medical conditions (cradleboard deformity, plagicephali, foramen magnum, and morbus chiari) that to this day spontaneously appear in a number of infants. Some of these deformities, especially the plagicephali, set a fashion trend among some tribes after which children, especially women, were purposely deformed to match the new trend.

Quite correct. Also there is the widespread scope of the practice itself. In the Old World, Huns are known to have practiced similar cranial deformation. In Late Antiquity, the East Germanic tribes who were ruled by the Huns, adopted this custom. In western Germanic tribes on the other hand, artificial skull deformations have rarely been found.
In the Americas the Maya, Inca, and certain tribes of North American natives performed the custom. In North America the practice was especially known among the Chinookan tribes and the Choctaw tribes. The Native American group known as the Flathead however, did not in fact practice head flattening at all, they were named as such in contrast to other Salishan people, who used skull modification to make the head appear rounder.
The Lucayan people of the Bahamas practiced it and the practice was also known among the Australian Aborigines.

[questionmark]

TheSearcher, on 05 January 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Quite correct. Also there is the widespread scope of the practice itself. In the Old World, Huns are known to have practiced similar cranial deformation. In Late Antiquity, the East Germanic tribes who were ruled by the Huns, adopted this custom. In western Germanic tribes on the other hand, artificial skull deformations have rarely been found.
In the Americas the Maya, Inca, and certain tribes of North American natives performed the custom. In North America the practice was especially known among the Chinookan tribes and the Choctaw tribes. The Native American group known as the Flathead however, did not in fact practice head flattening at all, they were named as such in contrast to other Salishan people, who used skull modification to make the head appear rounder.
The Lucayan people of the Bahamas practiced it and the practice was also known among the Australian Aborigines.

where we have to add that the custom is separated not only by geography but also by timelines. Not everywhere did the custom appear, or disappear at the same time.

[TheSearcher]

questionmark, on 05 January 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

where we have to add that the custom is separated not only by geography but also by timelines. Not everywhere did the custom appear, or disappear at the same time.

I figured that was a given....however you are correct, it's better to add that.

[Abramelin]

The problem with research is this: if you really want to know, you will have to work.

You will have to read books and papers and all that. Also those that contradict your favorite fantasy.

You must look at both sides of the coin, and not just the 'shiny' side (aka the Hancock, Von Däniken, Sitchin, Cayce, Blavatsky, Churchward, Charroux and so on side).

[LRW]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

(aka the Hancock, Von Däniken, Sitchin, Cayce, Blavatsky, Churchward, Charroux and so on side).

And that side (mainstream built on christendom) is any better? Most of the the links you cite to make arguments revolve around christendom. Hancock and Sitchin and all them even use a calendar based on christendom. I don't agree with a lot of the things they say. Hancock for instance thinks christ was real lol.




However, Hancock at least admits there is potential for other epochs not recorded in the churches chronological calendar.

[me-wonders]

What if people just want to have fun?   Science has its place, and I am strong supporter of science, verses religion.  Science is to democracy, what religion is to autocracy, and my life is devoted to promoting democracy.   However, today I realized how anti social the science standard can be.  We might even say science is the anti Christ, because those who use the science standard are ignoring the importance of good manners and consideration and being respectful.  A mod came down on me for saying we have become as NAZI Germany, but replacing our liberal education with Germany's education for technology, has had this effect on our culture.  Today, I got the reality of this on a deeper conscious level.  We are no longer being as nice to each other as we once were.   We have become beligerant and intolerant, and this science standard is ruining the fun that some of us came to have.   We use to have a standard based on these 3 social rules....

We respect everyone because we are respectful people.
We protect the dignity of others.
We do everything with integrity.  

I don't know if I am communicating this clearly, but we once a had standard based on good human relationships, and that has been destroyed by a science standard that makes our relationships psychologically and emotionally unsafe.  We fear each other, because we can not trust each other and this is manifesting a very ugly reality.   Our reality is what we make it, and some people are using science as a weapon, and they are ruining our fun and our world, by being mean and not stopping when they are asked to stop.

[Abramelin]

LRW, on 05 January 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

And that side (mainstream built on christendom) is any better? Most of the the links you cite to make arguments revolve around christendom. Hancock and Sitchin and all them even use a calendar based on christendom. I don't agree with a lot of the things they say. Hancock for instance thinks christ was real lol.




However, Hancock at least admits there is potential for other epochs not recorded in the churches chronological calendar.

Hancock has been proven wrong many times. And you know what? He had the balls to publicly admit he was.

He's an exception to the rule.

I don't know why you keep on bringing Christendom into the picture. I could show you Islamic or Hindu people who have more brains and expertise than you are able to show us here.

And my links revolve around Christendom? I don't know why I even respond to your weird ideas, but I think Christendom has influenced you much more than it did me.

[LRW]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Hancock has been proven wrong many times. And you know what? He had the balls to publicly admit he was.

He's an exception to the rule.

I don't know why you keep on bringing Christendom into the picture. I could show you Islamic or Hindu people who have more brains and expertise than you are able to show us here.

And my links revolve around Christendom? I don't know why I even respond to your weird ideas, but I think Christendom has influenced you much more than it did me.

Islam was invented by the church. Hinduism was not, although they might have hijacked it.

Islam = christendom, people of the book they call themselves.

Hancocks opinions i like, because he is open minded, however, i hate when he uses BC/AD chronology in his books.  

Yes your links revolve around christendom, when you talk history you use their calendar.

[LRW]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

You have nothing of any importance or insight to offer.

At all.

You have nothing to offer only conjecture built on christendom culture.

Remember what world you are in, billions have been indoctrinated by them.

[Abramelin]

LRW, on 05 January 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Islam was invented by the church. Hinduism was not, although they might have hijacked it.

Islam = christendom, people of the book they call themselves.

Hancocks opinions i like, because he is open minded, however, i hate when he uses BC/AD chronology in his books.  

Yes your links revolve around christendom, when you talk history you use their calendar.

And what links are you talking about?

Would you call a Blavatsky a Christian? She will turn in her grave, lol.

And the chronology used in science nowadays is called BP, or Before Present.

I think you missed that.

[me-wonders]

LRW, on 05 January 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Nope, there is an army of skeptics who think they are debunkers that crawl around this section of the forum 24/7. There would never be a debate without them. They stick their noses in all the debates that would be considered fringe by them.  

They jump on anything, anti-mainstream or alternative-mainstream. They use the mainstream model as leverage in debates a model built around christendom.

A new thread about a DNA helix shaped cloud is doing very well without any attacking or insulting.  It is just something that caught people's interest, and fortunately someone looked into the science of what could cause the cloud and posted that.  Another found another science related article and posted it.  The thread has been friendly and fun.

I appreciate the importance of arguments.  Many of my threads die, because they are ignored.  But an argument does not have to be insulting and derogatory of someone who has a childlike curiousity and just wants to explore possibilities.  Just because there is not unquestioned proof of something, it does not mean something could not be or did not happen, and those who attack and insult are not being scientific, but are being as dogmatic and inhumane as the church of old, that also tried to control what people think and talk about.