Or at least wait until the vitrification claim is substantiated. From a visual perspective there is no way to know if the vitrification was caused by heat or by chemicals or even if it is vitrification at all. The cart is well beyond the horse here.
If you look at all the relics it actually is. See Seeder's post
Lord Vetinari, on 01 January 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:
How could you do that, 747? That is just not...right.
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.
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.