seeder Posted December 23, 2012 #2876 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Oh and re reading my posts I omitted 2 other points I intended to make... That in 'some' cases where people have been elongating their heads, this same characteristic can be passed on genetically. ie: babies born with heads already deformed, and no constrictive marks Then we have the other condition...a word for you too look up....Dolichocephaly, and dolichocephalic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted December 23, 2012 #2877 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Oh and re reading my posts I omitted 2 other points I intended to make... That in 'some' cases where people have been elongating their heads, this same characteristic can be passed on genetically. ie: babies born with heads already deformed, and no constrictive marks Then we have the other condition...a word for you too look up....Dolichocephaly, and dolichocephalic Can you post a source of what I bolded? To be honest: I think that is bull, lol. And that's just because I am a skeptic. . Edited December 23, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 23, 2012 #2878 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Can you post a source of what I bolded? To be honest: I think that is bull, lol. And that's just because I am a skeptic. . Me too in case you didnt guess!! Ok Abe I have had my nose in a lot of texts with this thread, and I am having probs finding again where I read it, but I just found an alternative source to the one I read first "found in the book Artificial Cranial Deformation" 10.) Artificial deformation of the skull may be hereditary and can be transmitted to offspring in one or two generations. this came up funny enough on another forum here http://www.thephora.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-64796.html 3rd post down has numbered points including the above number 10! ... but I will again try to find where 'I' first read it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted December 23, 2012 #2879 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Comic books are for the fantasy minded. lol How right you are... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted December 23, 2012 #2880 Share Posted December 23, 2012 How right you are... hmm, i have none of these. i guess i lack imagination 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odiesbsc Posted December 23, 2012 #2881 Share Posted December 23, 2012 And another one: the two photos in the article look like photos of 2 different skulls, not 2 photos of 1 skull: http://www.messageto...hp#.UNcmoawhZah Abe, If you look close at the two pics I think it is the same skull. The first was taken to the right of the skull with less ground uncovered. What might look to be a slit for the eye socket is not, but actually a shadow of the bone approximatly where the ear should be. The second pic is more ground uncovered and the pic taken to the left more of a frontal view. Odie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2882 Share Posted December 23, 2012 So zoser, what exactly are you proposing (or supporting) that these elongated skulls actually mean? That they are alien inspired, alien created, an alien/human hybridization....? If so, where is the evidence for any of that? You know, something besides wild guesses? It's times like these that the phrase 'a shot in the dark' is ever so fitting. Good to see you taking an interest in the subject. Cut the sarcasm and maybe we can talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2883 Share Posted December 23, 2012 A skull is not a balloon. A balloon does not have an open fontanel which fills in nor does it undergo cellular mitosis as it expands to do so. In other words, a skull doesn't stretch to expand, it grows new bone just as it grows new brain tissue with in it during the course of development. Clearly too, if the size of the binding is changed as the skull grows, there need be no constriction. Looks like you've invented a new science there Mr O. Something bound for that length of time is bound to force a restriction. Proved by the photo's. It's not conjecture; it's fact. See: And the Paracas Skull, what people refer to as 'conehead'. So it's not really an issue of conjecture. The constriction is very clear to see on the African. Now looking closely at the Paracas 'conehead' there are undulations but no obvious sign of constriction. Plus the skull changes again toward the cone end. I didn't cherry pick these pictures. All of the skulls from Paracas seem to be like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 23, 2012 #2884 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Something bound for that length of time is bound to force a restriction. not so if ... it was boarded.... not all had vines/whatever wrapped in the center... boards leave no mark... just a nice smooth slope... Edited December 23, 2012 by seeder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2885 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Oh and re reading my posts I omitted 2 other points I intended to make... That in 'some' cases where people have been elongating their heads, this same characteristic can be passed on genetically. ie: babies born with heads already deformed, and no constrictive marks Then we have the other condition...a word for you too look up....Dolichocephaly, and dolichocephalic Not likely to be an issue affecting so many cultures so extensively. The video clips cover this and dismiss it outright. It doesn't produce the 'conehead' shape. Edited December 23, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2886 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) not so if ... it was boarded.... not all had vines/whatever wrapped in the center... boards leave no mark... just a nice smooth slope... The pictures prove the point. It's not a debating issue. The only way to prove/disprove the anthropologists hypothesis is by checking skulls in more detail. If you could find a source of skull pics that would be helpful to the study. Edited December 23, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2887 Share Posted December 23, 2012 not so if ... it was boarded.... not all had vines/whatever wrapped in the center... boards leave no mark... just a nice smooth slope... Boards still compress and squash part of the skull. That would be also evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 23, 2012 #2888 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Not likely to be an issue affecting so many cultures so extensively. The video clips cover this and dismiss it outright. It doesn't produce the 'conehead' shape. ah you mean the video you posted with a mystery anthropologist, a nameless one, spouting whatever...that inspired you to create this posting, the same one, as Abe has already pointed out, has descriptive mistakes?? Evident? OK find me a vid or some pics, go on, money where your mouth is time Edited December 23, 2012 by seeder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2889 Share Posted December 23, 2012 ah you mean the video you posted with a mystery anthropologist, a nameless one, spouting whatever...that inspired you to create this posting, the same one, as Abe has already pointed out, has descriptive mistakes?? Stick to the issue please; avoid ancilliary matters. Is the prinicple hypothesis sound or not? Try and avoid bringing politics into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2890 Share Posted December 23, 2012 It may sound like a trivial point yet the implications could be crucial to the study of skull elongation. It's an under studied subject and has been dismissed I think because of years of assumption about it. What the anthropologist is saying is that binding should leave tell tale signs. Boarding, binding or otherwise. Can this be verified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 23, 2012 #2891 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Stick to the issue please; avoid ancilliary matters. Is the prinicple hypothesis sound or not? Try and avoid bringing politics into it. get out of here... IT IS THE ISSUE... ie: YOUR SOURCES if your beloved anthropologist who has so convinced you, MAKES ERRORS, then that adds to his professional cred does it? as per Abe: "I noticed a couple of errors or what should I call them. According to this guy with his anthropology degree Neanderthals had cities. I'd like to see where he got that from. He mentions Cro Magnon. Isn't that an outdated name, already for decades now? According to the guy the elongated skulls have a larger volume than normal. This is not true at all. They only have a diferent shape. Go and avoid that bit ... zoser.... its what your famous for.. ever heard the phrase "when youre in a hole, stop digging"? Edited December 23, 2012 by seeder 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2892 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) get out of here... IT IS THE ISSUE... ie: YOUR SOURCES if your beloved anthropologist who has so convinced you, MAKES ERRORS, then that adds to his professional cred does it? as per Abe: "I noticed a couple of errors or what should I call them. According to this guy with his anthropology degree Neanderthals had cities. I'd like to see where he got that from. He mentions Cro Magnon. Isn't that an outdated name, already for decades now? According to the guy the elongated skulls have a larger volume than normal. This is not true at all. They only have a diferent shape. Go and avoid that bit ... zoser.... its what your famous for.. ever heard the phrase when youre in a hole, stop digging? If you don't wish to pursue it that's fine. I'm still looking into it. Edited December 23, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 23, 2012 #2893 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Boards still compress and squash part of the skull. That would be also evident. doh!! Yeh it makes the head conical, and elongated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2894 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Looks like you've invented a new science there Mr O. Something bound for that length of time is bound to force a restriction. Proved by the photo's. It's not conjecture; it's fact. See: And the Paracas Skull, what people refer to as 'conehead'. So it's not really an issue of conjecture. The constriction is very clear to see on the African. Now looking closely at the Paracas 'conehead' there are undulations but no obvious sign of constriction. Plus the skull changes again toward the cone end. I didn't cherry pick these pictures. All of the skulls from Paracas seem to be like this. The case gets even stronger when one makes the observation that the 'conehead' skull would have needed to be bound twice since there is a clear change of angle towards the cone. That's not very likely when the formative age for the skull is before the second birthday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2895 Share Posted December 23, 2012 doh!! Yeh it makes the head conical, and elongated And squashed where pressure is applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2896 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Look carefully at the text on the skull; the letters 'Chongos' can be discerned. According to Foerster that is the name of the Royal burial place at Paracas. What is plainly obvious is that no African skull that I have found so far looks like this. The evidence that these skulls are the result of binding is tenuous to say the least. There is no precedent. The tribal examples nearer to our time look much smaller by comparison as well as having the tell tale constriction. Edited December 23, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted December 23, 2012 #2897 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Looks like you've invented a new science there Mr O. Something bound for that length of time is bound to force a restriction. Proved by the photo's. It's not conjecture; it's fact. See: And the Paracas Skull, what people refer to as 'conehead'. So it's not really an issue of conjecture. The constriction is very clear to see on the African. Now looking closely at the Paracas 'conehead' there are undulations but no obvious sign of constriction. Plus the skull changes again toward the cone end. I didn't cherry pick these pictures. All of the skulls from Paracas seem to be like this. Assumption of a single binding methodology. Facts for same not in evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted December 23, 2012 #2898 Share Posted December 23, 2012 The case gets even stronger when one makes the observation that the 'conehead' skull would have needed to be bound twice since there is a clear change of angle towards the cone. At least twice, as I suggested. That's not very likely when the formative age for the skull is before the second birthday. You don't say... http://www.wellcomecollection.org/explore/life-genes--you/topics/ageing/images.aspx?view=the-growing-human-skull (click view full image) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted December 23, 2012 #2899 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Look carefully at the text on the skull; the letters 'Chongos' can be discerned. According to Foerster that is the name of the Royal burial place at Paracas. What is plainly obvious is that no African skull that I have found so far looks like this. The evidence that these skulls are the result of binding is tenuous to say the least. There is no precedent. The tribal examples nearer to our time look much smaller by comparison as well as having the tell tale constriction. and as painfully pointed out already, 'other' conditions' (remember that big word I suggested you look up), can create elongated skulls without boarding... In fact.... "However, some cultures of Peru offer other possible examples of this, and even the possibility that individuals were born with elongated crania. An amazing detailed sketch, made by Johan Jakob von Tschudi, and published in a book he co-authored with Mariano E. Rivera in 1851 called Peruvian Antiquities shows a human fetus with a huge elongated skull dont miss the word...fetus.. http://en.wikipedia....ed_human_skulls and no african skull you found so far eh? How hard you been trying. Wheres Egypt? in Africa. Nefertiti's daughters head/skull shape ring any (alarm) bells?? edit for linky: http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?topic=179.0 . Edited December 23, 2012 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted December 23, 2012 #2900 Share Posted December 23, 2012 At least twice, as I suggested. You don't say... http://www.wellcomec...ing-human-skull (click view full image) I genuinely cannot tell what you are getting at? I'm talking about babies skulls hardening. Why do you think they do it to young babies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts