Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14
Alphamale06

The Ancient Alien Theory Is True

10,149 posts in this topic

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

cone-head1.jpg

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:

4092929561_7ff91e7ba9.jpg

tumblr_lj76pccSuE1qcs20po1_500.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

cone-head1.jpg

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:

4092929561_7ff91e7ba9.jpg

tumblr_lj76pccSuE1qcs20po1_500.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I just did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You realize that genetics, disease, binding methods, age, etc. can create quite a few 'anomalies' in any sample of skulls right? You honestly expect every skull to be the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Did you also happen to notice that the grooves are hardly parallel or equidistant or even straight for that matter? Which would indicate rather heavily that that core wasn't 'machined' at all. One other thing, why would advanced alien technology even need to make a core drilling anyway? Just drill out the entire hole and be done with it. Sorry zoser, the mere existence of the core is a slap in the face to the AA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Such grooves are expected when you replenish abrasive material (sand); as you drill, particles became smaller and smaller making drilling less effective, thus you have to put "fresh" abrasives. Dunn's claim is just a claim, nothing more. I can put wire around cylinder with concentric grooves (not spiral like), and claim its spiral, while its not.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such grooves are expected when you replenish abrasive material (sand); as you drill, particles became smaller and smaller making drilling less effective, thus you have to put "fresh" abrasives. Dunn's claim is just a claim, nothing more. I can put wire around cylinder with concentric grooves (not spiral like), and claim its spiral, while its not.

I was thinking along the same lines myself. The abrasive material (sand) would not have been uniform in size for the duration of the drilling. It's also possible the tube developed burrs during drilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did.

There have been lots of cases of isolated cultures where they haven't had access to a wider gene pool yet no hint of elongation.

Malta is perhaps the only exception I can think of. The other area I mentioned was Egypt but these were dated apparently before dynastic times.

Looking at world cultures, isolated or otherwise, and where these skulls have turned up the argument about genetic aberration isn't very sound.

What's more intriguing to me is the correlation between these skulls and unexplainable relics. That is what really needs to be explored in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you also happen to notice that the grooves are hardly parallel or equidistant or even straight for that matter? Which would indicate rather heavily that that core wasn't 'machined' at all. One other thing, why would advanced alien technology even need to make a core drilling anyway? Just drill out the entire hole and be done with it. Sorry zoser, the mere existence of the core is a slap in the face to the AA.

No it's not. Explain 0.1 inch per revolution. Constant or otherwise. The smoking gun is there. This is another example of ancient technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize that genetics, disease, binding methods, age, etc. can create quite a few 'anomalies' in any sample of skulls right? You honestly expect every skull to be the same?

There is a difference between big noses, colour of hair, height, skin colour, etc and this:

paracas_skulls.jpg

In the end though, there is one argument which single-handedly destroys the the theory of head binding. The practice of binding the skull only works within the given parameters of the patients original brain cavity size, and although the outside shape of the skull may change, the overall inside capacity of the brain cavity will not change. This is why the distinctive cone shape is always seen in instances of human skull deformation, the skull does not have the mass to significantly increase it’s height whilst also maintaining the inner cavity size ratio relatively, so in order to compensate for the increase in the height of the skull, the width of the skull must become increasingly narrow in order to maintain its structural integrity. However, as can clearly be seen in more than one example of the Nazca skulls, the size of the brain cavity is significantly larger than any human specimen ever observed. In some cases, the brain cavity is double the size of a human skull, which in theory, would yield a brain at least twice as large. As it is physically impossible to increase the size of a human brain through the practice of head binding, then we are left with only the obvious conclusions to draw. Either this evidence shows the existence of highly advanced human specimens on this planet in the ancient past (a more recent Boksop man possibly) or they are simply not human in any way we could relate to.

http://iamkare.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/giants-and-gods-the-omnipresent-mystery/

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For them being 'giants' you will have to find the skeletons too.

But all they have found is normal sized skeletons. Anyway, I never saw a giant skeleton in a Peruvian or Bolivian museum.

And maybe you should reread my posts from today.

At least it is something new and not spread out over the internet as these fringe theories tend to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspext tht, genwtically, there is sod all difference between elongated skulls and a pair of brunette parents having a blond child.

After all, there's a single chromosme difference between neurotypical people and people woth Down Syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been lots of cases of isolated cultures where they haven't had access to a wider gene pool yet no hint of elongation.

Malta is perhaps the only exception I can think of. The other area I mentioned was Egypt but these were dated apparently before dynastic times.

Looking at world cultures, isolated or otherwise, and where these skulls have turned up the argument about genetic aberration isn't very sound.

What's more intriguing to me is the correlation between these skulls and unexplainable relics. That is what really needs to be explored in my view.

You do not know what you are saying.

It doesn't HAVE to be that particular genetic flaw. I can show you an African tribe known as the Ostrich People. Why are they called that way? Because they all share a mutated gene that results in feet like those of an ostrich (two toes). Do they show up all over the world? Not that I know of.

But this particular genetic flaw is maybe more prone to show up by inbreeding than other genetic flaws. It could also be the result of something lacking in their diet, like a shortage of folate which gives rise to spina bifida and also hydrocephalus (and other things).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congenital hydrocephalus may happen because of:

* Bleeding in the fetus before birth.

* Certain infections in the mother, such as toxoplasmosis or syphilis.

* Other birth defects, like spina bifida.

* A genetic defect.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/tc/congenital-hydrocephalus-topic-overview

How much does it happen in a normal population? Not that often. But in an isolated population where the chance at inbreeding is much higher, or intentional like many ruling families did, it will also show up much more.

OK, now suppose this inbreeding was intentional amongst leaders of certain tribes in Peru and Bolivia (and elsewhere), then forms of hydrocephalus may have been considered to be a sign of 'royalty' and thus became something other and healthy members of the tribe wanted for their children.

So then you get two types of elongated skulls: the very large ones who were the result of a treatment of hydrocephalus using binding, and the smaller ones (like in your post with the African examples) that resulted from binding healthy skulls.

Genetics of human hydrocephalus

Abstract

Human hydrocephalus is a common medical condition that is characterized by abnormalities in the flow or resorption of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), resulting in ventricular dilatation. Human hydrocephalus can be classified into two clinical forms, congenital and acquired. Hydrocephalus is one of the complex and multifactorial neurological disorders.

A growing body of evidence indicates that genetic factors play a major role in the pathogenesis of hydrocephalus.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1705504/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to this thread, I've learned more about Congenital hydrocephalus than I ever wanted to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone seriously interested in the vitrification phenomena this short clip is worth watching. Disposes of any polishing or weathering theorie straight away.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such grooves are expected when you replenish abrasive material (sand); as you drill, particles became smaller and smaller making drilling less effective, thus you have to put "fresh" abrasives. Dunn's claim is just a claim, nothing more. I can put wire around cylinder with concentric grooves (not spiral like), and claim its spiral, while its not.

Yes! thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.