DNA analysis of the elongated skulls

[kmt_sesh]

5 minutes ago, back to earth said:

 

you left out     "  Aquarian liminality  "    .     

I had to Google that. I still don't know what it is.

[jmccr8]

28 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I had to Google that. I still don't know what it is.

It,'s a secret knowledge that can't be put on the internet just like all the research that is hidden. You won't know about it unless you can talk to spirits obviously.

jmccr8

[kmt_sesh]

30 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

It,'s a secret knowledge that can't be put on the internet just like all the research that is hidden. You won't know about it unless you can talk to spirits obviously.

jmccr8

My family actually used to have a Ouija board. If I can find it, will that work? Or could I just commune with the "alien mummy" from Gaia?

[papageorge1]

3 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Atacama Mummy: I just don't think you bother to look at the sources we provide. I don't recall much discussion of the Atacama mummy at UM (I could be wrong), but that it is fully human is not in scientific dispute. People who don't understand fetal human remains and frankly don't care and want to serve a personal agenda, will make of it what they will. But the Atacama mummy is without a doubt the remains of a fetus. See an informative article here. The Atacama baby reminds me a lot of the mummified, still-borne daughters of King Tut (see photo), and it's always surprised me that more people haven't tried to paint them as aliens. Mummified babies do look like little aliens.

It always depends on the sources you listen to. It is very clear to some experts that this was definitely not a fetus but a being that lived many years and apparently died by a blow to the head. DNA (that was said to be remarkably preserved) evidence also does not  appear to be from a modern human, but only 91% human with a chimpanzee being around 98%.The only recourse to explain this away is to insist it is a fetus with some odd disorders. I have heard enough to lean to the belief that the fetus explanation is just the best explain away attempt but t doesn't stand.

3 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Gaia.com Mummy: We had a contentious and failed thread on this one, as you recall. As I see it, the information provided in that thread proved beyond suspicion that the "mummy" is fake. The figure itself is either entirely fake or, more likely, stolen and desecrated human remains, which is shameful. There have been no peer-reviewed or published findings, and no outside verification of the radiographs. Therefore, the results cannot and do not stand.

It would by now take a lot  of wholesale fraud claims at this point to explain away the internal images and DNA evidence and finger structure evidence  I have seen discussed.

3 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

 

You are always entitled to your opinion. But I stress again, your default mode is the paranormal and you do not ever seem to consider the counterarguments we make (including links and such). So you'll go on supporting your opinion, but how are we supposed to address this if you won't consider other people's input? You automatically trust the ephemeral and discount the empirical. This is why things get so heated when you're trying to discuss such matters with scientifically minded folks.

Lay people like me must take information from scientists and listen to both sides when there is a controversy, which I do contrary to your claims. Listening to the two sides on many debates in the paranormal/crypto/alien/alternative things for decades, I have learned to have greater doubts about the fairness and honesty of the hard-core skeptic side as a rule. I feel the skeptics are mostly sight-unseen knee-jerk attackers.

I guess I should end my participation in this thread to prevent it from going circular.

Edited September 27, 2017 by papageorge1

[Timothy]

30 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

...

I have learned to have greater doubts about the fairness and honesty of the hard-core skeptic side as a rule. I feel the skeptics are mostly sight-unseen knee-jerk attackers.

...

There will always be extremes on both sides, but I'd argue that there are more hard-core believers (wild claims with no evidence) than hard-core skeptics (dismiss without any consideration) on UM. Most skeptics here welcome discussion and give valid arguments and references, as shown in this thread for example. 

The only way I can comprehend you being more critical reference the skeptics while more supportive of the believers when presented with a thread like this one is that you have moved from the open-minded position you think you have to one of bias.

Not holding the 'believers' to the same account as the 'skeptics' is clearly a skewed approach.

It does seem the case, but if you can offer another explanation, go ahead. 

Not an attack, just my observation from the multiple threads I've seen you contribute to.

[back to earth]

3 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I had to Google that. I still don't know what it is.

The first post here   ^   will clear up everything .

Edited September 27, 2017 by back to earth

[jmccr8]

4 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

My family actually used to have a Ouija board. If I can find it, will that work? Or could I just commune with the "alien mummy" from Gaia?

I think consulting a 40oz 100 proof spirit in a Bootle would likely be sufficient. I use it to go into the spirit world for my research on the Ka of the grain. Don't be use the cheap  stuff either makes for a bad trip and don't forget to stack the ice cubes into a pyramid shape for sanctification.

jmccr8 

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

He's right, there are multiple people and sources. Examples are Gaia.com, Brien Foerster, various and sundry fringe web pages, YouTube videos, and other...um...stellar sources. Tee-hee!

So why not mention these when asked to provide evidence? All we ever see is some vague reference to multiple disparate source and some statement about pretending to use rational methods of analysis.

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

It always depends on the sources you listen to. It is very clear to some experts that this was definitely not a fetus but a being that lived many years and apparently died by a blow to the head. DNA (that was said to be remarkably preserved) evidence also does not  appear to be from a modern human, but only 91% human with a chimpanzee being around 98%.The only recourse to explain this away is to insist it is a fetus with some odd disorders. I have heard enough to lean to the belief that the fetus explanation is just the best explain away attempt but t doesn't stand.

It would by now take a lot  of wholesale fraud claims at this point to explain away the internal images and DNA evidence and finger structure evidence  I have seen discussed.

Lay people like me must take information from scientists and listen to both sides when there is a controversy, which I do contrary to your claims. Listening to the two sides on many debates in the paranormal/crypto/alien/alternative things for decades, I have learned to have greater doubts about the fairness and honesty of the hard-core skeptic side as a rule. I feel the skeptics are mostly sight-unseen knee-jerk attackers.

I guess I should end my participation in this thread to prevent it from going circular.

Who are these experts you suggest exist? I'll bet you are referring to the team of well known frauds such as Pye and Foerster.  The DNA evidence was clear that the so=-called star child was 100% human. The fetus explanation matches the data. The otherworldly suggestion is in denial of the evidence.

AS you say it is wholesale fraud. It is nothing but fakery and the desecration of human remains to steal money from th pockets of the incredible gullible. It is amazingly easy to drain the pockets of the foolish. It takes little effort to fool those that are close minded. Close minded people refuse to examine the evidence and see for themselves that the people are committing wholesale fraud.

There is an interesting habit of the hopelessly gullible. The stronger the evidence is against something the stronger the foolish and gullible grab onto it. The close minded approach seals off the evidence and the close eyed, closed ears, closed mind takes over. This knee-jerk reaction of denial in the face of unquestionable evidence is common amongst the hopelessly foolish and gullible.

Common examples of close minded fools reacting to overwhelming evidence:

1. Nibiru fans

2. Fans of a second Sun

3. Flat Earthers

4. Fans of Foerster

5. You tube fans believing every ghost video is exactly that

 

[Nostrodumbass]

All this science, archaeology and pseudoscience is very interesting, but my major concern is that it must have been terribly difficult to find a respectable hairstyle with a head shaped like that.

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, Nostrodumbass said:

All this science, archaeology and pseudoscience is very interesting, but my major concern is that it must have been terribly difficult to find a respectable hairstyle with a head shaped like that.

A type of exaggerated 'Beatles' mop might have worked but the tresses for women would have been mighty odd looking.

[stereologist]

29 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

A type of exaggerated 'Beatles' mop might have worked but the tresses for women would have been mighty odd looking.

What about a mohawk cut that would have hung down off the elongated head.

[Kenemet]

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Lay people like me must take information from scientists and listen to both sides when there is a controversy, which I do contrary to your claims. Listening to the two sides on many debates in the paranormal/crypto/alien/alternative things for decades, I have learned to have greater doubts about the fairness and honesty of the hard-core skeptic side as a rule. I feel the skeptics are mostly sight-unseen knee-jerk attackers.

I guess I should end my participation in this thread to prevent it from going circular.

In response to part A... not all scientists are qualified to comment on everything.  If you catch me talking about String Theory, although I *am* a scientist (anthropologist) I am frankly not qualified to discuss it at more than a superficial level.  And secondly, some of the people you are citing have degrees from degree mills where you pay $5,000 and they send you a piece of paper saying you have a PhD.  A few of them require minimal work (Semir Osmanagic is one with a fake PhD, as you can see from his dissertation) but it's nowhere near what a real degree is and they are not experts in any sense.

Second... you seem to think the things you are posting are novel to all of us.  What you're not taking into account is that we are members of a number of sites (both advocate and skeptic) and we've seen and argued this before.  I don't need to re-see that bad video to know that the evidence is still bogus.  I don't need to see the skulls in detail (again) to know that the sutures and the smoothing of them matches what I learned and what I saw and what I taught in human anatomy courses at Texas Tech University.

It looks like "knee jerk" to you, but this material has been around for at least 30 years  - heck some of it goes back to the 1960's.  So it's not new, we've run through a lot of analysis and investigation and someone's still selling this old bill of goods to people who weren't into the paranormal and so forth ever since the 1960's.

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

What about a mohawk cut that would have hung down off the elongated head.

Kewl

[jmccr8]

5 hours ago, Nostrodumbass said:

All this science, archaeology and pseudoscience is very interesting, but my major concern is that it must have been terribly difficult to find a respectable hairstyle with a head shaped like that.

Well after pondering this for 30 seconds or So, I am inclined to think that these skulls had been deformed by defective genes that allow the hair to grow inward from birth and causing internal pressure  on the soft skull tissue thereby causing the deformed skulls. The birth of hairbrained thinking.

jmccr8 

[lilthor]

On 9/26/2017 at 3:11 PM, Harte said:

Regarding the Paracas skull's "lack" of sagittal sutures, the sagittal suture is plain on this Paracas skull:

As well as on another Paracas skull shown on the left below:

Lithor, next time you're about to toss off a flippant "you should look into it" comment, consider the probability that we HAVE "looked into it."

Harte

 

 

 

None of your images give a clear view of any sagittal suture whatsoever.  I'm not saying the skulls don't have it; just that your photos prove absolutely nothing.

The photo below is the view angle you're looking for.  It is purportedly a Paracas elongated skull and the view angle clearly shows the area where humans normally exhibit a sagittal suture.  I'll leave it to you to decide whether you see one or not:

Flippantly yours,

Lilthor

Edited September 27, 2017 by lilthor

[Harte]

11 hours ago, Nostrodumbass said:

All this science, archaeology and pseudoscience is very interesting, but my major concern is that it must have been terribly difficult to find a respectable hairstyle with a head shaped like that.

Nah. High top fade.

[Harte]

18 minutes ago, lilthor said:

None of your images give a clear view of any sagittal suture whatsoever.  I'm not saying the skulls don't have it; just that your photos prove absolutely nothing.

The photo below is the view angle you're looking for.  It is purportedly a Paracas elongated skull and the view angle clearly shows the area where humans normally exhibit a sagittal suture.  I'll leave it to you to decide whether you see one or not:

Flippantly yours,

Lilthor

There are no photos of these skulls online that are taken with the sagittal suture at center that I can find. I suggest to you that this is because the people posting the photos are selective, and don't post ones that are taken of the top of the skullfor the very reason that most will show the sagittal suture.

The two I noted certainly do show the sagittal sutures, whether you want to admit it or not. I could find more that do, but not at a "perfect" angle and, besides, why should I?

I already demonstrated to you and everyone else that it's not uncommon for this suture (and others) to completely disappear.

Harte

[lilthor]

12 minutes ago, Harte said:

I suggest to you that this is because the people posting the photos are selective, and don't post ones that are taken of the top of the skullfor the very reason that most will show the sagittal suture.

I like a conspiracy theory as well as the next guy, so, your theory of the Conspiracy to Never Reveal Sagittal Sutures in Paracas Skulls has a new follower (me).

Which makes the photo I posted all the more mysterious.  Could it be the Conspiracy to Photoshop Sagittal Sutures Out of Paracas Skulls has struck??

[lilthor]

25 minutes ago, Harte said:

I already demonstrated to you and everyone else that it's not uncommon for this suture (and others) to completely disappear

As regards the above, while true that sutures can sometimes become difficult to discern, they never quite disappear altogether.

[Harte]

Who will take Lithor's opinion over the facts stated by the Professor of Anatomy at the University of Bordeaux School of Medicine, author of a four-volume work on anatomy that is still in use to this day?

Harte

[lilthor]

45 minutes ago, Harte said:

Who will take Lithor's opinion over the facts stated by the Professor of Anatomy at the University of Bordeaux School of Medicine, author of a four-volume work on anatomy that is still in use to this day?

Harte

If you're referring to Testut, it appears much of his work has since been discredited:

Quote

In 1889, Léo Testut announced that a prehistoric skull, found in Chancelade, was of a new race, which he called the "Chancelade race", which he argued was the ancestor of the Eskimo. This hypothesis, though confirmed by many of his contemporaries, is now rejected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Testut

Edited September 28, 2017 by lilthor

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, lilthor said:

None of your images give a clear view of any sagittal suture whatsoever.  

Actually, they do.

I taught anatomy.  The frontal bone is much elongated and rises almost to the top of the "cone"... beyond that you can clearly see the saggital suture between the paired parietal bones.  It's toward the top of the skull as they present it in those photos.

You (and others who haven't taught human anatomy) might think that the reshaped bones would be the same length and width as in a normal skull.  This is not true.  They've forced skull growth into the area of the fontinelle, which will eventually calcify... but the bone lengthens along that axis.

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, lilthor said:

I like a conspiracy theory as well as the next guy, so, your theory of the Conspiracy to Never Reveal Sagittal Sutures in Paracas Skulls has a new follower (me).

Which makes the photo I posted all the more mysterious.  Could it be the Conspiracy to Photoshop Sagittal Sutures Out of Paracas Skulls has struck??

Nope.

Just the Conspiracy Of People Who Haven't Taken Human Anatomy In Medical School.  If you can't locate the greater trochanter and the lesser trochanter without first googling them, the chances that you will know abnormal (but real) human anatomy and faked anatomy and even outright fraud is slim to none.  I am not an art historian and I frankly couldn't tell if a painting just looked old, was really old, or was by a known painter (an art historian could, however.)

Most of the sites doing this "anatomy" work are by people who don't know a condyle from a tubercle and certainly couldn't tell a human femur from a giraffe femur.

[lilthor]

32 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Actually, they do.

I taught anatomy.  The frontal bone is much elongated and rises almost to the top of the "cone"... beyond that you can clearly see the saggital suture between the paired parietal bones.  It's toward the top of the skull as they present it in those photos.

You (and others who haven't taught human anatomy) might think that the reshaped bones would be the same length and width as in a normal skull.  This is not true.  They've forced skull growth into the area of the fontinelle, which will eventually calcify... but the bone lengthens along that axis.

Those photos simply do not display the contrast and resolution needed to prove those skulls have a sagittal suture.  They just don't.  But I'm glad you know where it's 'supposed' to be...that's likely why you "see" it.

I have an acquaintance that teaches anatomy and physiology.  She's pretty smart, but she's also convinced her knowledge of the human body allows her to see people's "auras".  I've looked, but don't see that either.