150 Mummies of Ancient Unknown Civilisation Discovered in Atacama Desert

a reply to: FreshKale

Interesting text you provided in the dingwell thing even more interesting when you read it wearing a tinfoil hat, lots of great innuendo when you start getting from like page 74 till the end.

a reply to: dollukka

imho, it is unmitigatedly unscientific to even fantasize, much worse to assert . . .

that that conehead

had the head modified in infancy by boards or some such.

There's NOT A MICROGRAM OF A HINT of such manipulation.

What a thoroughly terminally unaware idea . . . just to cling to a naysaying bias.

Sheesh.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: dollukka

imho, it is unmitigatedly idiotic to even fantasize, much worse to assert . . .

that that conehead

had the head modified in infancy by boards or some such.

There's NOT A MICROGRAM OF A HINT of such manipulation.

What a thoroughly stupid idea . . . just to cling to a naysaying bias.

Sheesh.

I see you know little about the cultures of that time. I...

Peruvian skull deformations

More info

Medical study on the impacts of doing so

American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 130, Issue 4, pages 462–470, August 2006, Influence of cranial deformation on facial morphology among prehistoric South Central Andean populations

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, Volume 3, Issue 2, pages 87–98, June 1993, An investigation into the practice of cranial deformation among the Pre-Columbian peoples of northern Chile

etc, etc, etc

a reply to: Hanslune

Look at the head in the pic.

Where's the evidence of such manipulated deformation?

Where?

There's not a shred of it there.

Propaganda is not fact . . . and not science.

The cranial mass is much too large for a manipulated deformation to explain all of what is in that pic.

Sigh.

a reply to: Hanslune

What a riot.

None of your own links support that conehead being artificially manipulated into that shape

AT ALL.

NONE. ZIP. NADA. NIET. NIEN. BU WHEY.

All your links affirm is that artificial manipulation occurred. Whoooop-T-Do.

THAT was never in question!

Sigh.

The differences between the skulls cited in your links and that one in the pic are incredibly huge.

Yet, you have the audacity to cite those links!

Incredible.

I guess I'm getting old and incredulous about such willful . . . something.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Hanslune

Look at the head in the pic.

Where's the evidence of such manipulated deformation?

Where?

There's not a shred of it there.

Propaganda is not fact . . . and not science.

The cranial mass is much too large for a manipulated deformation to explain all of what is in that pic.

Sigh.

Sigh, denial without expertise or evidence, sorry not impressed. Since you won't read the evidence and know nothing about the subject - just what shall we do with you? lol

Here is a question for you;if it isn't cranial deformation for cultural reasons, which is well established and the skull is not diseased what is it in your esteemed estimation of that caused this man's skull modification?

a reply to: Hanslune

It seems rather obvious, to me.

Genetics.

BTW, you don't have much awareness of how much of this topic I've studied or read about. Sigh.

I haven't read a single solid truly scientific peer reviewed paper that treated the topic in a truly scientific manner. They all were slavishly diligent about supporting the status quo.

Great "science," that. NOT.

a reply to: Hanslune

if it isn't cranial deformation for cultural reasons, which is well established and not diseased what is it in your esteemed estimation of what caused this man's skull modification?

A true scientist would not make a supposition like that unless they were 100% sure...

So if you are 99.9999% sure, that leaves an opening , small, but it is an opening to another explanation...

Skull deformation is the "run home to mamma" for most ...that makes me think thou doest protest too much...lol

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Hanslune

What a riot.

None of your own links support that conehead being artificially manipulated into that shape

AT ALL.

NONE. ZIP. NADA. NIET. NIEN. BU WHEY.

All your links affirm is that artificial manipulation occurred. Whoooop-T-Do.

THAT was never in question!

Sigh.

The differences between the skulls cited in your links and that one in the pic are incredibly huge.

Yet, you have the audacity to cite those links!

Incredible.

I guess I'm getting old and incredulous about such willful . . . something.

More childish meaningless posturing I see? lol you do realize don't you that this is a new report and any analysis of that specific skull will not occur for 15-18 months?

The question you asked was:

had the head modified in infancy by boards or some such. There's NOT A MICROGRAM OF A HINT of such manipulation. Text

Since there is an impressive body of work that established such manipulation and it was well known in those cultures in that time frame what is your counter proposal?

Anything?

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Hanslune

Look at the head in the pic.

there are several but I'm going out on a limb and assuming you are referencing the last photo at the bottom, if I am incorrect please let me know.

Where's the evidence of such manipulated deformation?

Where?

There's not a shred of it there.

Just above the brow ridge where the newly enlarged forehead lies there is a tell tale indicator of heads binding, a 6-8 in flattened area that shows where the boards were placed. It's kind of a crappy picture so it's difficult to be precise or certain without a better photo or seeing the skull first hand but there appear to be corresponding marks from the ties on the left side of the individuals skull.

Just out of curiosity, what is YOUR explanation for the shape of these skulls?

Propaganda is not fact . . . and not science.

well, they do say that even a broken clock tells the right time twice per day, loos like you've still got another one coming though.

The cranial mass is much too large for a manipulated deformation to explain all of what is in that pic.

Sigh.

Are you saying that you are able to determine mass and bone density from a 4x6 photo? if so that's an amazing super power you have! could you explain why exactly in your opinion the mass is too large to be an example of head binding?

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Hanslune

It seems rather obvious, to me.

Genetics.

BTW, you don't have much awareness of how much of this topic I've studied or read about. Sigh.

I haven't read a single solid truly scientific peer reviewed paper that treated the topic in a truly scientific manner. They all were slavishly diligent about supporting the status quo.

Great "science," that. NOT.

It is more impressive than your un-evidenced opinion. You seem to think genetics in humans creates such shapes, is that your theory? Okay evidence please.

However I would have to ask how you would have obtained genetic tests on that specific skull within this time frame.

originally posted by: coastlinekid
a reply to: Hanslune

if it isn't cranial deformation for cultural reasons, which is well established and not diseased what is it in your esteemed estimation of what caused this man's skull modification?

A true scientist would not make a supposition like that unless they were 100% sure...

So if you are 99.9999% sure, that leaves an opening , small, but it is an opening to another explanation...

Skull deformation is the "run home to mamma" for most ...that makes me think thou doest protest too much...lol

One is never absolutely sure in science but given the situation and with no counter evidence for any other acting agent I would go with what is commonly known for that period and for such cultures until shown evidence that my premise is wrong.

a reply to: Hanslune

Dream on.

When you can account for the difference in mass of a significant percentage of So. American coneheads . . . far in excess of the mass of even manipulated skulls, perhaps we could . . . barely possibly . . . have a meaningful discussion.

a reply to: Hanslune

Uhhhhh . . . the evidence is in the significant number of skulls with cranial mass far in excess of the manipulated skulls . . . and with no undeniable markings indicating manipulation on said vastly increased cranial mass skulls.

Your pontifications and those of all the "professional" papers have no explanation for that.

period.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Hanslune

Dream on.

When you can account for the difference in mass of a significant percentage of So. American coneheads . . . far in excess of the mass of even manipulated skulls, perhaps we could . . . barely possibly . . . have a meaningful discussion.

When you can account for why this skull is different from a significant percentage of So. American coneheads...or is in some way different from the many others that have occurred from cranial deformation and you read the associated papers, disprove them, then you might be able to have a meaningful honest discussion with yourself, however given your demonstrated immaturity and lack of knowledge that may be quite awhile.

Try more knowledge versus antics next time

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Hanslune

Uhhhhh . . . the evidence is in the significant number of skulls with cranial mass far in excess of the manipulated skulls . . . and with no undeniable markings indicating manipulation on said vastly increased cranial mass skulls.

Your pontifications and those of all the "professional" papers have no explanation for that.

period.

Do you?

a reply to: Hanslune

The mass is important. Does anyone know that this restriction method would also stimulate additional growth, more bone? Looks like a significant amount of extra bone without plate shift.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Hanslune

The mass is important. Does anyone know that this restriction method would also stimulate additional growth, more bone? Looks like a significant amount of extra bone without plate shift.

Wolff's law, ( If loading on a particular bone increases, the bone will remodel itself over time to become stronger to resist that sort of loading.)
It's one of several possible explanations of why human skull bones thicken under cranial deformation.

a reply to: Hanslune

Do you believe that skull formation would fall under the heading of "loading"?

a reply to: Logarock


Yeah pressure on the bone to which the body may respond to that adjustment and re-alignment as it would to excessive loading. It's one possible explanation of why human skulls would gain mass when a child has his head distorted.