150 Mummies of Ancient Unknown Civilisation Discovered in Atacama Desert

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Harte

Here you go

That's the result of binding. Some if not most of the Paracas Skulls are clearly not, they are natural.

...and the study that shows that is?

Well I don't think that a study is needed to show that these skulls are not the result of head binding -

s4.postimg.org...

There's plenty of data out there which shows that these skulls are different in their make up to 'normal' human skulls. One example being the cranial capacity. Head binding does not increase the cranial capacity.

Actually it does, try a different study. Do you have a PRP that shows they are not 'normal' humans? There are lots that say they are just what one would expect, normal humans with culturally modified heads.

Just because a PRP does not exists at this present time is meaningless it proves nothing at all. Those skull are not modified they are totally natural.

originally posted by: JamesTB

Just because a PRP does not exists at this present time is meaningless it proves nothing at all. Those skull are not modified they are totally natural.

Again how do you know that? Have you examined the collection and do you have experience in physical anthropology?

There are PRP's that say they are normal but I guess we have to discount those studies eh?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

Just because a PRP does not exists at this present time is meaningless it proves nothing at all. Those skull are not modified they are totally natural.

Again how do you know that? Have you examined the collection and do you have experience in physical anthropology?

There are PRP's that say they are normal but I guess we have to discount those studies eh?

Not those skulls in the photo I posted as they have never been tested or studied in depth. If you believe they have then show us the proof of your beliefs.

originally posted by: JamesTB


Not those skulls in the photo I posted as they have never been tested or studied in depth. If you believe they have then show us the proof of your beliefs.

We were talking about the skulls in general. This is your comment I was replying too

There's plenty of data out there which shows that these skulls are different in their make up to 'normal' human skulls. One example being the cranial capacity. Head binding does not increase the cranial capacity.

So have you studied the existing examples of deformed skulls in Peru? You are making definite statements about what they are but you lack any scientific backing.

a reply to: JamesTB

I agree with you JamesTB

A Bound skull and these cone head skulls are not the same.

Capacity of cranium is different

2 skull plates vs 3 skull plates

Holes in cone skulls for blood vessels not found in normal human skull

I hope more studies and research will be done (or it has been done and some peolpe dont like results, therefore no research looks better to them)

Great thread

originally posted by: GallopingFish
a reply to: JamesTB

I agree with you JamesTB

A Bound skull and these cone head skulls are not the same.

Capacity of cranium is different

2 skull plates vs 3 skull plates

Holes in cone skulls for blood vessels not found in normal human skull

I hope more studies and research will be done (or it has been done and some peolpe dont like results, therefore no research looks better to them)

Great thread

Capacity for all deformed skulls increases if it causes a shape that the brain will not adapt to. The brains remain the same size

How are they not the same?

Why don't you guys pay for yet another study of the same material and see if your hired scientist can come up with something other than normal.

As for the new material we'll have to wait 15-18 months for a published report.

So we have one elongated skull and another one that "clearly" has horns above it's head.
Yeah i'm sure nothing disturbing at all happened there!
ehehe jokes aside, impressive find, hopefully we will get to know a little bit more about these lost brothers.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB


Not those skulls in the photo I posted as they have never been tested or studied in depth. If you believe they have then show us the proof of your beliefs.

We were talking about the skulls in general. This is your comment I was replying too

There's plenty of data out there which shows that these skulls are different in their make up to 'normal' human skulls. One example being the cranial capacity. Head binding does not increase the cranial capacity.

So have you studied the existing examples of deformed skulls in Peru? You are making definite statements about what they are but you lack any scientific backing.

Because scientific studies haven't been done at present is meaningless, that means absolutely nothing at all. Because science hasn't proved something at present doesn't mean it doesn't exists it simply means that it may or may not be proved/discovered in the future. You cannot use that as a means to disprove something. You can use a study to prove something but you cannot use the absence of a study to disprove something.

Hanslune
You Said:
Capacity for all deformed skulls increases if it causes a shape that the brain will not adapt to. The brains remain the same size

How are they not the same?

Why don't you guys pay for yet another study of the same material and see if your hired scientist can come up with something other than normal.

As for the new material we'll have to wait 15-18 months for a published report.

I Reply:

I believe and a whole lot of others do as well that these skulls are NOT deformed.

The bound skulls are, but these 3 plated cone skulls are NOT deformed.

Deformity : a deformed part, especially of the body; a malformation.
"deformities of the hands or feet"
synonyms: malformation, misshapenness, disproportion, distortion, crookedness; imperfection, abnormality, irregularity; ugliness, unsightliness, defacement, disfigurement; defect, flaw, blemish
"the frame can be used to correct bone deformities"

Extra holes for blood vessels and different number of skull plates... consistenly. No sir, Not Deformed.

And Deformed is such a negative sounding word lol

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JamesTB

Just because a PRP does not exists at this present time is meaningless it proves nothing at all. Those skull are not modified they are totally natural.

Again how do you know that? Have you examined the collection and do you have experience in physical anthropology?

There are PRP's that say they are normal but I guess we have to discount those studies eh?

Not those skulls in the photo I posted as they have never been tested or studied in depth. If you believe they have then show us the proof of your beliefs.

And why is it that the specific paracas skulls you linked have not been studied properly? What is their provenance? What physical anthropologists have handled the specimens? What independent labs have tested the material from these skulls?

Well, they haven't been studied by any anthropologists or archaeologists that have any accreditation for one. No independent labs have studied the material, only private facilities chosen by Brian Foerester where nobody else was allowed to examine the data let alone the results. Brian owns Hidden Inca Tours, he's in this for one thing only, money. That to me is sketchy, but not entirely indicative that no good science is being done, everything else about this situation takes care of that all too nicely much to the a chagrin of Brian and his friend Juan Navarro at the Paracas History Museum where Brian is the asst. director.

The real key to the whole charade of this endeavor is that instead of publicly publishing the results and data they instead released it in bits and pieces through Facebook blogs and other social media avenues along with some fringe sites. If the information is legit, why not release it to be peer reviewed by qualified people in their respective fields? There is no reason at all unless you're not giving the whole story and don't want people to stop booking tours through your company. There is no accountable provenance that I'm aware of. there simply is not an ounce of science involving the alleged paracas skulls that nobody supporting them has uttered an original word about and instead repeats verbatim from Foersters websites. I really encourage you guys to look at the actual science or in this case question the lack of. It will be far more beneficial than stomping feet in an Internet forum.

a reply to: dollukka

Thanks for a great contribution. As you may know, this is an field of my particular interest and the subject of many of my threads. I'm convinced that the area between Bolivia, Peru and Chile, is is the area with more mysteries to reveal in the world.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: GallopingFish
a reply to: JamesTB

I agree with you JamesTB

A Bound skull and these cone head skulls are not the same.

Capacity of cranium is different

2 skull plates vs 3 skull plates

Holes in cone skulls for blood vessels not found in normal human skull

I hope more studies and research will be done (or it has been done and some peolpe dont like results, therefore no research looks better to them)

Great thread

Capacity for all deformed skulls increases if it causes a shape that the brain will not adapt to. The brains remain the same size.

Hans,
While that may be true, none of these skulls have exhibited cranial capacities outside the normal human range.

What GallopingFish posted is just lies told by Brian Foerster.

The cranial (interior) capacities - largest was 1600 CC, humans range up to 1800 cc.

The "two skull bone" count: The skulls have four, just like the rest of us. Funny that GallopingFish never even bothered to check out skull morphology, isn't it? Though proponents of this claim never provide a decent photo to back up their "one parietal bone" claim, the existence of the sagittal suture can be established in this pic of a Paracas skull:

At the top of the forehead, you can see the dimple where the two plates meet.

Again, in this pic, also from Paracas, it can be seen clearly in the skull on the left:


Regarding the "two small holes" claim, which Foerster and Childress (yes, the same whining con man that's on "Ancient Aliens" ) state "are not at all common to Homo sapiens," these are merely the parietal foramen, shown below:


These two holes are exceedingly common in humans. You'd be hard-pressed to find an individual without them.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Good post but the difference about those plates is that that ''sagitall suture'' is just missing which is different compared with normal human skulls.

See:

a reply to: Harte

Howdy Harte

Yep you are right I got on the wrong path

Thanks

a reply to: Harte

"The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening. They also contain only one parietal plate, rather than two. The fact that the skulls’ features are not the result of cranial deformation means that the cause of the elongation is a mystery, and has been for decades."

From this page, www.kultusbook.com...

Why is Brian Foerster a liar?

I really think there is more to these skulls than just binding. Saying they are deformed is not the right word, imagine finding skeletons of a sub species of chimpanzee and just labelling all the bones deformed because the dont match the other types on record...

originally posted by: GallopingFish
a reply to: Harte

"The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening. They also contain only one parietal plate, rather than two. The fact that the skulls’ features are not the result of cranial deformation means that the cause of the elongation is a mystery, and has been for decades."

From this page, www.kultusbook.com...

Glad you responded, because I earlier stated that the LARGEST Paracas skull only had a capcity of 1600 CC. The fact is, that was the average size, not the maximum.

Now:
The claim (my emphasis):

The Paracas Culture (c. 700 BC - 100 AD): One intriguing aspect of this culture which has been overlooked by most researchers is the fact that the nobility practiced skull binding, resulting in cranial deformation. The Paracas situation is somewhat unique in that researchers Juan Navarro and Brien Foerster have found the presence of at least 5 distinct shapes of elongated skulls, each being predominant in specific cemeteries. The largest and most striking are from a site called Chongos, near the town of Pisco, north of Paracas. These skulls are called "cone heads" by many who see them, because of their literal conical appearance. Testing of these have illustrated that, on average, the cranial capacity is 1.5 Ltr's, approximately 25% larger than contemporary skulls, and weigh as much as 60 percent more. Also, eye orbit cavities are significantly larger than contemporary skulls, and the jaws are both larger and thicker.

Source
Note that 1.5 liters is 1500 CCs, not that it matters, but that site has it wrong.

However:

The volume of a human brain, otherwise known as cranial capacity, varies depending on several factors, such as age, environment, and body size. The volume is usually measured in cubic centimeters (cm3 or cc). Modern humans have cranial capacities from 950 cm3 to 1800 cm3, but the average volume of a modern human brain is 1300 cm3 to 1500 cm3.

Source
And:

Figures for the average brain size of modern humans tend to vary between sources, but a typical value is 1350 or 1400 cc (cubic centimetres). The following figures should convey a feel for the normal range of variation in human skulls. Burenhult (1993) states that the 90% of humans fit in the range 1040-1595 cc, and that the extreme range is 900-2000 cc. S.J. Gould, in "The Mismeasure of Man", reviewed a 19th century study by Morton of 600 skulls which ranged from 950 to 1870 cc

Source

Foerster's claim that the skulls have cranial capacities that indicate they aren't human is simply false.
Please provide us with a list of the capacities of the skulls, so that we don't have to deal with Foerster's "average."

See, the average size IS greater than that of the AVERAGE human. But with such a small sample population, and given they are members of the same physical population, an average difference is meaningless.
Also, perhaps you can see from the above averages I quoted, the only way Foerster gets to the "25% larger" claim is by taking the lowest end of the averages for humans (1300CC.) Ask yourself this, why didn't he compare his skulls with the upper end of that average (1500cc)? Could it be because there is only a difference of 100 cc's there and he would have to say his skulls were 6.7% larger that the average human?

originally posted by: GallopingFish
Why is Brian Foerster a liar?

What would you call a deliberately misleading claim such as the above?

Harte

originally posted by: Plugin
a reply to: Harte

Good post but the difference about those plates is that that ''sagitall suture'' is just missing which is different compared with normal human skulls.

See:

[Snipped video]

The first skull in your vid shows the saggital suture quite plainly.
Admittedly, the suture is more difficult to see in the second one, but if you look, it's there.

Harte

This video shows the clear difference between the skulls -



www.youtube.com...

Here's a photo of 2 skulls side by side the differences are plain to see -

s3.postimg.org...

originally posted by: JamesTB
Here's a photo of 2 skulls side by side the differences are plain to see -

s3.postimg.org...

Definitely plain to see.

One skull has been elongated by binding, the other hasn't.

Harte