It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I will be thrilled to admit I was wrong if real evidence ever emerges.
And it comes down to a couple of things. First off, scientists have egos, and scientists like to name dinosaurs. They like to name anything. Everybody likes to have their own animal that they named. (Laughter) And so every time they found something that looked a little different, they named it something different. And what happened, of course, is we ended up with a whole bunch of different dinosaurs.
In 1975, a light went on in somebody's head. Dr. Peter Dodson at the University of Pennsylvania actually realized that dinosaurs grew kind of like birds do, which is different than the way reptiles grow. And in fact, he used the cassowary as an example. And it's kind of cool -- if you look at the cassowary, or any of the birds that have crests on their heads, they actually grow to about 80 percent adult size before the crest starts to grow. Now think about that. They're basically retaining their juvenile characteristics very late in what we call ontogeny. So allometric cranial ontogeny is relative skull growth. So you can see that if you actually found one that was 80 percent grown and you didn't know that it was going to grow up to a cassowary, you would think they were two different animals.
originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: cooperton
I appreciate the links, but the last one is Peruvian.
IIRC, there have been some elongated skulls found in Egypt. Two, I think, but it might be a few more.
Harte
originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: peter vlar
Interesting to note that you assimilate this web article, which has no peer-reviewed aspect whatsoever, so quickly because it falls in line with your contemporary worldview. Is that all it takes for you to accept or deny something?
The discovery, published today in Nature, overturns the view that humans first entered the island between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago as Homo sapiens dispersed out of Africa on the way to Australia.
Checkout this array of skulls from the Mutter Museum in Philadelpha:
Mutter Museum Skulls
These are all homo sapiens, despite the morphological differences. I could beguile (not as if the beguiling has been done on purpose, if at all, but rather by ignorance) anyone into thinking the skull on the left belonged to a dwarf species.
How about this one, would this make you believe in unicorns?
Unicorn Woman
Would this one lead you to believe aliens visisted earth, or is it just a development aberration?
Homo Alienis
Perhaps some Egyptians, demonstrating a similar elongated skull, are all homo alienis?
Egyptian Homo Alienis
My point is, maybe a misnomer of skeletal remains have caused a similar rash assimilation of falsehood?
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: peter vlar
Interesting to note that you assimilate this web article, which has no peer-reviewed aspect whatsoever, so quickly because it falls in line with your contemporary worldview. Is that all it takes for you to accept or deny something?
Interesting to note that once again you're speaking about things you have no clue about. I didn't realize that trolls bridges were portable. Since Hooked in Phonics apparently didn't work out, let me assist you. See, had you read the article, you would have read paragraph 2 which states:
The discovery, published today in Nature, overturns the view that humans first entered the island between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago as Homo sapiens dispersed out of Africa on the way to Australia.
Nature is one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in the world. If they published it, it has been reviewed by multiple parties. But then again! none of this has anything to do with the OP. You're on the offensive over a sidebar discussion with Randy that is only tangentially to do with the OP because the lead author makes reference to a potential relationship between the people who crafted the lithics found at this site and H. Floresiensis.
Checkout this array of skulls from the Mutter Museum in Philadelpha:
Mutter Museum Skulls
These are all homo sapiens, despite the morphological differences. I could beguile (not as if the beguiling has been done on purpose, if at all, but rather by ignorance) anyone into thinking the skull on the left belonged to a dwarf species.
And why would I think anything of the sort based on a 2D photo? And why would you even bring any of this up as it's so far off the topic of the OP? Were I to examine the skull in person I would be able to tell quite a bit about it. I don't make blind assessments off of an out of context photo though.
How about this one, would this make you believe in unicorns?
Unicorn Woman
Since unicorns are mythical horses with a magical horn growing out of their head, no I wouldn't believe in unicorns based on this photo. Which again, has no context. You really don't get how the scientific method works do you? Anyone with a passing knowledge of biology would be able to ascertain that the photo is of a woman with a keratinous tumor. It's a form of skin cancer.
Would this one lead you to believe aliens visisted earth, or is it just a development aberration?
Homo Alienis
Perhaps some Egyptians, demonstrating a similar elongated skull, are all homo alienis?
Egyptian Homo Alienis
On the Egyptian cranium I can clearly see the marks from head binding, on the other I see the same indentation. But again, I can't make any sort of determination based on a 2D photograph. It's an asinine proposition
My point is, maybe a misnomer of skeletal remains have caused a similar rash assimilation of falsehood?
And my point is that you are making ridiculous strawmen simply,for the sake of trolling me. The H. Floresiensis find included post cranial anatomy, the determination was not made on skull morphology alone. But if you had done even a cursory search and read the material this would have been quite clear. When looking at the complete remains in proper context, it is quite clear that none were juveniles and there were several archaic features consistently present in all Floresiensis remains that indicate that they are not H. Sapiens Sapiens. They have carpal features that are much closer to Chimpanzees than HSS for example. They also possess features found in H. Erectus such as an occipital torus and a mastoid fissure. They also used lithic technology that is more similar to Olduwan lithics than with contemporary H. Erectus or HSS as well. The Floresiensis find was peer reviewed and published in Nature back in 2012.
Furthermore, this site predates the appearance of AMH.
With that out of the way, why don't we move onto the actual topic of this thread instead of swinging around that boner you seem to have for me.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: cooperton
I appreciate the links, but the last one is Peruvian.
IIRC, there have been some elongated skulls found in Egypt. Two, I think, but it might be a few more.
Harte
I did find Peruvian Elongated Skulls, but that one was listed as Egyptian. Maybe Homo Alienis resided in Africa and South America?
so maybe it is Egyptian (Coptic.) I saw it identified as Peruvian on far more websites though.
the only known example from Egypt of clear adjustment of the skull was from a Coptic cemetery 1800 years after the existence of Akhenaten
originally posted by: Puppylove
I dunno, with most modern humans having Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, and the only "pure" humans coming out of Sub Sahara Africa. It could be argued that modern humans, those not of pure human blood have origins from more than Africa.
If you have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA, saying you're origins originate in Africa is not definitely accurate. We aren't pure Sub Sahara humans. Any other blood we share is also a part of our origins.
Many of us are Neanderthal, Denisova, and probably others not yet discovered as well. Only giving credit to our African Ancestors seems a bit unfair.