Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are these the skulls of ancient 'gods'

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Dear group,

www.enigmas.org...

This is a subject which intrigues me as I have an interest in anomalies which defy explanation by accepted theory.
Here is hard evidence of a life form which falls 'outside the box' of current thinking, that is even harder to explain.
I would appreciate that comments be limited to the photos, the measurements, the undisputed science and that they not include some of the less-than-thought=through quips which seems to be the chosen substitute among some members for information exchange, or even educated guess-work.

I posit this as a start-off qquestion: the high, curvy head=dresses of our ancestral elite..were they an invention of the fashion designers..or were they monkey-see, monkey-do copying by humans of çone-heads from a much older or alien race?

Again look at the pictures..I have several links to articles making reference to these skulls but not one debunker to be found.

-Shai




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
You may want to look into the practice of "skull binding" then, as ritualistic sacrifices (often children) practiced by older South American civilizations...as they result in this kind of abnormality in the skull (post mortem).



that they not include some of the less-than-thought=through quips which seems to be the chosen substitute among some members for information exchange, or even educated guess-work.


I'll leave the science for our resident anthropologists (and there are some), but I've seen enough on this practice and it's effects to know it when I see it again...at least as a possible explanation....

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
This is exactly the kind of quip I mean.
yes, i thought of skull-binding and so did the authors of the article..did you just skim the pics and have a thought about them?
Please have a couple more...and even , if you were remotely right in your assumption, ...even then it begs the question, 'Whatever gave them that idea?",
Doesn't it?

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
You may want to look into the practice of "skull binding" then, as ritualistic sacrifices (often children) practiced by older South American civilizations...as they result in this kind of abnormality in the skull (post mortem).



that they not include some of the less-than-thought=through quips which seems to be the chosen substitute among some members for information exchange, or even educated guess-work.


I'll leave the science for our resident anthropologists (and there are some), but I've seen enough on this practice and it's effects to know it when I see it again...at least as a possible explanation....

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Gazrok]



Here, to make it easy on you, and anyone else who is curious but lazy..is the 3rd paragraph of the article in the link above, unedited, and verbatim.
So no more head-binding theories, okay?
;-)

"When some of these pictures (the first two) were posted on CompuServe more than year ago, the majority of people assumed that they represented an example of binding of the head, well known to be in fashion in ancient Nubia, Egypt and other cultures. The problem with this theory is that the inside of the cranium of the mentioned skulls, although elongated and with a back sloping, flattened forehead, have the same capacity as normal human skulls; the only difference is the shape achieved by frontal and side deformations. They are actually more similar to the first type of skull (premodern) with the rounded back, than the conehead type. The cone-shaped types of skull are not found amongst the usual skull-binding samples.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Good afternoon Shai. While not directly related to the photo's on your provided link, there is another skull worth mentioning.

Lloyd Pye has in his posession a skull un unusual proportions that is currently being analyzed in the U.K. Pretty fascinating stuff. You can read all about it and the analysis here:

www.starchild-uk.com...

Exerpt:

1.The bone was significantly harder to cut that it should have been.

2.There was a stronger-than-usual smell of “burning bone” when cutting it.

3.When put into EDTA, the normal solvent for human bone, the Starchild should have dissolved within a week, or perhaps less since it is less than half as thick as normal human bone. 10 weeks later the Starchild bone had not dissolved a bit.

4.When ‘tween 20, a strong detergent was added to the mix, the Starchild bone dissolved completely, overnight, down to a thin layer of residue. Unexpected.

So far, the analysis is proving to baffle many people. This particular project could very well make people think twice about our recorded history.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I almost said the skull-binding thing too, but I actually read the article...

I don't know. It would seem folly to automatically assume that these skulls belonged to Gods, just because of the gargantuan capacity, and odd shape. However, I wouldn't rule out giantism. There are a lot more occurrences of fantastic enigmas in South America, for whatever reason. From "Wolfmen" who are normal people covered in fur, to two-headed offspring.

Who knows, perhaps it's the skull of chupathingy?

My guess is that an extraordinarily tall breed of people who had their own local giants occasionally, perhaps 50% larger than current giants, and then further binding the heads. That, or...well... I hate to say it, but perhaps the skulls are fakes.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

So no more head-binding theories, okay?


Ok, you're right...alien conehead gods are so much more plausible than a documented ritual. I'll refrain from interjecting with realistic explainations...



I almost said the skull-binding thing too, but I actually read the article...


I too read the article, I simply didn't agree with it. Look at the pics. From the bottom of the nose down, that's modern man. The abnormality above that is likely due to the drawing back nature of the ritual. Maybe it's the visual artist in me, but I can virtually see the animation of the stretching in my head. The very evidence they try to use AGAINST skull binding (that the cranial capacity is the same, just stretched) actually SUPPORTS the skull binding (as the capacity would be the same, just shaped differently)


If the alternative is the case, then surely the discovering scientist would have this find documented as a new species. So, if all the science is there, where's the acknowledgement of this? Simple, there isn't.

Interesting that the article tries to make the ritual seem distant from South America, by citing the early Nubian and Egyptian practices, despite the majority of practicioners being in South America....
Sometimes what they DON'T say is just as telling.



[edit on 21-1-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
are the actual askulls in a museum somewhere or is the only evidence of them Mr. Connolley's pictures ?

things that make you go hmmm.......



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I emailed this guy back in 95-96 to let him know this was South American skull binding and he did not want to here it back then either.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Could it be that the practice of skull binding resulted in ancient man attempting to mimmic the beings to whom these skulls belonged to?

Also, here is a good link for some very uncommon skull disorders that have been recently documented. Nothing as drastic as the skulls being mentioned here, but drastic none the less. Which means we can never throw out the possibility that this is just a freak of nature at best.

www.ppsca.com...




The first pictures(s) show the skull before, the next ones, show the result after surgery.





posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Those skull look like the ones in the movie The Coneheads. That was a great movie.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Croat56]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
What is an undisputed fact id that in no instance of skull-binding does the brain volume change..the cranial capacity..nor is there an instance of the cone headedness to be found anywhere on any continent.
But look at both skulls..[and by the way I am looking for more links to different skulls of the same type..will post them on Sunday..promise!]

You will notice in the two distinct models shown that about a third of the way down from the top of the cone there is a slight rounding, like a dorsal curve.
On the other skulls I will show you the same little curve, in the same place is to be found..and that to me speaks of a genetic marker..something fundamental that makes these skulls other than deformed humans or aberrations of a sort..it makes them a seperate and as yet undefined race of humanoid.

Now, for those whose feathers I ruffled, it was unintended..I am not claiming these ARE the skulls of the gods..just posing the question..and agin the start off assumption is this:
How likely is it that all by themselves our ancestors got it into their heads that skull-binding would be a neat idea? To what end, to what purpose would it serve them to go through the pain and the risk..to achieve status?
How would a coned head be seen as a status symbol, do you think?

Isn't it plausible that our forebears were trying to emulate something..some thing that was common to their experience..like a superior or powerful life form beyond their own?

I'm not even sure I can pull this off but..what if I can provide another example of a skull from an entirely different location which matches in every detail the ones I cited here? With the same 'dorsal' curve..would that make you reconsider?

And remember the key argument here is cranial capacity...skull binding chamges the shape of the head but not overall capacity..does anyone have an argument with that? can you understand how much extra sapce the 'human'brain would have in a space like that and how it would slosh around?
Do you understand about the grooving from insdie the cranium which gives one cause to beleiev whatever fitted inside the skull was a tight fit indeed?

I haven't formed a theory proper but I certainly can't buy the ones on offer so far.
You know, if arcaelogy and anthropology were really 'hard'sciences most of the accepted 'theories'about things would be shelved as inadeqaute or disproved.
An observed and quantifiable anomaly like this in physics would kill a theory dead in its tracks.

-But I do thank you for reading and sharing. Like I said, I will have more links here tomorrow and I hope they will be of great interest to the curious and unconvinced.

-Sincerely
-Shai

OH, BTW..here's a link to the Olmec..
www.anomalies-unlimited.com...

Another race of giants? ...but nothing like the 'coneheads'



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
referring to my initally posted link..if you will all check out fig C2 and Figure C3, you will note that they are not the same skull but two different skulls which both dislpay that signature curve 1/3rd of the way down from the crown.

In all the skull deformity sites there are no two identical deformities, and none where the head shapes in to a cone..and I have looked at dozens of sites.
if someone can show me a perfectly smooth skull of the same proportions..just one which is a match or near match to these photos in any medical journal I sure would be curious, and gratified to be enlightened and forever disabused of my foolish notions.

Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I think you might be right Shai

What I found interesting is that those skulls have similar shapes both in Africa and South America. In both places there were great ancient civilizations and they worshiped Gods from the stars


besides, an interesting link

[edit on 22-1-2005 by jazzgul]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Well i would just like to ask have these skulls been carbon dated? How old are they? Also i think your right that its not skull binding, but another race of humaniods, althought i wouldnt think they are gods....Just a exticnt race of humans who lived a very long time ago....guess the extra brain capacity didnt do much for them since we dont hace coneheads now. Surivial of the fittest.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:41 AM
link   
dear group

Took me just under an hour to find relevant sites..I've included a couple minor sites.. which detail a bitt about [naturally] occurring cranial deformities, and skull-binding.
Did you know that neanderthals practiced skull-binding?
But nothing, and I mean nothing found in the annals compares to the examples you will find on:
www.world-mysteries.com...

Which I hope folks will actually read thoroughly before commenting upon.

Here are a few more sites of interest:

istina.rin.ru...

www.rense.com...

For those of you who wish to cite [off-hand] medical jargon for possible symptoms which would account for the shaping and remarkable similarity between these skulls..to each other or some 'known' example of pathology I give you this site to peruse..i've been on every page and I've looked up photo examples on google...again to no avail.
www.plagiocephaly.org...

Here's one all about thr treatment of cranial deformities in infants with pictures of the most common deformations and the binding used to remedy the problems [PDF]
www.orthomerica.com...

As a last posting, another one which I hope you read and give thought to;

www.lloydpye.com...

Again, I would be delighted if someone could show me the error of my thinking in this regard, but, having talked with everal doctors, reserached more than 200 sites about the subject of aracheolgical and anthropological anomalies in the past year, and another several dozen about proto-languages, comparative mythologies and unexplained artifacts, I feel I am on solid ground when I ask 'are these the skulls of ancient gods?

Oh..and for those inclined to believe the Bible literally and who take issue with these specualtions of mine;

Genesis 6:1-4

Thanking you in advance for serious comments

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:00 AM
link   
moon.ouhsc.edu...

The link above is to a glossary of all known cranial deformities, and how they are recognized...nowhere on this list is any mention of any syndrome that would account for the skull shapes seen on previous links.

As for acrbon dating..I am someone who has a real problem with carbon 14 dating..but that is for later discussion...but again, i will provide links to anyone asking as to why I find carbon 14 dating unreliable at times.

Having said that..the 'starchild'skull..which is not one of those I was on about in my initial post, but which do fall into the same 'unexplained' category'was carbon dated to 900 years ago +/- 40 years.
Making it Pre-columbian.

Thanks for picking up the thread

-sincerely
-shai

www.starchild-uk.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
oh no its the return of the coneheads! lol

i don't see anything god-like about them, also why would gods even be mortal, die or even represent what we look like. why would they have skeletons or flesh like we do.

looks more like primitive humans, or ape-like creatures. skulls of our gods?? no, try skulls of our ancestors.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I am of the opinion that any creatures possesed of powers natural or artificail that were perceived by our ancient forebears to be 'super-human' or as having descended from 'heaven' would have been hailed as 'gods'.
I do not believe for one minute in the 'eternal' god of the Bible..for one thing the Creator of Genesis goes about things in an all too-human way..needs to eat and , as I have pointed out in postings elsewhere oin ATS...is not at one with this earthly enviornment. If Adam and Eve got the notion of nudity vs. being covered up they got it from someone wearing clothes, and that would have to be the 'creator', wouldn't it? [or do you really beieve they got it from watching snakes shed their skin? Note that snake skin doesn't hide what a snake looks like,..]

But back to the 'gods' if you check the links above, especially the jeff rense links I think you'll agree that they are anything but ape-like..and if they are they point to a different genus of homo that has not been identified anywhere else in the fossil record, all coming from similar locations.
And they would be great apes, and quite recent. These skulls are not dated into the millions or even thousands of years B.C...they are dated to coincide with the fables and local legends associated with them..all claiming star-gods to have visited only mere centuries before Columbus.

Anyway, just to shoot the 'ape-fossil'theory down beyond any doubt..[so sorry]..here is the fact and the site to support the dismissal out of hand

There are no great apes in south america and never were..not one fossil ever found to support the notion that great apes evolved and died out, or ever existed anywhere on the southern continent.
But don't believe me..go here:
www.greatapetrust.org...

Just a final note..when I saw these skulls I went looking as any skeptic would for counter-evidence or something to debunk the site. So yes, I checked out ape skulls and fossil ape skulls and nothing comes remotely close to the skulls here..because, even taking the high-domed shape of some 'great-apes into account, the actual inside voulme of the cranium is quite small..having housed smaller brains.

Thank you, however, for checking the thread

-sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai
What is an undisputed fact id that in no instance of skull-binding does the brain volume change..the cranial capacity..nor is there an instance of the cone headedness to be found anywhere on any continent.
But look at both skulls..[and by the way I am looking for more links to different skulls of the same type..will post them on Sunday..promise!]

You will notice in the two distinct models shown that about a third of the way down from the top of the cone there is a slight rounding, like a dorsal curve.
On the other skulls I will show you the same little curve, in the same place is to be found..and that to me speaks of a genetic marker..something fundamental that makes these skulls other than deformed humans or aberrations of a sort..it makes them a seperate and as yet undefined race of humanoid.

Now, for those whose feathers I ruffled, it was unintended..I am not claiming these ARE the skulls of the gods..just posing the question..and agin the start off assumption is this:
How likely is it that all by themselves our ancestors got it into their heads that skull-binding would be a neat idea? To what end, to what purpose would it serve them to go through the pain and the risk..to achieve status?
How would a coned head be seen as a status symbol, do you think?

Isn't it plausible that our forebears were trying to emulate something..some thing that was common to their experience..like a superior or powerful life form beyond their own?

I'm not even sure I can pull this off but..what if I can provide another example of a skull from an entirely different location which matches in every detail the ones I cited here? With the same 'dorsal' curve..would that make you reconsider?

And remember the key argument here is cranial capacity...skull binding chamges the shape of the head but not overall capacity..does anyone have an argument with that? can you understand how much extra sapce the 'human'brain would have in a space like that and how it would slosh around?
Do you understand about the grooving from insdie the cranium which gives one cause to beleiev whatever fitted inside the skull was a tight fit indeed?

I haven't formed a theory proper but I certainly can't buy the ones on offer so far.
You know, if arcaelogy and anthropology were really 'hard'sciences most of the accepted 'theories'about things would be shelved as inadeqaute or disproved.
An observed and quantifiable anomaly like this in physics would kill a theory dead in its tracks.

-But I do thank you for reading and sharing. Like I said, I will have more links here tomorrow and I hope they will be of great interest to the curious and unconvinced.

-Sincerely
-Shai

OH, BTW..here's a link to the Olmec..
www.anomalies-unlimited.com...

Another race of giants? ...but nothing like the 'coneheads'





I agree. I also wonder why those who did practice skull binding do it if they were not trying to make themselves look like someone else. They wouldn't out of the blue say "Hey let's start skull binding!" LOL!

Also it seems like there is more bone on the stretched skulls in those pictures than there is to normal skulls. If you take the normal size skull and bind it to create that shape, it still wouldn't be that BIG.






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join