Pointy and lengthened skulls discovery

originally posted by: Harte
My daughter's head looked like that when she was born.
It went back into shape as you said, but left a birthmark on the back of her head just above the hairline - called a "stork bite" in case anyone's interested in the term.
Don't know if that ever faded. It's probably dyed green now anyway.

Harte

I bet it never lacked a sagittal suture, though, did it? Genuine, undeformed coneheads don't have a sagittal suture. That anatomical anomaly cannot be achieved mechanically by binding. It has a genetic origin.
The fact that some babies have a deformed head straight after birth that returns to normal is beside the point and a complete red herring, because the vast majority of the cone heads that have been made public are those of adults.

a reply to: micpsi

The sutures in the human skull varies quite a bit from person to person.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte
My daughter's head looked like that when she was born.
It went back into shape as you said, but left a birthmark on the back of her head just above the hairline - called a "stork bite" in case anyone's interested in the term.
Don't know if that ever faded. It's probably dyed green now anyway.

Harte

I bet it never lacked a sagittal suture, though, did it? Genuine, undeformed coneheads don't have a sagittal suture. That anatomical anomaly cannot be achieved mechanically by binding. It has a genetic origin.
The fact that some babies have a deformed head straight after birth that returns to normal is beside the point and a complete red herring, because the vast majority of the cone heads that have been made public are those of adults.

That is also incorrect. There are a few with sutures hardly visible. You can see them on others. Turns out that these sutures very often disappear with age in the normal human skull.
I posted about this several years ago right here at ATS.
link

Now will you remark about the two small holes "unseen in human skulls!"? (The other part of this bogus claim.)
Those are the parietal foramina.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Thanks for the info.

You always have good facts to share.

originally posted by: smurfy
But not 3m though....however it was also a Peruvian thing, (Nazca) to head bind, but not exclusive to them.

It's interesting, however, how there seems to be a genetic link between the two, one in Peru and the other in the Baltic. Both share the U2e1 haplogroup. Did Denisovans have unusually long skulls?

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Harte

Thanks for the info.

You always have good facts to share.

You quite welcome.
Bottom line is that Brien Foerster, like all the other fringies, is just a liar and you can't trust a SINGLE thing he says.

Harte

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: smurfy
But not 3m though....however it was also a Peruvian thing, (Nazca) to head bind, but not exclusive to them.

It's interesting, however, how there seems to be a genetic link between the two, one in Peru and the other in the Baltic. Both share the U2e1 haplogroup. Did Denisovans have unusually long skulls?

mtDNA doesn't affect physical appearance. It appears ONLY in the mitochondria of cells, not in the DNA of the individual.
U2e diverged from U2 mtDNA 50k years ago.

Harte

a reply to: LookingAtMars

It is Evident to me that these " Elongated Skull " People were a Different Genus of Human other than Us . A Mentally Superior Ruling Class that has Now Disappeared from the Face of the Earth . A Genetic Experiment which Proved Wanting from the " Gods " , or Victims of Homosapien Extermination ? ....Hmm.........

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: LookingAtMars

It is Evident to me that these " Elongated Skull " People were a Different Genus of Human other than Us . A Mentally Superior Ruling Class that has Now Disappeared from the Face of the Earth . A Genetic Experiment which Proved Wanting from the " Gods " , or Victims of Homosapien Extermination ? ....Hmm.........

They come with skeletons you know.

Harte

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: micpsi

The sutures in the human skull varies quite a bit from person to person.

They vary in shape and size but are rarely MISSING. Scholars have recognised this issue as a mystery (see [url=http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/victorian-scholars-already-knew-about-the-mystery-of-the-missing-sagittal-sutures-on-elongated-skulls[/url]) but explain it away by theorizing that binding fuses the sections of the skull and makes the sagittal sutures on elongated skulls disappear. This has never been proven, and many so-called "experts" still cannot distinguish between a boarded skull and the genuine genetic-based article. Even though some of us can clearly see the differences, they close their eyes to them. If boarding caused fusion, we would expect to encounter obviously boarded skulls with no sagittal sutures. But we don't. On the other hand, all cone heads that do not exhibit the tell-tale signs of boarding lack a sagittal suture. So the evidence supports a genetic cause, not boarding.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte
My daughter's head looked like that when she was born.
It went back into shape as you said, but left a birthmark on the back of her head just above the hairline - called a "stork bite" in case anyone's interested in the term.
Don't know if that ever faded. It's probably dyed green now anyway.

Harte

I bet it never lacked a sagittal suture, though, did it? Genuine, undeformed coneheads don't have a sagittal suture. That anatomical anomaly cannot be achieved mechanically by binding. It has a genetic origin.
The fact that some babies have a deformed head straight after birth that returns to normal is beside the point and a complete red herring, because the vast majority of the cone heads that have been made public are those of adults.

That is also incorrect. There are a few with sutures hardly visible. You can see them on others. Turns out that these sutures very often disappear with age in the normal human skull.
I posted about this several years ago right here at ATS.
link


Now will you remark about the two small holes "unseen in human skulls!"? (The other part of this bogus claim.)
Those are the parietal foramina.

Harte

No, it isn't. Stop making up evidence to suit your case. There are none with sutures "hardly visible." They are not there. Period.

Yes, some sutures DO disappear with age. But the sagittal suture (which is the crucial one) is NEVER obliterated. See:
www.cappskids.org...
Even scholars admitted the mystery, whilst debunkers tried to dismiss the problem by appealing to unproved hypotheses such as "binding causes fusion". Well, if that were the case, most obviously boarded skulls would show no sagittal suture, whereas they always DO!!

The logic and evidence are against you.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: LookingAtMars

It is Evident to me that these " Elongated Skull " People were a Different Genus of Human other than Us . A Mentally Superior Ruling Class that has Now Disappeared from the Face of the Earth . A Genetic Experiment which Proved Wanting from the " Gods " , or Victims of Homosapien Extermination ? ....Hmm.........

They come with skeletons you know.

Harte

No, they don't. Most examples of coneheads are provided by local people making money out of grave digging for artifacts and usually provide collectors only with a skull. Full skeletons are rare.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Harte

Thanks for the info.

You always have good facts to share.

You quite welcome.
Bottom line is that Brien Foerster, like all the other fringies, is just a liar and you can't trust a SINGLE thing he says.

Harte

Whilst it is reasonable to say someone's opinion is 'wrong,' to resort to saying he lies is contemptuous when you have no evidence whatever that he knows that what he claims is wrong. Using baseless ad hominems like that is unscientific and indicates that no one should trust a word you say.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: LookingAtMars

It is Evident to me that these " Elongated Skull " People were a Different Genus of Human other than Us . A Mentally Superior Ruling Class that has Now Disappeared from the Face of the Earth . A Genetic Experiment which Proved Wanting from the " Gods " , or Victims of Homosapien Extermination ? ....Hmm.........

They come with skeletons you know.

Harte

No, they don't. Most examples of coneheads are provided by local people making money out of grave digging for artifacts and usually provide collectors only with a skull. Full skeletons are rare.

If you read the OP and attached paper, all 3 skulls in this case came with skeletons. Of which they carried out extensive testing on, documenting the extremely tough lives these boys had lived through before they died as teens.

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0216366

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: micpsi

The sutures in the human skull varies quite a bit from person to person.

They vary in shape and size but are rarely MISSING. Scholars have recognised this issue as a mystery (see [url=http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/victorian-scholars-already-knew-about-the-mystery-of-the-missing-sagittal-sutures-on-elongated-skulls[/url]) but explain it away by theorizing that binding fuses the sections of the skull and makes the sagittal sutures on elongated skulls disappear. This has never been proven, and many so-called "experts" still cannot distinguish between a boarded skull and the genuine genetic-based article. Even though some of us can clearly see the differences, they close their eyes to them. If boarding caused fusion, we would expect to encounter obviously boarded skulls with no sagittal sutures. But we don't. On the other hand, all cone heads that do not exhibit the tell-tale signs of boarding lack a sagittal suture. So the evidence supports a genetic cause, not boarding.

They can be just missing a suture too, but i agree, some of those skulls does not make any sense, there are other things going on also, in the general structure and in the shape of the jaw,

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
The Smithsonian would love to add those to their collection, so no body will ever see them again......

Hey, not unlike the 18 foot skeleton in central Texas.....in the cross timbers area.......

Yes, they wrapped the infant kiddos nice tight bandana for a reason....huh...!

if they are hiding Giants, then surely there are more out their to be dug up !

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
The Smithsonian would love to add those to their collection, so no body will ever see them again......

Nah, the Smithsonian would feel just fine about displaying these fine specimens.

It's the ones lacking cranial sutures, such as many found in Peru, that they would be interested in hiding away to never be seen again.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte
My daughter's head looked like that when she was born.
It went back into shape as you said, but left a birthmark on the back of her head just above the hairline - called a "stork bite" in case anyone's interested in the term.
Don't know if that ever faded. It's probably dyed green now anyway.

Harte

I bet it never lacked a sagittal suture, though, did it? Genuine, undeformed coneheads don't have a sagittal suture. That anatomical anomaly cannot be achieved mechanically by binding. It has a genetic origin.
The fact that some babies have a deformed head straight after birth that returns to normal is beside the point and a complete red herring, because the vast majority of the cone heads that have been made public are those of adults.

That is also incorrect. There are a few with sutures hardly visible. You can see them on others. Turns out that these sutures very often disappear with age in the normal human skull.
I posted about this several years ago right here at ATS.
link


Now will you remark about the two small holes "unseen in human skulls!"? (The other part of this bogus claim.)
Those are the parietal foramina.

Harte

No, it isn't. Stop making up evidence to suit your case. There are none with sutures "hardly visible." They are not there. Period.

Yes, some sutures DO disappear with age. But the sagittal suture (which is the crucial one) is NEVER obliterated. See:
www.cappskids.org...
Even scholars admitted the mystery, whilst debunkers tried to dismiss the problem by appealing to unproved hypotheses such as "binding causes fusion". Well, if that were the case, most obviously boarded skulls would show no sagittal suture, whereas they always DO!!

The logic and evidence are against you.

Linked to them already dude, so deny the facts all you want.

Harte

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: Harte

Thanks for the info.

You always have good facts to share.

You quite welcome.
Bottom line is that Brien Foerster, like all the other fringies, is just a liar and you can't trust a SINGLE thing he says.

Harte

Whilst it is reasonable to say someone's opinion is 'wrong,' to resort to saying he lies is contemptuous when you have no evidence whatever that he knows that what he claims is wrong. Using baseless ad hominems like that is unscientific and indicates that no one should trust a word you say.

Except when they are lying.

Foerster is lying.

I really don't care if you trust anything I say.
You see, you believe what Foerster says. That indicates to me that your opinion carries no value whatsoever.

Harte

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: LookingAtMars

It is Evident to me that these " Elongated Skull " People were a Different Genus of Human other than Us . A Mentally Superior Ruling Class that has Now Disappeared from the Face of the Earth . A Genetic Experiment which Proved Wanting from the " Gods " , or Victims of Homosapien Extermination ? ....Hmm.........

They come with skeletons you know.

Harte

No, they don't. Most examples of coneheads are provided by local people making money out of grave digging for artifacts and usually provide collectors only with a skull. Full skeletons are rare.

If you read the OP and attached paper, all 3 skulls in this case came with skeletons. Of which they carried out extensive testing on, documenting the extremely tough lives these boys had lived through before they died as teens.

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0216366

As anyone that can read can plainly see here - micpsi lies to make up his own facts then claim that other people are making up their own facts.

Harte