Elongated skulls discovered in Russia, Jan. 2009

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I posted this several weeks ago on another thread and don't think anyone noticed
Here it is again. The article contains scientific data backed up with references and evidence of elongated skulls being artificial. No elements of lost civilizations or aliens. Just good old fashioned human ingenuity. The focus is on Iranian skulls, but reference is made to both Africa and South America.


Cranial modification is caused during infancy through the shaping of a baby’s head whilst it is still malleable. Such shaping can be caused by both intentional and unintentional means, using objects such as bandages or textiles, wooden boards, or even simply massaging the head, causing either a flattening or elongation of the human skull (Dingwall, pp. 12-13; Brofin, p. 191; Molleson, pers. comm.).

The prehistoric Iranian examples known so far all result from such ante mortem modification of the skull, as is also the case with many other examples recovered from throughout the Near East (Arensburg and Hershkovitz, 1988; Idem, 1989; Molleson and Campbell; Meiklejohn et al.; Özbek; Senyurek and Tunakan; Fletcher et al.; Daems and Croucher). Cranial modification is one of the most obvious examples we have from the archaeological record of the active manipulation of the body during life, demonstrating choices to treat the body in particular ways, with implications in terms of the reflection of identity and identity construction
Prehistory of Iran-Artificial Cranial Modification

It's very academic but worth reading to gain the understanding that 'scientists' aren't all making stuff up.


How do these statements eliminate the plausibility of them making it up?

I don't see any reference to any actual evidence that it is artificial in nature.

Come on, don't just accept a reason because it fits your p[reconcieved notions and makes you feel more comfortable.

Besides as many have pointed out, WHY would they do cranial binding to enlarge the skulls in the first place, what about enlarged skulls made them feel superior????

Jaden




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
wow. i think that if there was no evidence of skull binding, then there wouldnt be photos of people in tribes that practiced this.

diglib.lib.utk.edu...

wiki.bmezine.com...

either way that arguement is for the birds.

Did it say they could predict the weather because their head was shaped differently? i hurt my leg really bad one time and i could feel the weather coming because i had a titanium rod in there. wonder if its cus of injury that they could feel it too, or if they had heightened senses from forcing their brain to a shape.

EDIT: rewatched it and saw that because of the shape it increased their mental powers? AWESOME! why didnt my parents do that.

i think it was just a custom to seperate themselves from other tribes. or it could be a replication of the way their gods looked. that would be really interesting. also, how would people from multiple places on the planet know to do this if they were seperated.

seems like the gods thing is becoming more plausible.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by mahtoosacks]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
This is an interesting subfield of antropology that requires more study. I like the theory that a genetic mutation in a prehistoric population gave us a race with superior mental powers and elongated skulls, I find it quite plausible. I also find plausible the idea that trepanation is the explanation for all this. Perhaps both ideas in tandem also work, one causing the other.

Those argueing that cranial binding never happened have a silly grasp of the known fossil record regarding early human civilization, or even current practices, as it's a well known body modification, similar to so many other tribal body modifications still going on in methodology. Perhaps there's an agenda here, to shape knowledge to some sort of memetic manipulation for the NWO's upcoming one world religion. I don't know, but I find coolblackhole's arguments rather silly. It take more than a picture of einstein to be right.

No, it is most likely not alien skulls. The starchild skull is a bit more interesting, but the possibility of genetic abnormality is more probable than alien descent.

I have a feeling that we are either all of alien descent or none of us are. Those argueing that only some of us would be are probably setting up some sort of hierarchical manipulation, using aliens as father figures on which to leech authority out of.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by deathpoet69
 


Yes, perhaps they weren't referring to a singular "god". Perhaps they wanted to mimic what the "gods" who came down from the cloud ships looked like.

VERY interesting.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Goathief and Jimbowsk -

Sometimes no amount of archeological and anthropological evidence and the opinions and findings of the experts in those fields will alter the religion of extraterrestrial visitation. Sometimes there is this cultish brainwashed effect that no amount of factual evidence will change. And apparantly, history is filled with stories of how humane and caring humans are for each other, so the argument that this would cause pain to others must be correct.


Perhaps the skull binding helped them to "hear" Nibiru/Planet X approaching.


This is just, once again, hearsay, myth and opinion taken as proof that the big bad "aliens" have been to Earth. Sometimes "aliens" helps people to explain abnormal, but perfectly explainable things that they don't understand.

I guess this makes me a (pick one):
1. One of them
2. Disinfo Agent
3. Men In Black
4. A member of one of the alphabet agencies
5. One of the "foolish sheep"



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Modern skull modification would be cases where infants have skull flattening due to being left on their backs too much, and the treatment for it being a big helmet used to counteract the malformation. Positional Paliocephaly.

This condition isn't that rare, and you don't ever see a case where the child's head compensates by extending up.

What you DO NOT see in any of these cases is this excess bone that is on these skulls. The only realistic reason for that cannot be simply head binding. The brain and fluids inside do not use up that much space. The head might have an elongated look, but not one that is so BIG. The only reason for that might be that these peoples intentionally picked children suffering from minor forms of hydrocephaly, or who were showing signs that the infant had some other disease that causes the bones of the skull to be malformed and the people chose to deal with it by binding their heads.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I am really on the fence about this.

CoolBlackHole makes an incredibly valid point that it seems everyone has missed. Where are the pictures of children with the bindings on their heads?

If this is truly something that is still occuring today I would most definately think that there would be some pictures of children currently undergoing the "procedure."

Anyone have any pictures of this?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tallcool1
Goathief and Jimbowsk -

"Sometimes no amount of archeological and anthropological evidence and the opinions and findings of the experts in those fields will alter the religion of extraterrestrial visitation...."


Nice! But on whose side are the experts and the evidence?

- Zecharia Sitchin - Biography and Key Ideas.
- Ancient visitors from other worlds.
- Genetic engineering .

Just to name one example.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Has anyone tried to put flesh on the starchild skull? imgine how freaky it would look.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Namaste
I am really on the fence about this.

CoolBlackHole makes an incredibly valid point that it seems everyone has missed. Where are the pictures of children with the bindings on their heads?

If this is truly something that is still occuring today I would most definately think that there would be some pictures of children currently undergoing the "procedure."

Anyone have any pictures of this?


I'm not sure this is a valid reasoning. Absense of proof is not proof of absense. Plus, head binding is very rare, it's not like you go to a mall and pay a guy...

It's a dieing or possibly even dead art, which is more easily found in skulls of dead people than heads of live ones.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Why do people bind feet? Why do people stretch necks, ear lobes, lips, penises, etc? Why do people practice subincision/splitting? Why do people ritually disfigure and mutilate their bodies the world over?

I see nothing surprising, otherworldly or fantastical about changing the shape of a human's head - very interesting nonetheless but certainly not proof of extraterrestrial life or interaction with such. I guess it's because it's so alien to 'modern' man as the practice was almost eliminated during colonisation and slavery, I doubt it is particularly more painful to a child than circumcision yet I doubt you bat an eyelid over that.

*EDIT*

I started replying to this when there were only a couple of posts on this thread (was distracted midway
), I see many have made some strong and valid arguments, and sadly I have to agree with tallcool1. Whatever evidence is presented you dismiss as disinformation, fabrication, lies and/or delusion, yet you counter this with nothing of substance whatsoever - it's like debating with a child who firmly believes in the tooth fairy.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Goathief]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Goathief]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Goathief]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Goathief
 


Exactly.. I read through the entire thread just to post exactly what you just did...

Nothing otherwordly about it really. I mean MAYBE at some point aliens came down and ancient civs started to change their skulls to look like theirs, but thats one hell of an assumption.

The true reason is probably something religious, societal, or fashionable (really).

The starchild skull is another subject all together. That has some qualities that don't seem so unnatural. I think there is decent evidence that that skull isn't simply a deformity.

Some people want to see complexity where there is none. This is the case here.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
This looks totally possible for example. I think this could be achieved with a normal skull being bound by bandages from infancy.












But these are getting a little crazy big. Plus some of them have some other morphological features that don't seem fully modern human. The jaw bone's specifically look more cro-magnon than sapiens sapiens.





posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden

How do these statements eliminate the plausibility of them making it up?

I don't see any reference to any actual evidence that it is artificial in nature.

Come on, don't just accept a reason because it fits your p[reconcieved notions and makes you feel more comfortable.

Besides as many have pointed out, WHY would they do cranial binding to enlarge the skulls in the first place, what about enlarged skulls made them feel superior????Jaden


I'm assuming that you haven't read the article or all the posts in the thread. I do it myself sometimes, many do. We see a thread title, draw a conclusion and find a post that justifies our posting that conclusion. Be honest. Admit it. That's what generated your post


There's at least one professional archaeologist on this thread that has already explained *why* the practice became commonplace in some populations.



Generally it's to distinguish one caste from another (the rulers are the only ones with head bindings). Tattoos also serve the same function.


The article supports the same conclusion with no less than 30+ academic sources cited.

Incidentally, I had no 'preconceived notions' about such skulls. The past few years has seen a noticeable mythology build up to explain photos of S. American elongated skulls. There is a wealth of information and possible explanations about the origins of the skulls. If you read all of the posts and links, you may draw a different conclusion


One more point that's often overlooked is the skeleton the skull was a part of. They are human skeletons. Every single one. They are buried according to the custom of their time, with artifacts that reflect the same culture as contemporary burials with 'normal' skulls.

Read the article before posting



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Cro-Magnon skeltons without their skulls look significantly like modern human skeletons.......



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
By such a method as cranium-binding to elongate the skull, it wouldn't increase the volume. The volume should be measured and compared to a human-norm skullvolume to narrow it down and see if it's even feasable that such a skull would have belonged to a human of the kind we know.

In the video they mentioned similar skulls that originated from other parts of the world. The volume of those were more than twice the size of a normal human skull. Now that's interesting, as it could not have been done by binding the cranium to cause deformation.

Giants? Alien "sungods"? Or just humans trying to mimic the look of something more powerful? (Then what is this that is more powerful?)

Edit: Adding image.

Take a look at this picture. Just imagine binding a cranium to look like that.
Also, this isn't the only skull that looks like this, there are more. So to think that a deformational disease could cause such perfect symmetry is just plain ignorance.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by Clear]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Cro-Magnon skeltons without their skulls look significantly like modern human skeletons.......
They look exactly like modern humans because they were early modern humans. If some sci-fi movie became a reality and a cro-magnon was raised from birth in the 21st Century, nobody would notice the difference. Brain size was slightly larger and the physique was more muscular and stocky. Any of these traits can be found in a cross section of any city today.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Yes. Which means that if the skulls were more cromagnon than modern, that a perusal of the rest of the skeleton wouldn't mean anything.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clear
By such a method as cranium-binding to elongate the skull, it wouldn't increase the volume. The volume should be measured and compared to a human-norm skullvolume to narrow it down and see if it's even feasable that such a skull would have belonged to a human of the kind we know.

In the video they mentioned similar skulls that originated from other parts of the world. The volume of those were more than twice the size of a normal human skull. Now that's interesting, as it could not have been done by binding the cranium to cause deformation.

Giants? Alien "sungods"? Or just humans trying to mimic the look of something more powerful? (Then what is this that is more powerful?)

Edit: Adding image.

Take a look at this picture. Just imagine binding a cranium to look like that.
Also, this isn't the only skull that looks like this, there are more. So to think that a deformational disease could cause such perfect symmetry is just plain ignorance.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by Clear]


still looks like progeria to me.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
A book by Oscar Kiss Maerth, called`The Beginning was the End` discusses deliberate cranial lengthening by tribes in Papua N.G. He also has evidence for the eating of brains to heighten intelligence, proposing that larger skull cavities were needed because too much brain consumption caused madness.





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join