Elongated skulls discovered in Russia, Jan. 2009

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Regarding the topic of skullbinding, please see this thread for facts about elongated skulls found in Egypt, that have been confirmed to NOT be a result of diseases, nor binding. www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Wanna be more specific about this proof that it isn't disease or skull binding? Because I don't see it in there, and I don't feel like looking at 9 pages of Stargate bs to find it.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Wanna be more specific about this proof that it isn't disease or skull binding? Because I don't see it in there, and I don't feel like looking at 9 pages of Stargate bs to find it.


Fourth post on page 6 of ATS "Stargates are real"

[edit on 27-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Very interesting indeed! I have no idea what has created this phenomena. Aliens? Maybe

Either way what we think we know is not entirely correct and the further we progress the further we find that out.

"History is the lie, commonly agreed upon"
-Voltaire



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The elongation of the Egyptian's isn't nearly in the same category as these other skulls. It lies within the human norm.

I still don't see what you are pointing to - unless your idea of "PROVEN" is really way different than mine.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by N3krostatic
"Very interesting indeed! I have no idea what has created this phenomena ... "

We have these possible explanations:
- Skull binding.
- Progeria.
- Just “fake” (forth post of Jimbowsk on page 2 of this thread).
- Now, what about genetic manipulation, let's take the Cromagnon buddy:


Originally posted by Aeons on page 3

Could there be a genetical explanation for that odd skull shape of Cromagnon (and later on of the Egyptians'). I DON’T say this true, only there’s a certain degree of “persuasiveness”. Everybody can decide for him/herself whether skull binding/progeria/just fake/genetic manipulation is the correct option. I’m just presenting this fourth one:


"... The Sumerian people referred to these "gods" as Anunnaki, literally the sons of An, their chief god and leader. The Anunnaki were an alien race. In reality they were a race of sapient reptiles. .. they created a primitive man. By combining the characteristics of the native ape-man or Neanderthal type man, with their own saurian nature, they produced the "Adam" of the Old Testament. This Adam was half-human and half-reptile, however, and being a clone …

As conditions began to change on Earth and the climate dried out, it became necessary for them to modify the Adam to better adapt it to the variable climate. The Homo saurus was modified and given more mammalian traits. … As a result of this genetic modification, Man lost most of his saurian appearance and nature, his shiny, luminous skin, and scaly hide. He acquired mammalian characteristics - a soft flexible skin, body hair, the need to sweat, and the ability to produce live young. He no longer ran around naked. He now had to wear clothing for comfort and protection. For all purposes, Man was now a Homo sapiens. Modern man or Cro-Magnon Man had arrived upon the scene.

Man soon populated the Earth as slaves for these saurian masters. He was sorely tested by the astronauts who descended to Earth and mated with the daughters of Man. Known in the Scriptures as the Nefilim, they not only produced mixed offspring, but also conducted genetic experiments which went awry and produced many monstrous forms. This was a trying period for Mankind, for in this era he was literally food for the gods. It is the time of the Biblical Patriarchs and the Sumerian god kings.

The turmoil on Earth was abruptly ended by the onset of a natural worldwide catastrophe, known as the Deluge or Great Flood. At this time, the gods retreated to their space ship, leaving behind their semi-divine offspring to perish with Mankind in the world flood. After the waters had subsided they descended once more to establish new cities on the plains of Mesopotamia. Again mating with Mankind, they produced a race of semi-divine beings to rule their empire on Earth….”

Source: WHY WERE THE ANCIENT GODS SO SHY?

[edit on 27-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CoolBlackHole
 



He says, they found mitochondrialdnal the dna, but they failed to find, after six attempts, the dna from mother and father. Then he makes the leap to the conclusion, therefore this skull is not human!! And therefore it IS an alien starchild, the end, give me my props, etc.


Now how is this evidence? It seems like just because dna could not be located of mother AND father does NOT automatically parlay into a conclusion of nonhuman life.

But, very interesting subject non the less.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CoolBlackHole
 


Thank you for the info! I have read much about the sumerians and the Anunnaki. I have read through a lot of sitchins material also concerning nibiru, marduk, nephilim. I at one point completely believed him and at another point didn't at all. As being anti-religion I must admit that I lean towards the sumerian or sitchin approach and theory more than others but still haven't conclusively made up my mind.

Skull binding does seem to be out of the picture for me as stated earlier in the thread that it is impossible to create a sufficiently rounded skull by binding as seen with the rat children.

Either way it is interesting and I honestly think sometime in the future these questions will be answered. I just hope I'm alive to see it!




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Another link that deserves to be brought up, is the following: www.crystalinks.com...



Quote from source: "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 Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sahabi


I keep seeing the theory that the skulls were intentionally elongated at infancy by tightly binding the skull. Please excuse my lack of knowledge on human anatomy, but does anyone know if this is even possible? Has there been any modern examples, research, or experimentation on infants to elongate or intentionally deform the skulls shape?



From my understanding, yes. Elongation of the human skull is possible by binding the infant's skull just so.

HOWEVER... One cannot increase the VOLUME of the skull this way. Only distort its shape. And these elongated skulls are showing from 1.5 to 3 times the human brainpan volume.

This means that even if these skulls were bound, they were different from human skulls right from the get-go.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
He says, they found mitochondrialdnal the dna, but they failed to find, after six attempts, the dna from mother and father. Then he makes the leap to the conclusion, therefore this skull is not human!! And therefore it IS an alien starchild, the end, give me my props, etc. Now how is this evidence? It seems like just because dna could not be located of mother AND father does NOT automatically parlay into a conclusion of nonhuman life.
But, very interesting subject non the less.


You are referring to the starchild skull video narrator, page 1. Yes, right, a missing or not recoverable nuclear DNA would not be enough evidence, but he additionally lists:
- A very unusual bone composition/weight/strength,
- “completely missing” knob at the back of the skull,
- skull neck about “half the size of a human neck”,
- Unusual cheek muscles structure,
- “very small lower face”,
- Unusually shallow eye sockets.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Ancient, and some not so ancient "body-modification" is all I see here.

There is no proof of inter-stellar hybrids here, at all, including the Starchild skull. We await the DNA results from the supposed father, which since they couldnt extract it IT MUST be not of this world. Heh. Mitochondrial(sp?) dna tests are ALOT easier to yeild results. Whereas just because they're waiting on the full DNA reading, and it's taken many years, does not mean it's NOT human. That putting the cart in front of the horse.

Cranial Bindinds, foot bindings, all sorts or neck rings, to make some women have necks in excess of 1 foot or more(trust me if this is done form infancy, and slowly over many years, they is little to no pain involved.

Piercings, severe ones. Huge plates in the lower lip.

All this has been going on for many a thousands years and then some, and it will gontinue to go on. Now with body moidifications approching poly vinyl implants, forked tongues, shees I saw a guy with whiskers, and he even had his upper lip modified to loomore catlike.

This just just things Humans do.

As Far As the egyption art. I think a grat many, if not all of



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


Ahh-haha! aint it the truth?


OP: Really cool thread I enjoyed the pictures.

It appears that egyptians did not practice skull binding, at least that's what the linkage states - I wonder if that's true?

Very interesting!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
"Ancient, and some not so ancient "body-modification" is all I see here.... Cranial Bindinds, foot bindings, all sorts or neck rings, to make some women have necks in excess of 1 foot or more(trust me if this is done form infancy, and slowly over many years, they is little to no pain involved..."

Really? I don't mind your body modification list, but excuse me, "skull binding"? Squeezing a child's skull for months/years...? Try it for just one day... And not while police is around.

Please provide only ONE – again: only ONE – new or old picture or depiction of a child in this whole world whose skull is being bound to compress the skull bone. And I certainly don’t mean hats, scarves or like.

And again, even if such existed, no binding ever could cause the Cromagnon/Agyptian ‘conehead” skull, nor the one in the Russian Clip. Please explain how something which gets constricted can grow BIGGER (e.g. as big as a “conehead” skull)? The opposite is true. Construction always causes diminishment. You mentioned “foot bindings”, ok, does a bound foot get bigger or smaller?

[edit on 27-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole

Originally posted by Nola213
"Ancient, and some not so ancient "body-modification" is all I see here.... Cranial Bindinds, foot bindings, all sorts or neck rings, to make some women have necks in excess of 1 foot or more(trust me if this is done form infancy, and slowly over many years, they is little to no pain involved..."

Really? I don't mind your body modification list, but excuse me, "skull binding"? Squeezing a child's skull for months/years...? Try it for just one day... And not while police is around.

Please provide only ONE – again: only ONE – new or old picture or depiction of a child in this whole world whose skull is being bound to compress the skull bone. And I don’t mean hats, scarves or like.

And again, even if such existed, no binding ever could cause the Cromagnon/Agyptian ‘conehead” skull, nor the one in the Russian Clip. Please explain how something which gets constricted can grow BIGGER (e.g. as big as a “conehead” skull)? The opposite is true. Construction always causes diminishment. You mentioned “foot bindings”, ok, does a bound foot get bigger or smaller?

[edit on 27-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]


Check this out:

www.gluckman.com...



Case CLOSED.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Jinni]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole

I've seen the starchild skull a couple of times on TV. I honestly think that it came from a physically deformed child, not an alien hybrid of any kind.


I hate to break the incredible news to you, but: Don't believe everything they tell you on TV. I assume you're deeply surprised now.

The OP video is not about the so called "starchild skull",

Did you even read the OP? :bnghd:
They said nothing about the Starchild skull. He was saying to also check out the star child skull



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinni

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
"... Please provide only ONE – again: only ONE – new or old picture or depiction of a child in this whole world whose skull is being bound to compress the skull bone. And I don’t mean hats, scarves or like...."

Check this out:
www.gluckman.com...

Case CLOSED.


Hmmm, you win. I was wrong, thought "skull" was that thing ON the neck.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinni
 


I believe he was asking for an example of skull binding, not neck binding which is what you posted. So this case is not closed.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
A few years back on national geographic channel they showed african tribe using banana fronds to wrap or bind skull to elongate the infants heads and yes they showed children with these wrapped tightly around their heads probably like 1-4 yrs old kids. I know there is no commas but im anonymous so blah hehe.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Floydshayvious
It appears that egyptians did not practice skull binding, at least that's what the linkage states - I wonder if that's true?


That's correct. However, they DID have brother-sister marriages (and father-daughter, father-granddaughter, half-brother-half-sister marriages) which tended to preserve some traits.

We have a lot of the mummies (including Tut) and the skulls are all within the human norm with no binding. They didn't practice deformation of other body parts... so all the mummies and bodies look reasonably normal.





top topics
 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join