Elongated skulls discovered in Russia, Jan. 2009

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   


Originally posted by SLAYER69

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?
They said nothing about the Starchild skull. He was saying to also check out the star child skull


No, the OP didn't say: "also check out the star child skull", but: "I've seen the starchild skull a couple of times on TV." But ok, the OP was actually only repeating the assertion of the preceding post and not referring to the video. I agree. On the other hand that clearly wasn't the following argument's tying point, which was: "I honestly think that it came from a physically deformed child, not an alien hybrid of any kind.", a false statement, sorry, as one can see from the expert video I posted afterwards.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:41 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?



Yes. You can restrict the growth of any human body part, and it will deform around or within it. EG Feet binding, which was very painful but occurred anyway. Never underestimate the ingenuity of our forebears, or their cruelty.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

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 certainly don’t mean hats, scarves or like.


Very well. Content is from Emmanuel Domenech's "Seven years residence in the great deserts of North America" 1860, vol. 2, f.p. 16
content.lib.washington.edu.../loc&CISOPTR=2121

There's a Chinook woman, with baby in a cradle head-binding.

Here's another engraving from another book... earlier date, Chinook Indians again and showing how it was done:
content.lib.washington.edu.../loc&CISOPTR=2218

This page retells a legend but you can see an engraving here of the Chinook adults and their flattened skulls. Again, a different artist:
www.usgennet.org...

They were first encountered by the Lewis and Clark expedition and gave up head binding after becoming Christianized:
www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Photos here... the second is of a baby with a bound skull being held by a mother:
www.austmus.gov.au...

Manbetu mother and baby (1930's) on page that talks about tribe and practice of head binding:
www.iamcultured.com...

Manbetu chief, page talks about binding and rebinding skull with thread:
www.amnh.org...

Tlakuit child (drawing from the early 1800's) showing results of head binding:
content.lib.washington.edu.../loc&CISOPTR=2256&CISOBOX=1&REC=8


...which probably won't be convincing to you, but there really are ancient accounts of this practice and ancient instructions.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
What he said ^^.

If you can do it with necks you can do it with heads.

Case closed.

[Don't try too hard CoolBlackHole you're looking a bit silly now across different threads ]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Jinni]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Many cultures throughout the world in times past, and even today, mark themselves or change something about their appearance as a sign of tribal/cultural identification.

From massive ear rings, binding of feet, stretching of the neck, piercing, tattooing, the list goes on and on. Trying to link this behavior to a human/alien connection is ridiculous to say the least. It is nothing more than cultural identification of which there are literally thousands of examples the world over.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinni
"... If you can do it with necks you can do it with heads."

Hehe, great logic. Congrats!



Case closed.

Again?



[Don't try too hard CoolBlackHole you're looking a bit silly now across different threads]

Good ol' charming Jinni.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole

Originally posted by Jinni
"... If you can do it with necks you can do it with heads."

Hehe, great logic. Congrats!



Case closed.

Again?



[Don't try too hard CoolBlackHole you're looking a bit silly now across different threads]

Good ol' charming Jinni.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]


What are you talking about? Are you trying to be 'thick' on purpose?

You can use external instruments and pressures to change bone structure and growth. Same with neck and head as the previous posts show. Not just mindless illogical babbling. Go and study biology FFS and the links posted.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Jinni]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
The “rat people” may suffer from microcephaly
www.telegraph.co.uk...


The word "microcephaly" comes from the Greek, "small head". But in Pakistan, such children are known as chuas or "rat people". The name is uncharitable but apt, for their sloping foreheads and narrow faces do, indeed, have a rodent quality. When I visited the shrine earlier this year, I found only one chua, a 30-year-old woman called Nazia. Mentally disabled - I would judge her intelligence to be about that of a one- or two-year-old child - her nominal function is to guard the shoes that worshippers leave at its entrance, but that work seems to be mostly done by her companion, a charming hypopituitary dwarf called Nazir.



Osteological Reproductions..I want one.
www.boneclones.com...
Human Peruvian Male Skull with Cranial Binding and Trephination

Dated over 2,000 years old, this skull is an extreme example of binding and elongation. Cranial binding is the shaping of the skull when a child is very young, usually an infant. This wrapping is often done with rope or cloth by itself or against a wooden board. This results in the misshaping, flattening (see our cradle-board skull, BC-222) or, in this case, elongation. This wrapping, or binding, is thought to be the oldest form of body modification, dating back 9,000 years. This particular skull is from Peru, but this practice has occurred in other regions as well. Additionally, this skull is trephinated, which has mostly healed.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 

Snap.
Yepp ..... Microcephaly.

Genetic mutation as a result of 60% of marriages between 1st cousins.
link to documentary.
What Makes Us Human? (1. Big Heads)



[edit on 27-2-2009 by UmbraSumus]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
Thanks for the links. But it takes time to write an exact answer. I'll do it tomorrow, as it's already very late over here, I've been posting for some hours. By then.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Regardless of the explanation, don't let this topic sidetrack you.
This is a "go nowhere" subject.
There were/are no aliens or mutants with elongated heads.
The cranial capacity of these skulls is no more than normal human being skulls, and in many cases, has been proven to be much less.

This is just a circus sideshow.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by Pauligirl
 

Snap.
Yepp ..... Microcephaly.

Genetic mutation as a result of 60% of marriages between 1st cousins.
link to documentary.
What Makes Us Human? (1. Big Heads)


[edit on 27-2-2009 by UmbraSumus]


I enjoyed that.
Thanks



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
CoolBlackHole I am directing this question to you. Have you ever seen a baby born in today's time with a cone head? It happens, i urge you to do a google search of babies born with cone heads. This could be the whole reason the ancients decided to cone the heads of their children.

A child may of naturally been born with a cone head. They may have seen it as a sign from what ever god or gods they worshiped and started doing it to all babies born.

I have a cousin who's son was born with a severe cone head and due to the softness of an infants bones it was corrected. Whether naturally occurring or modified to be the shape. There are logical explanations and historical facts to back the statements given here.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
The head binding simply involves putting a firmly wrapped cloth band around a baby's skull (in the case of the Aztecs, a flat board was put from the nose to the crown) and bindings were changed as the child grew. Children's bones are soft and they're very easy to deform.



Byrd: it was the Maya who flattened their nose to the crown. They also seem to have put some kind of bead hanging from a thread or something like that in front of their eyes, to make them a bit cross-eyed.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 
Thanks for the links. I was reading the Australian Museum one about headshaping and was dubious about this part...


In some parts of Europe, especially France, head elongation was practised up until the late 19th century. In the Deux-Sevres area, head elongation involved wrapping the baby's head in a tight bandage. The binding was left for a period of two to four months and was then replaced with a fitted basket. When the baby was older, the basket was strengthened with metal thread. In the Normandy region it was customary to bind a child's head with at least two coiffures (headresses) and a piece of canvas to tightly compress the skull.

Australian Museum head elongation


I was startled to find that it was a niche practice in several places across Europe. We learn something new every day! There's a link to a chapter from Dingwell, E. (1931). Artificial Cranial Deformation: A Contribution to the Study of Ethnic
Mutilations. London: John Bale Sons and Danielsson here that provides more evidence to support the claim.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl
The “rat people” may suffer from microcephaly
www.telegraph.co.uk...


The word "microcephaly" comes from the Greek, "small head". But in Pakistan, such children are known as chuas or "rat people". The name is uncharitable but apt, for their sloping foreheads and narrow faces do, indeed, have a rodent quality. When I visited the shrine earlier this year, I found only one chua, a 30-year-old woman called Nazia. Mentally disabled - I would judge her intelligence to be about that of a one- or two-year-old child - her nominal function is to guard the shoes that worshippers leave at its entrance, but that work seems to be mostly done by her companion, a charming hypopituitary dwarf called Nazir.



Thanks for linking the Telegraph article. Very interesting reading. Particularly the part about how random gene mutation is responsible for what we are today as well as the small populations with microcephaly.


Now, when we ask: "What makes us human?" we can answer: this gene and that one... and that one. We can write the recipe for making a human being. Or, at least, we can begin to. There is bittersweet irony in the discovery that the genes underlying a disorder as disabling as microcephaly should have also been responsible for the thing that we, as a species, are most proud of: our brains. Yet for all intellectual fascination of these discoveries, we should not neglect one more thing that they have given us: a way to meliorate the disease that pointed to their discovery.





posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
When babies are in the birth canal too long and the delivery is not prompt the soft skull of a baby will come out cone shaped. This usually corrects itself....but it is a major concern if the baby stays too long in the birth canal (not sure if I have the right words there).

Mabey long ago, when births were not totally understood....babys did come out cone headed, due to births that were prolonged in the labor. It could of been a natural thing way back then and the idea of a baby's skill staying cone shaped could of been looked at by the ancients as 'special' in some way. Thus binding would of been a practice to try to induce this as well if they thought this was something that held spiritual meaning to them.

In some ancient scriptures, there are people that are referred to having elongated heads and others are referred to as having elongated necks. Its hard to say for sure how this practice came about....but I would think it would originate with the fact that babies being born then being in the birth canal for a long duration of time would of been born with a cone head.

It is defiantly interesting to think about how these cone headed people were in many lands. There could be more to it all, with ancient people or mutations of a species ect. Im still not sure how I feel about the idea that there was a species before us who mutated us to be what we are today. So many ancient texts talk about beings that formed us or mutated genes but that is a hard pill to swallow also.

Stay and flag-interesting topic
LV



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd


Very cool.

Now I want to know if there is any indications of health and intelligence issues with people who've had this done.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole


No, the OP didn't say: "also check out the star child skull", but: "I've seen the starchild skull a couple of times on TV." But ok, the OP was actually only repeating the assertion of the preceding post and not referring to the video. I agree. On the other hand that clearly wasn't the following argument's tying point, which was: "I honestly think that it came from a physically deformed child, not an alien hybrid of any kind.", a false statement, sorry, as




Originally posted by prevenge
check out Loyde Pyle's Starchild skull too.
but what lurks inside....





Originally posted by haika
reply to post by prevenge
 

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.


This is what I was talking about.
Thanks.
Anyway good find I'm glad somebody is keeping on top of this.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by haika

Originally posted by Byrd
The head binding simply involves putting a firmly wrapped cloth band around a baby's skull (in the case of the Aztecs, a flat board was put from the nose to the crown) and bindings were changed as the child grew. Children's bones are soft and they're very easy to deform.



Byrd: it was the Maya who flattened their nose to the crown. They also seem to have put some kind of bead hanging from a thread or something like that in front of their eyes, to make them a bit cross-eyed.


Ooops! You're right, though I think the bead-hanging was from one of the Central Plains tribes. The Maya also drilled their teeth (and shaped them) and implanted jade in them (for that lovely green smile.)
www.archaeology.org...

Isn't culture fun?





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join