Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mass Alien Grave in Mexico ?

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Perhaps not Aliens but - Not Human either.


The article stated they were humans who had skull elongation ( a known, and still practiced thing ) .. and dental mutilation, also a known thing.. they are humans.. it's just a great archaeological find because it shows that this practice happened further out than was known about geographically


you haven't posted a dam thing that any of us didn't KNOW ALREADY

you haven't asked a basic question. WHY were various cultures separated by 1000s of miles of ocean doing the same imitation?

its so obvious.




posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by anomalie
reply to post by SuperTripps
 


Mate calling people posting head binding photos moronic is not going to help your cause previous elongated skulls found have been proven to be human...what makes this one any different ?

If you have evidence then please present it




they released a SKULL off this dig in time for mayan doomsday, that is not a human skull, its obvious but your bias refuses you from seeing it.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Body modification in ancient societies were done for numerous reasons: to emulate their gods and deities, to link themselves to the spiritual world, and some more violent cultures did it mostly as a pure terror tactic. Tribes as cultures had limited contact with eachother so seeing an army coming towards you that looks physiologically different then the base human form would scare the hell out of you.
Not saying its not alien or is alien just lending some facts, I'm a huge ancient civilization and history buff. Thanks all, hope everyone has a merry Xmas.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


I don't mean to burst your bubble, but we don't mummify our dead these days. In fact, if you were to dig up our dead centuries from now there might not even be a lot of bone. Our burying practices are intended to allow the bodies to decompose, not mummify. Some skeletons that are exhumed after as little as 5 years show signs of bone degradation and have no flesh left on them.

I suppose you could guess they had piercings by finding the jewelry near the body, but if you knew nothing of our culture you wouldn't likely thing they were piercings. As far as tattoos, unless it's a rare case of fluke natural mummification you aren't going to have any tissue left, so no tattoos to see.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Are you aware of this:-

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperTripps
they released a SKULL off this dig in time for mayan doomsday


Whats Mayan Doomsday..we are stil here.


Originally posted by SuperTripps
that is not a human


Ok post the evidence and show us.


Originally posted by SuperTripps
its obvious but your bias refuses you from seeing it.


Its obvious youre bias you see an elongated skull and reach the conclusion its not human yet present no evidence to the contrary...saying its doesnt look humans proves jack sh*t.


edit on 23-12-2012 by anomalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Perhaps not Aliens but - Not Human either.


The article stated they were humans who had skull elongation ( a known, and still practiced thing ) .. and dental mutilation, also a known thing.. they are humans.. it's just a great archaeological find because it shows that this practice happened further out than was known about geographically


Dude.. those people are just guessing or perhaps hanging on to the human theory because they don't want to go out the box.. But if you look at the pics I refereed to, you can easily see, these cannot be human features distorted by elongation. The dental mutilation will not account for all the other disproportionate features of this skull.. it's just not gonna happen IMO.. go ahead and compare those pictures to the normal human skill or even the known elongated skulls - there are still too many discrepancies.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I believe many of you are viewing the skull incorrectly which is leading you to think it has unusually large and narrow eye sockets. I could be wrong, but this is how I first viewed the skull when I saw it next to a human skull. I circled the corresponding parts in each picture. I think what many of you see as eye sockets are actually the upper cheek bone, which I circled in red.

From this view it is exactly how I would imagine a Human skull to look like had it been stretched at the top. I could be wrong, though!





You can see the original pictures here www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 24-12-2012 by Aveoamacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RivingtonRebel
I heard somewhere that human skulls were shaped like that before and evolved into the round shape we have today.


Look at scientific evidence and youll see this is true. However there has to be a reason as to why our skulls are shaped like they are today. Changing them physically should have no effect on future generations, at least thats what I think. There has to be a different reason like breeding or something. Shouldnt there?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Still waiting for a satisfactory explanation of how cranial binding causes an increase of volume to the interior cavity of a human skull.

The "conehead skulls" of Peru have almost 200% normal interior volume in the brain cavity - from even a cursory glance, the Mexico skull appears to be very similar in dimensions.

So please, skeptics set me straight - how does cranial binding nearly double the dimensions of the brain cavity?
edit on 12-2-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 




The "conehead skulls" of Peru have almost 200% normal interior volume in the brain cavity

Your source for this information? Making sure the claim is valid would be a good place to start.
edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Your source for this information? Making sure the claim is valid would be a good place to start.
edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I will find it, it may take a while because it's been years since I looked into this subject. But I think even from simply looking at the images, and with a little cursory knowledge of geometry, it is obvious that the interior volume is enlarged. Regardless, I'll find the source.

But in the meantime please humor me:

If the skulls are in fact shown to have a greater interior cranial volume, how would you explain this?
edit on 12-2-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD
Still waiting for a satisfactory explanation of how cranial binding causes an increase of volume to the interior cavity of a human skull.

The "conehead skulls" of Peru have almost 200% normal interior volume in the brain cavity - from even a cursory glance, the Mexico skull appears to be very similar in dimensions.

So please, skeptics set me straight - how does cranial binding nearly double the dimensions of the brain cavity?
edit on 12-2-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)


Only "skeptics" need reply?

Did YOU measure the volume? From a cursory glance? If not, then who did? And what is to be concluded, assuming there is an increase in volume? And what is your frame of reference?

edit on 12-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
If you look at the only visible suture line on the skull it is leaning forward. If the skull pictured was normally bound it would seem that logically it would be leaning backwards as all the ones that look bound usually do. Normally the suture line is more straight up on a skull. There does not appear to be a suture line where it should be even for a normal skull or a bound skull. From the first glance I noticed that. It could just be a crack but then where is the suture line that is evident on a normal skull?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Looks well within the range of variation to me.










posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Here's a quick photoshop collage I just made of a normal skull (side view) along with several examples of Peru skulls:



(For those who have a hard time believing their own eyes over the trumpeting voice of our institutional authority figures, I will also track down the documentation at some point)

Honestly, from looking at the photos the only response I've ever heard from a "skeptic" is: "Those skulls don't look larger to me, looks like completely normal cranial volume."

Which is totally absurd. In many of these skulls, the volume most DEFINITELY looks increased.

Now on the other hand, if skeptics were to say, "Yea the volume does look increased, but the reason for this is: A+B+C, etc" well then I'd certainly be willing to listen.

But to pretend day is night is just kinda ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zehll
How can you say " this looks like an alien" when we have no idea what they would look like, should they exist. God dammit hollywood.


Also;
edit on 17-12-2012 by Zehll because: (no reason given)


the simple things are the things that are over looked
so you are 100% correct
but that ridge that runs up the front of the head is a bit weird
and i have never seen that trait on bound heads



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


Which is totally absurd. In many of these skulls, the volume most DEFINITELY looks increased.
Sure it does.
Which of these looks like it has the greatest volume?


Now show me actual volume measurements of skulls showing 200% average capacity.
edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Cranial deformation has always interested me.

These are human skulls and this is still practiced today in several tribes across the globe. But my main focus is why.

Humans are very much Monkey see, monkey do! Was there a ruling class that performed this or was it due to a genetic quirk? There is huge evidence that some of the Pharaohs of Egypt had Cranial Deformation. But again my question would be why. Some ancient Gods are depicted in this manner as well.

My other questioning is proof that this is an increase cranial capacity or intelligence or is it purely cosmetic?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD
Here's a quick photoshop collage I just made of a normal skull (side view) along with several examples of Peru skulls:



(For those who have a hard time believing their own eyes over the trumpeting voice of our institutional authority figures, I will also track down the documentation at some point)

Honestly, from looking at the photos the only response I've ever heard from a "skeptic" is: "Those skulls don't look larger to me, looks like completely normal cranial volume."

Which is totally absurd. In many of these skulls, the volume most DEFINITELY looks increased.

Now on the other hand, if skeptics were to say, "Yea the volume does look increased, but the reason for this is: A+B+C, etc" well then I'd certainly be willing to listen.

But to pretend day is night is just kinda ridiculous.


The "skeptics" have said nothing about the volume. The "skeptics" have simply asked for something more concrete than "the volume most definitely looks increased".

What is the current volume? Considering that cranial binding begins in infancy and continues for years, how does one differentiate the change in volume due to reshaping from the change in volume due to normal growth?

How about sharing your cursory knowledge of geometry... which formulas did you apply to solve for the interior volume of the skull in the photo and what did you compare the results to in order to arrive at your 200% increase figure? And again, assuming you do manage to back up your assertion, what is the conclusion to be drawn from this increase?




edit on 12-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join