Mass Alien Grave in Mexico ?

Even if there is increase in skull volume, it doesn't equate to more brains. There are cranial deformities that equate to the opposite and their is a definite skull volume increase.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by draknoir2

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)

I didn't measure it myself, and never claimed to have done so.

I did, however, read literature where they explained exactly how they arrive at the cranial volume without opening or damaging the skulls in any way, and it is a very simple process. They filled the interior of the cranial cavity with sand.

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by draknoir2

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)

I didn't measure it myself, and never claimed to have done so.

I did, however, read literature where they explained exactly how they arrive at the cranial volume without opening or damaging the skulls in any way, and it is a very simple process. They filled the interior of the cranial cavity with sand.

That would work.

Still doesn't answer the remaining questions of who made the measurement, what were the results, what were they compared with, and what are the conclusions. The connection has yet to be made between "they appear 200% bigger" and "they are extraterrestrial". A whole lot of steps in between.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by draknoir2

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)

I didn't measure it myself, and never claimed to have done so.

I did, however, read literature where they explained exactly how they arrive at the cranial volume without opening or damaging the skulls in any way, and it is a very simple process. They filled the interior of the cranial cavity with sand.

That would work.

Still doesn't answer the remaining questions of who made the measurement, what were the results, what were they compared with, and what are the conclusions. The connection has yet to be made between "they appear 200% bigger" and "they are extraterrestrial". A whole lot of steps in between.

A lotta lotta steps. For one thing it is very well documented that this common practice in some cultures and, I believe, among the "higher classes". Not sure how we get to aliens from here.

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

Could be Homo habilis, or Homo rudolfensis or Homo erectus , otherwise known as Bob. ( I always knew Bob and his buddies were Homo's Ah Ha) humanorigins.si.edu...

There was only ever one fossil found of Homo rudolfensis so how do they really know he lived as such and was not just a freak, a deformity? In the above, we have several of those creatures.. there should be a classification for them ( we have more proof they existed than Homo rudolfensis) but there seems not to be.

This is proof that science makes up it's own rules fast and loose. They just make stuff up without a clue as to what the truth really is. If a scientist tries to teach you something, listen with a grain of salt then go out and find the real truth. These guys have been indoctrinated for too long.

reply to post by anomalie


Yes, Human beings were deliberately deforming their skulls to fashion a cone or elongated shape. This seems to have been happening in widely separated and disparate peoples of Earth, whether the separation was geographical or cultural or religious.

Another demonstration of vastly different peoples and cultures with no recorded previous contact, and therefore, supposedly no sharing of information on the reasons or percieved benefits of the weird and very unnatural practice of skull deformation, all doing very similar things to the shape of their skulls.

While certain Human traits and practices can be considered coincidence based on the fact that the Human mind is the Human mind, whatever corner of the globe they happen to be raised in, and separate people can independently, without contact with other groups, develop similar technologies and solutions to certain problems, like using fire, building in stone, discovering foods that are good to eat and those that are not, hunting weaponry and techniques, having a leader and Royal caste systems and so on.

This deliberate skull deformation, seen occurring across many 'no contact' relatively ancient peoples would not seem to fit the developmental innovation or practices borne out of necessity or need, that is seen across disparate or unrelated groups.

This is a Human practice that seems to have a common originator or reason for them to be doing such similar things.

A common speculation is the obvious one.

Mimicking or impersonation, perhaps veneration of...someone, or a group of others who had skulls of this shape either naturally or through their own cultural skull deformation practice.

Now, understandably this theory has many problems, not least is the individual or group had to have been able to travel the globe, in order for these vastly separate tribes and cultures to have had contact with them in order to then immitate their appearence.

This may have it's roots in a technologically sophisticated ancient culture, or perhaps scattered remnants of that culture speading around the globe, after the decline, due to whatever reason, of their high technology civilisation.

It's also feasible, that those being immitated, by all these separate Human tribes and cultures, were originally from much further away.

Whatever the truth of this, and even allowing for similar traits in separate no previous contact Human cultures, skull deformation into elongated cone shapes, wouldn't seem to be something that would occur, separately, to many very different cutures independently and spontaneously without a common reason or solution to a problem being the prime motivator.

Just my opinion of course.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Even if there is increase in skull volume, it doesn't equate to more brains. There are cranial deformities that equate to the opposite and their is a definite skull volume increase.
en.wikipedia.org...

True.

And also let's not forget, among our own cultures and civilisations today, most people have the same skull shape and volume and we produce individuals with vastly different levels of intelligence, despite having the same volume for brains.

Wow. This kind of practice is not limited to skulls.
thumbpress.com...

Skull binding is still practiced today. This has nothing to do with aliens. This is a seriously ridiculous thread.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Wow. This kind of practice is not limited to skulls.
thumbpress.com...

Skull binding is still practiced today. This has nothing to do with aliens. This is a seriously ridiculous thread.

It's seriously ridiculous that you can't grasp that almost everyone posting here knows Human beings have and in some cases continue the practice of deliberate Skull deformation..of course that is so, but you're completely missing the point.

The question is why do many separate ancient groups of people, supposedly with no prior contact with each other do such an odd yet identical thing to their heads?

This question leads researchers down many different avenues, and one of those, though certainly not all, raises the question were these separate groups emulating a person, or group of people they had contact with, who did have this elongated skull shape, either naturally or deformed by themselves?

And if they were imitating a person or group as described, the person they imitated MUST have been able to travel around much of the globe, in order for the many separate groups, who didn't have access to global transportation, to copy them.

The answer may lay in the fact that ancient people did actually have access to higher technologies that allowed freedom of movement around the globe, not recognised as yet by the mainstream, or at least one group seems to have had the tech, in order to spread the practice.

Either way, it's an anomaly, and ought to be of great interest to anthropologists at the very least.

Originally posted by MysterX
The question is why do many separate ancient groups of people, supposedly with no prior contact with each other do such an odd yet identical thing to their heads?

This question leads researchers down many different avenues, and one of those, though certainly not all, raises the question were these separate groups emulating a person, or group of people they had contact with, who did have this elongated skull shape, either naturally or deformed by themselves?

And if they were imitating a person or group as described, the person they imitated MUST have been able to travel around much of the globe, in order for the many separate groups, who didn't have access to global transportation, to copy them.

The answer may lay in the fact that ancient people did actually have access to higher technologies that allowed freedom of movement around the globe, not recognised as yet by the mainstream, or at least one group seems to have had the tech, in order to spread the practice.

Either way, it's an anomaly, and ought to be of great interest to anthropologists at the very least.

Ah..yes. I did miss that point and it is an interesting question. No need to point out I am slow and retard like.

This is not really my area of interest but I will take a stab at it just off the top of my head. Maybe its one of those things that people can do and it obvious to them that they can. Like inventing a wheel, making fire or using tools.

lets consider:
Clinical Peculiarities of the Head of the Newborn

General observation of the contour of the head is important, since molding occurs in almost all vaginal deliveries. In a vertex delivery the head usually is flattened at the forehead, with the apex rising and forming a point at the end of the parietal bones and the posterior skull or occiput dropping abruptly. The usual more oval contour of the head is apparent by 1 to 2 days after birth.

So people are naturally born with mis·shaped heads. Do you think it would be much of a leap to say that 2 seperate cultures saw how easy it was to shape a skull and that they simply like the way it looked?

If you can show that the techniques they used were almost identicle, then maybe you have something.

reply to post by UltraMarine


Does anybody have an intelligent answer as to HOW the eye sockets were modified into slits?? And what about the strange chin?

reply to post by QueenofWeird


easy the area was known to have high concetration of swamp gas which caused the deformations.

Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by QueenofWeird

 

easy the area was known to have high concetration of swamp gas which caused the deformations.

edit on 9-3-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

And Chinese lanterns?

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
reply to post by UltraMarine

 

Does anybody have an intelligent answer as to HOW the eye sockets were modified into slits?? And what about the strange chin?

I was wondering the same thing along with OMG this is where the Xenophobes really come from. Not really but the picture is cool. Thanks OP

reply to post by ThePhysicalExperience


I wonder as some other poster stated, if the slits are actual the area under the cheek bones. So the eye sockets are actually crammed in the middle.

www.youtube.com...
Look at 56/58 seconds.



EDIT: I mean the open area ABOVE the cheek bone.

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
reply to post by UltraMarine

 

Does anybody have an intelligent answer as to HOW the eye sockets were modified into slits?? And what about the strange chin?

Yes.

You are misinterpreting the orientation of the skull in the photo.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by draknoir2


See my post above yours. Is that what you mean?

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
reply to post by draknoir2

 

See my post above yours. Is that what you mean?

Click on my link. It's diagrammed. The skull is on it's side facing slightly down towards the ground, not the other way around.

This is what I see when I look at it the wrong way:



But that's pareidolia at work.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
reply to post by draknoir2

 

See my post above yours. Is that what you mean?

Click on my link. It's diagrammed. The skull is on it's side facing slightly down towards the ground, not the other way around.

This is what I see when I look at it the wrong way:

But that's pareidolia at work.

Yes we mean the same. Yet, look at the front teeth. They are not in the right place then. Wait they are, this person just has A LOT of teeth.