Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

reply to post by peter vlar


Go here and read.

reply to post by randyvs


reading the article right now. you are aware that he's an ancient alien proponent right? I'm a little familiar with his work and will still give the benefit of the doubt until I finish reading this. Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by randyvs

 

reading the article right now. you are aware that he's an ancient alien proponent right? I'm a little familiar with his work and will still give the benefit of the doubt until I finish reading this. Thanks for the link.

Yes I'm aware.
I'm saying there is only one major plate where there should be two. And I haven't even mentioned volume.
You're correct in your reply of course.

reply to post by randyvs


Your evidence is a blog on ancient aliens and is relying on the word of two known liars in the field, Lloyd Pye and David Childress?

Why don't you actually check an anatomy text or something? Especially in relation to a child's skull and compare it to the "star children" or whatever you want to call them. Here . . . some help.



And as stated previously, there are eight cranial plates (6 major and from birth - 2 frontal, 2 parietal, 1 occipital). Here is a good link that even, somewhat, explains the deformity, plate and "holes" . . . medically known as the mastoid fontanelle. In mature skulls there are 8 plates, 4 sutures, and 14 facial bones.

Anatomy of a Newborn Skull - Stanford

Sutures allow the bones to move during the birth process. They act like an expansion joint, allowing the bone to enlarge evenly as the brain grows and the skull expands, resulting in a symmetrically shaped head. However, if any of the sutures close too early (fuse prematurely), there may be no growth in that area. This may force growth to occur in another area or direction, resulting in an abnormal head shape.

More information on the cranial structure in the more soothing form of a blog . . . which you seem to prefer.

Cranium structure

And yes . . . I watched (as much as I could stomach of the known thief and liar Trey Smith) and, obviously, went to the blog referencing Pye and Childress.

BTW - it's all false info that has no evidence to back it and I'll save you the suspense of waiting for Pye's "experts" analysis . . . Pye will claim they aren't human.

reply to post by solomons path


I'll see your plate explaination and raise you on volume. More lies right ?

The academic secular world refuses to do work on these skulls,
so they can turn around and call those who do liars. My LWA.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by solomons path

 

I'll see your plate explaination and raise you on volume. More lies right ?

The academic secular world refuses to do work on these skulls,
so the can turn around and call those who do liars. My LWA.

edit on 7-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You edited before I could respond, but yes, lies. Or maybe you prefer the more inane "misrepresentation" . . . which Pye and Childress are pros at. The volume change is a result of the deformity.

There is no "work" to be done. To anthropologists, the method to achieve these skulls is well known, as are the customs of the cultures that used them. Often, binding resulted in premature (early) death due to the deformity and that is why the facial bones on some still resemble those of undeveloped young. Those that did not die early exhibit the extremely elongated skulls, but suffered from a whole host of health problems due to the deformity (sinus, brain function, hearing, balance (equilibrium), etc.)

And it is always the claim that "academics won't touch or study" . . . be it ancient aliens or forbidden archeology. However, it's not that they don't "study" . . . it's that they have been and the proponents of the fantastic don't agree or still promote the fantasy.

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by solomons path

 

I'll see your plate explaination and raise you on volume. More lies right ?

The academic secular world refuses to do work on these skulls,
so the can turn around and call those who do liars. My LWA.

edit on 7-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You edited before I could respond, but yes, lies. Or maybe you prefer the more inane "misrepresentation" . . . which Pye and Childress are pros at. The volume change is a result of the deformity.

There is no "work" to be done. To anthropologists, the method to achieve these skulls is well known, as are the customs of the cultures that used them. Often, binding resulted in premature (early) death due to the deformity and that is why the facial bones on some still resemble those of undeveloped young. Those that did not die early exhibit the extremely elongated skulls, but suffered from a whole host of health problems due to the deformity (sinus, brain function, hearing, balance (equilibrium), etc.)

And it is always the claim that "academics won't touch or study" . . . be it ancient aliens or forbidden archeology. However, it's not that they don't "study" . . . it's that they have been and the proponents of the fantastic don't agree or still promote the fantasy.

edit on 9/7/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

Wow ! an amazing amount of deformaties all to be bured together.

reply to post by randyvs


Is it really "amazing"?

Amazing -

1. To affect with great wonder; astonish

You can't wrap your head around a ruling class of a civilization, that practiced head binding, all being buried in the same area?

Does the Valley of the Kings "amaze" you, as well? I mean so many mummies found in one place . . . they must really be divine, right . . . what else could explain it?