Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Deformed Skull From Dark Ages Unearthed In France

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Off-Topic as hell, Buuuut: That was great! Your post reads like lost dialogue from "A Clockwork Orange'!


I had to read it over and over again in Alex's voice... love it!




posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I would think flattening the front part of the forehead would also alter frontal lobe brain capacity and therefore make one less capable. I have changed my mind on time travel - if could travel back I would want to know how these people thought.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

MysterX
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


Your facts are unarguably correct, but you're missing the crucial point being made.

That point being spontaneous development of this very odd practice of deforming a new borns skull shape, by disparate cultures separated by continent and ocean at a time when no mutual contact was supposedly taking place between them.

That's the point, not that Human beings have or have not performed this on their offspring...but why and why did many vastly separated cultures all decide this extremely odd and unnatural practice was a desirable trait independently of each other.

It's one thing for separate cultures to decide to build houses or tools that are very similar, as that is how Humans innovate...we find what works best and go with the obvious design, but it's another thing entirely to mutilate a new born baby for no apparent reason, especially many cultures doing so in supposed isolation to each other.

It's as strange as discovering separate cultures all independently decided it would be a good idea to remove their right arms at birth.

That's the point.



Nail on the head!

All races look to the skies for their god

If people were not able to exchange ideas across oceans then how the heck do they all decide to wrap up their kids heads to mimic a skull shape?

Why would it be so appealing unless peoples greater than them were sporting such?



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
This is a "source?" Are you kidding me? There's nothing cited about who did the testing, what these numerous alleged mutations were, etc etc.



Preliminary DNA testing:

Sample 2A from the skull bone is very special. I recovered an almost complete sequence of mtDNA from it and presumably a lot of nuclear sequences as well, but I did not analyze this aspect yet. The mtDNA sequence is very interesting. It does match human mtDNA, but has a LOT of unique mutations that are not present in most known haplotypes from A to Y, nor in Denisova or Neanderthal. Many of them are completely unique and not what is normally found in South America. Lloyd Pye


Lloyd Pye is not a reputable researcher by ANY stretch of the imagination. He claimed that the "Starchild" skull was from an alien too, and it's been proven conclusively through DNA and mtDNA analysis, carried out in separate laboratories, that the skull belonged to a 100% human male with 100% human parents. He's just another Zecharia Sitchin acolyte who rushes for anything that he can publicize to give the appearance of substantiating Sitchin's fantasy.

It's a common tactic of people who believe this nonsense to resist debunking by claiming that "mainstream" scientists and academia won't accept contradictions to established theory or are in a massive conspiracy to cover up *whatever*. It doesn't even matter what the subject is--from Sumer to chemtrails, pyramids to overunity--it's always a massive cover-up. Why? Well because fringe authors, trying to make a buck selling books full of garbage, say so.

There are plenty of fascinating, unexplained and truly mysterious subjects, objects and places in the world to research and no shortage of real-life conspiracies to uncover and dissect! Why get hung up on the obvious bunk? Come on people, raise the bar a little.
edit on 20-11-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

theantediluvian
This is a "source?" Are you kidding me? There's nothing cited about who did the testing, what these numerous alleged mutations were, etc etc.



Preliminary DNA testing:

Sample 2A from the skull bone is very special. I recovered an almost complete sequence of mtDNA from it and presumably a lot of nuclear sequences as well, but I did not analyze this aspect yet. The mtDNA sequence is very interesting. It does match human mtDNA, but has a LOT of unique mutations that are not present in most known haplotypes from A to Y, nor in Denisova or Neanderthal. Many of them are completely unique and not what is normally found in South America. Lloyd Pye


Lloyd Pye is not a reputable researcher by ANY stretch of the imagination. He claimed that the "Starchild" skull was from an alien too, and it's been proven conclusively through DNA and mtDNA analysis, carried out in separate laboratories, that the skull belonged to a 100% human male with 100% human parents. He's just another Zecharia Sitchin acolyte who rushes for anything that he can publicize to give the appearance of substantiating Sitchin's fantasy.

It's a common tactic of people who believe this nonsense to resist debunking by claiming that "mainstream" scientists and academia won't accept contradictions to established theory or are in a massive conspiracy to cover up *whatever*. It doesn't even matter what the subject is--from Sumer to chemtrails, pyramids to overunity--it's always a massive cover-up. Why? Well because fringe authors, trying to make a buck selling books full of garbage, say so.

There are plenty of fascinating, unexplained and truly mysterious subjects, objects and places in the world to research and no shortage of real-life conspiracies to uncover and dissect! Why get hung up on the obvious bunk? Come on people, raise the bar a little.
edit on 20-11-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)


One would think scientist would be breaking down media doors shouting eureka!! at an incredible find, much like when a NASA scientist believed she found a new form of life

Off course it turned to be a bust but they did have this all over the news..the same with the Martian meteorite, ALH84001, still waits more studies inconclusive, I don't think they would just ignore this if there was something to it..heck even Steven Greer had those folks checking out his supposed find, again inconclusive.
edit on 20-11-2013 by Spider879 because: fix



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


The latest information I have found on the Starchild skull is still inconclusive (but intriguing). What makes you so certain that it was simply a deformed native?



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
It's always so entertaining in seeing all these remarks coming from people who are not Anatomists, who are not accredited experienced professionals in fields pertaining or applicable to Physical Anthropology, or even Paleopsychology making absolute statements as fact based entirely on pie-in-sky, all gods come from the sky so they MUST be Aliens flawed reasoning backed up by absolutely zero academic support.

The reason gods always come from the sky, is because the sky, to ancient man was unreachable, unobtainable. We see this time and again in mythology where gods always come from places like under the mountain, inside the earth, over the horizon where the sun disappears, the clouds, or mystical alternate realities like the spirit world; always places of imagination, and always places that were unreachable to primitive man.

The grass is always greener, or at least more vividly imaginary, as well as populated with super people, always in places primitive man could never get to, or only imagine ever going to through magical means.

Cranial deformation practices happen over disparate times in widely disparate geographically separate cultures with no real evidence of any alien influence.

Any reasoning typically attached to this line of saucer eyed belief is preposterous and often laughable.
Aliens travel across dimensions, and/or space time just to wave at some mud covered primitives so they can practice cranial deformation?
They imparted wisdom?
Really?
How? Where?
Why is none of this spectacular wisdom in any evidence?

I'm no alien, but, if I wanted to impart wisdom, I'd start by training the primitive peoples in a language capable of articulating, recording, and conveying abstract concepts and highly technical data. That language would include a complete system of mathematical notation, and I'm talking about Maths that have nothing to do with mere numbers.

Do we see any of this?
NO.

We see entirely predictable advancements and discoveries in human culture made at levels and times appropriate a culture's level of sophistication.
We see evolution of language, and evolution of a growing understanding of primitive man's perception on how the universe works.

We can find fossilized dinosaur footprints, and even fossilized ghosts of feathers of dinosaurs imprinted in rock over 65 MILLION years old, but, we can't find not even one single Aztec wrist watch?
No Mayan radios? ... and these civs are less than 4000 years old!

If aliens were imparting 'wisdom', what 'wisdom' was that that was so special it required aliens, that was so special that it's indistinguishable from what's entirely expected of that level of primitive society, such it's entirely and completely attributable it was figured out on its own without any outside help?

If aliens showed up to play Shopping Mall Santa to primitive man, show us the data.




posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


What a pile of pretend erudition.

The awkward thing is that you probably believe all that.

Certainly you never disappoint in terms of a vivid display of outrageously closed minded bias pretending to be scientific.

Thankfully, in terms of the coneheads, there's plenty of very tangible scientific evidence documenting the stark differences between their skulls and human skulls--manipulated or not.

Of course, there's no accounting for taste nor for willful blindness.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


By all means, show us.
All I see so far is words, that are from my perspective the very definition of willful blind faith in unsubstantiated modern mythologies hijacking ancient artifacts and remains to sell more snake oil.




posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


As much as I enjoy finding holes in your mainstream approach to these topics, Alice, it almost pains me to point put the serious flaw in that previous post.

I have a hard time believing that you are a technical expert in genetics, osteology, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, cosmology, theology, and all of the other venues of academia which you practically worship.

Blatant hypocrisy hasn't been in your repertoire before. No need to tack that on now.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


Nope.

I'm increasingly trying to limit my efforts on the net to

1. activities that are not likely to be 100% futile from the outset . . . i.e., NOT missions IMPOSSIBLE.

2. dialogue with folks with whom dialogue is at least significantly POSSIBLE.

= = =

1. I cannot recall ever having observed authentic dialogue with you.

2. I cannot recall ever having observed any hint of even a micro-meter's worth of change in your assertions as a function of reading facts. Facts don't seem to scratch your surface significantly, at all.

3. I have already provided abundant links to videos and articles documenting how absurdly wrong your perspective is on the coneheads. And, as expected, you either haven't bothered with the facts at all or are unmoved by them . . . as usual.

4. Perhaps you can find some other ATSer willing to be your foil or court jester or fool. I decline the position.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


As much as I enjoy finding holes in your mainstream approach to these topics, Alice, it almost pains me to point put the serious flaw in that previous post.

I have a hard time believing that you are a technical expert in genetics, osteology, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, cosmology, theology, and all of the other venues of academia which you practically worship.

Blatant hypocrisy hasn't been in your repertoire before. No need to tack that on now.


The point to be illustrated was not my own accreditation, but the LACK of accreditation as well as a lack of any experience of folks making statements as if they're fact, where the source in the OP clearly states instance of cranial deformation practice.
What are the credentials of those?

Hmmm. Do you see the point?
It's like sourcing an article of Bob Bakker giving a lecture on the comparative morphology between allosaurus and t.rex, then along comes a bunch of hay seed internets folk with their eyes way too far apart saying things like "nuh-uh, them is cow bones, because I sawed a cow once when I was channelling the spirit of a prairie chicken".

Right.
Any SOURCED, verifiable article of resource supported by credentials wins against internet opinion backed by zero accreditation.

Further, even without sourcing articles coming from accredited sources, we come to the same stopping point of; okay, then, SHOW US.

as to that:
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


What a completely WEASLE answer.

It doesn't matter WHO asks SHOW US.
Just SHOW US.

There's an entire internet of ATS readership that isn't participating in the conversation, but they ARE reading that's counting on you!

SHOW US.







posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


How typical.

I SHOWED YOU

et al

with a sizable NUMBER OF SOLID videos and articles.

And still you whine "SHOW US."

You must think I'm a terminal idiot to play such a stupid game.

. . . a bit like the waiter setting the water or coffee or tea on the table and the patrons demanding that he set the water or coffee or tea on the table.

Sheesh.

LIke I said, I'm trying to limit my efforts to missions POSSIBLE vs MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.

And, even though I have storerooms full of clues . . . I'm not interested in selling any to those who only know how to trash them without any awareness of their import.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Nothing has been shown excep your ability to LIE.

You're limiting your posts, YET, you continue to abuse your keyboard to reply with weasle statements.

Right.

Have fun with that post limiting while I wait for data and citations from accredited, experienced sources.

Show Us.

Until then, I'll demonstrate what it is to actually post limit in enthusiastically ignoring and making zero response to any and all posts which do absolutely zero by means of presentable evidence and citations to challenge the current paradigm.

NOT ALIENS.




posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Coneheads come from France, don't they? I think it's a conehead skull.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


How underwhelming . . .

Denying the reality of the links and data in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

while accusing me of lying.

What a sweetie.

However, all of us have to deal with the universal law of the multiverse . . . harvesting what we have planted.

Perhaps you have yet to admit that planting cacti does NOT result in harvesting mangoes or peaches.

Color me unsurprised.
.



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Oh let me guess the excuse....

They were strapping boards to babies heads in France too...



posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Bedlam
Coneheads come from France, don't they? I think it's a conehead skull.


Excellent observation! Mystery solved.




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


I'm not aware of the allegation being "proven" that the star child has 100% human DNA from both parents. Do you have a link?

Given that I've met L.A. Marzulli and found so much of his findings accurate as well as his character one of substantive integrity . . . and given the other NON-DNA distinctions between the coneheads vs normal as well as manipulated human heads, I'll continue to believe L.A. Marzulli's contentions in the debate.

The DIFFERENT sections--consistently DIFFERENT sections of the skulls of the coneheads is a very tangible difference that is starkly different from clearly human skulls. It's NOT very logical that the DNA would be the same across the two types of creatures.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Nothing has been shown excep your ability to LIE.

You're limiting your posts, YET, you continue to abuse your keyboard to reply with weasle statements.

Right.

Have fun with that post limiting while I wait for data and citations from accredited, experienced sources.

Show Us.

Until then, I'll demonstrate what it is to actually post limit in enthusiastically ignoring and making zero response to any and all posts which do absolutely zero by means of presentable evidence and citations to challenge the current paradigm.

NOT ALIENS.






Sometimes accredited "experts" are the LAST people you should trust

Because their pay checks and lifestyle might be at risk





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join