Deformed Skull From Dark Ages Unearthed In France

reply to post by BO XIAN


You link to a BLOG from some crackpot that CLAIMS to have sequenced DNA from a (1) skull, and oh, coincidentally, he's written a book called "On the Trail of Nephilim".

No peer review. No replicable results that can be confirmed.

Right.

Now IF this fellow actually ran sequencing at all, and isn't just saying he did to sell his book to all the wide eyed gullible marks that will eat the stuff up like candy, DNA from another source other than Modern Human, Neanderthal, and/or Denisova only supports data of another unknown Hominid.

Mystery humans spiced up ancestors' sex lives

Data which is also supported in findings which were initially kicked off when Geneticist David Reich and his colleagues first tagged Neanderthal DNA in modern Humans, then also Denisovan, and later an interesting 'unknown' which has been confirmed and replicated in the community.

Interbreeding with Neanderthals, with David Reich

The 'information' in your link is not scholarly.
The 'information' in your link is not peer reviewed.
The 'information' in your link is entirely unsupported, and even embarrassing.
The 'information' in your link has absolutely zero credibility.

It's quite sad that some folk are so desperate to suspend reality in favor of something they WANT to believe in.
I'd personally absolutely love for Aliens or even evidence of Aliens to pop up somewhere, but, because it's SO fantastic, interrogation of any subject in any and all venues, concentrations, and disciplines that could lead in that direction needs be conducted with the absolute highest level of prejudice in Scientific Objectivity.

BrianG
Sometimes accredited "experts" are the LAST people you should trust
Because their pay checks and lifestyle might be at risk

Actually, trained, experienced, accredited professionals are the First, Last, and ONLY people that should be trusted in their fields.
If you want an auto mechanic to be your heart surgeon, be my guest. If you want some kid that's only had PC Gamer experience on a flight simulator to be in the cockpit next time you fly, have fun with that. If you want a sewage worker to prepare and serve your food at the next restaurant you dine at, well, that's your preference.

I, however, am all for trained professionals working IN THEIR FIELDS.
If I want a lawyer, I want the best my money can buy.
If I want to remodel my house, I'm going to choose the best contractors with references and a verifiable portfolio.

As far as Science goes, I'm taking stock in what's verified, replicated, and supported in the professional experienced community by more than just some crackpot with a blog trying to sell some spooky woo woo book.

Armchair Politicians, Keyboard Generals, as well as all the other sorts that have no training or experience in a field, well, they're welcome to their opinions, but, unless their opinions are based on citations coming from legitimate sources within whatever venue of discussion is taking place, then, such opinions are next to worthless.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

Alice excuse the cheer leading but you RocK!! I know scientist by their very nature are conservative and sometimes it will take a long time for a paradigm shift to be fully recognized by everyone but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof in this case,now I will never say never on ancient or modern E.T contact including dna meddling but we simply don't have any scientific consensus on that lacking even good circumstantial evidence , the process can be long and drawn out right down to hair splitting, and who knows maybe in time ancient E.T connection could be proven right, but right now we got zilch,that does not mean we should not keep searching even a negative answer is still an answer and is as important as if it were a positive. An issue like ancient E.T dna meddling is a big deal and if goes through the scientific process and absolute proof exist the the next winner of the Nobel prize is..???

reply to post by Spider879


Keeping out of all the is it alien or not nonsense. That time period is NOT the dark ages, just saying. The dark ages are usually referring to the 5th to 15th century CE.

AliceBleachWhite

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

... The skull is a result of manual shaping over time using the methods described. It's well documented and understood.
Artificial Cranial Deformation - Read it!

Another nicely composed post of yours. And another SO CREDIBLE “theory”, or should we say “official theory”. Including pretty fantasy wiki-lies pages, this one especially nicely constructed. BTW ufo pics aren't the only ones that can be photoshopped.

Ever R E A L L Y tried strapping boards on a baby skull? You sure did, provided you’re a inquisition torture device buff mother.

How about adding an eleventh item to this list listverse.com... , or this www.oddee.com... - the ingenious “baby skull board strapping” device ("Jeez, my mum really loves me, screech, screech"):

upload.wikimedia.org...

My personal belief is that we should keep an open mind regarding an advanced civilization messing with our DNA. For over one hundred and fifty years, conventional scientific thinking has clung to the belief that homo sapiens existence is a product of natural evolution. However, after all this time we still haven't found the conclusive "missing link."

I think it's prudent to remember that in his day Galileo was considered a researcher of alternate theories.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


1. I'm underwhelmed at the statistical probabilities of a meaningful dialogue being likely with such a perspective.

2. I've posted peer reviewed journal article on an 'other' topic . . . several, actually, to your perspective.

The peer reviewed articles were ignored about as much as any other evidence.

3. Given the iron grip the oligarchy has on peer reviewed journals and the religion of scientism and the educational system in general . . .

Just LOGICALLY, peer reviewed journals would be the LAST place one would expect to find newly uncovered truth.

4. By all means . . . carry on carrying on. It's occasionally slightly interesting to watch . . . from a distance.

Cue Bette Midler.

5. I might agree with you on some of your points. But telling you so and which ones would be an utter waste. I'll get back to higher priorities.

.

reply to post by Spider879


Soooooooooooo . . . given the GROSS hypocrite government shill Carl Sagan's rant about extraordinary claims . . .

just HOW . . . in a context where the oligarchy controls with an iron fist almost all the media and the educational system and Hollyweed and professional journals and black ops silencing teams and yada yada yada . . .

JUST HOW, in that kind of CONTEXT does one even HOPE to ferret out crucial new information and truth?

The deck is wholesale and enormously stacked against such a truth seeking before you get out of the starting blocks.

But, hey, rabid contrarian naysaying-ism has a mass of lock-step spewing acolytes hereon.

There'll always be plenty of cheerleaders for such myopic perspectives.

As my boss said . . . with the worlds best private collection of pre-Hitler posters, leaflets, broadsides etc. . . .

It was the FLAKIEST, CRAZIEST groups WHO FIRST identified who HItler really was; what he would become and what he would do--ACCURATELY.

So go ahead, trash all the possible sources just because they don't meet y'all's criteria for HIGH PRIESTS OF THE OLIGARCHY'S PARTY LINE.

Color me unimpressed.

reply to post by giugliot


It would appear you neglected Helmet Molding Therapy, which is in practice today.
Children's heads can and are indeed shaped, either by modern medical practices for a more normalize appearance, or, by primitive cultures who prefer something a bit more exotic.

reply to post by BO XIAN


1. It's impossible to have any meaningful dialogue with anyone relying more on faith and feeling as opposed to reason, thus, I accept you personally as hopelessly corrupted beyond the salvation of reason, and debate not for your personal benefit, but for the generalized ATS readership.

2. You claim to have posted peer reviewed papers, but, when asked to present evidence HERE, your best foot forward is a BLOG from some crack pot? This thread isn't those. When asked to present evidence supporting a stance of argument or inquisition of topical discussion, It's generally in one's favor to present appropriate data.
Failure to perform illustrates a position's lack of ability to do so and even lack of facility for performance at all.

3. The old "poor me" anti establishment stance is just the equivalent of piddy pouting princess stamping around and complaining about the adults being big meanies because you're not getting your ice cream, not taken seriously, or aren't allowed to sit at the adult table.
When you can provide REAL Data, bring it. Data will speak for itself. Serious data will bring serious consideration. Sophomoric mouth agape wowing over completely unsubstantiated mythologies dug up and spun anew by Sitchin, as well as parroting other sorts of similar personalities is inadmissible for any consideration beyond comedy without real replicable objective legitimate data from reputable legitimate sources.

4. Whatever.

5. Ditto, and whatever, again.

For anyone and everyone that chooses to believe this sort of nonsense, enjoy.
Have fun with all that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night, you're more than welcome to clutch that make believe security blanket.
The Christians seem quite content and happy to have waited 2000 years for the return of their savior to never happen, and seem fairly content and happy to wait another 2000 years for the return of their savior to never happen ... but, it's always SOON.
The same applies for all this Aliens, Anunnaki, Nephilim nonsense. With more people losing faith after 2000 years of the return of the Christian savior not happening, Aliens are the new Jesus.
Have fun with that.

You will, however, have the same results.

Look around.

You're more than welcome to lie to yourself all you want.
If, however, such sorts want to claim these lies and fantasies are reality in a public forum, I reserve the right to disagree and present counter discussion.



Edit: in your reply to Spider879, you brought up Hitler.
Um, Godwin's Law

In other words, you LOSE.

BO XIAN
reply to post by winofiend

 

Yeah.

I'm pretty convinced.

I had a longer post ready but hit the wrong key and lost it . . . here's the link with L.A.Marzulli--I've met him and his wife and found them excellent researchers and authentic high integrity people.

wn.com...

There's another much longer video with many more skulls but this one lists several specific differences between NON-distorted 'other' skulls and human skulls.

I'm going to post this before scanning other such links for the better ones.

I've kept your full post for context. I'll keep my reply short...

First and foremost, anyone wanting to "debunk" the "conehead" skulls of South America need to be aware of the amount of plates in the skull. Not all coneheads are the result of binding. The difference is easy to spot for anyone with good pictures. The human skull will have the same number of plates, bound or not. Some (most?) of the conehead skulls from a particular time in the past and area of South America have less plates. Even if a parent was of a mind to bind the skull of their child, how would they have known back then that said child didn't have the normal makeup of bone in their skull?

The conehead skulls that are obviously bound human skulls remind me of the isolated "cargo cults" in the Pacific that built bamboo "aircraft" on the old military landing strips in the hope that the sky people would come back with more goodies.

Something extremely odd took place in the past, but I'm still keeping an open mind about it.

Excellent link, btw. I've bookmarked it!

Just a bit more info... Not trying to convince anyone of anything, just hoping to add to the discussion.

BO XIAN
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.

You are having a completely juvenile response to reasonable posts because you want to believe so badly that aliens are involved.

But what Alice said is exactly correct. I did research on SETI for college, and humans from the beginning of time, are always looking for the same creature:

So what has big eyes, flies, and abducts you? Fairies. Oh, and Aliens.

1questioner
My personal belief is that we should keep an open mind regarding an advanced civilization messing with our DNA. For over one hundred and fifty years, conventional scientific thinking has clung to the belief that homo sapiens existence is a product of natural evolution. However, after all this time we still haven't found the conclusive "missing link."

I think it's prudent to remember that in his day Galileo was considered a researcher of alternate theories.

There have been lots of missing links found. There is no "one" it is a series of them. There is no doubt about our heritage.

giugliot

AliceBleachWhite

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

... The skull is a result of manual shaping over time using the methods described. It's well documented and understood.
Artificial Cranial Deformation - Read it!

Another nicely composed post of yours. And another SO CREDIBLE “theory”, or should we say “official theory”. Including pretty fantasy wiki-lies pages, this one especially nicely constructed. BTW ufo pics aren't the only ones that can be photoshopped.

Ever R E A L L Y tried strapping boards on a baby skull? You sure did, provided you’re a inquisition torture device buff mother.

How about adding an eleventh item to this list listverse.com... , or this www.oddee.com... - the ingenious “baby skull board strapping” device ("Jeez, my mum really loves me, screech, screech"):

upload.wikimedia.org...

edit on 22-11-2013 by giugliot because: spelling

There is still abuse of children today to get them to fit societal norms of their tribe, like genital mutilation. First world countries will never understand it.

babies force fed

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by giugliot

 

It would appear you neglected Helmet Molding Therapy, which is in practice today. Children's heads can and are indeed shaped, either by modern medical practices for a more normalize appearance, or, by primitive cultures who prefer something a bit more exotic.

I did, because it’s an OBVIOUS attempt to expand a first non-working cover up lie (the ridiculous board strapping explanation for conehead skulls, upload.wikimedia.org...) by a second fabricated conehead “explanation”, the “Helmet Molding Therapy”

Here's why it’s fabricated (as to being an explanation for the "coneheads"):
- If helmet-like devices had been actually used by former tribes (even all over the world and for many centuries), then we would find this in HUNDREDS or even thousands of depictions and descriptions of babies wearing such helmets. Just show us a few such (genuine, non-photoshopped, non-fabricated) old/ancient depictions or mentionings.
- And, above all: These medical “helmets” are obviously meant to CORRECT a cranial deformation by CONSTRICTION, hence certainly cannot make a whole skull GROW. Hence trying to explain a 100 or even 150 percent "conehead" cranial expansion by a helmet device is a-b-s-u-r-d. There’s obviously a big difference between shaping/correcting a skull (“Children's heads can and are indeed shaped”) and massively expanding it.

reply to post by nixie_nox

nixie_nox
... There is still abuse of children today to get them to fit societal norms of their tribe, like genital mutilation. First world countries will never understand it. babies force fed

Not convincing. Force feeding and genital mutilations are certainly cruel, but still CAN be done. But strapping boards onto a baby head for months or even years would be practically IMPOSSIBLE, and an even immensely more serious torture. The infant would drive mad and probably die within a week or a month.

BTW, could any one of the board strapping explanation followers please provide just some convincing non-photoshopped new/old IMAGES or CLIPS of kids actually wearing boards strapped to their head (according to the wiki fantasy drawing upload.wikimedia.org... )? I haven’t seen any yet.

giugliot

I did, because it’s an OBVIOUS attempt to expand a first non-working cover up lie (the ridiculous board strapping explanation for conehead skulls, upload.wikimedia.org...) by a second fabricated conehead “explanation”, the “Helmet Molding Therapy”

Here's why it’s fabricated (as to being an explanation for the "coneheads"):
- If helmet-like devices had been actually used by former tribes (even all over the world and for many centuries), then we would find this in HUNDREDS or even thousands of depictions and descriptions of babies wearing such helmets. Just show us a few such (genuine, non-photoshopped, non-fabricated) old/ancient depictions or mentionings.
- And, above all: These medical “helmets” are obviously meant to CORRECT a cranial deformation by CONSTRICTION, hence certainly cannot make a whole skull GROW. Hence trying to explain a 100 or even 150 percent "conehead" cranial expansion by a helmet device is a-b-s-u-r-d. There’s obviously a big difference between shaping/correcting a skull (“Children's heads can and are indeed shaped”) and massively expanding it.

Okay, so, show us depictions of ANY children in ANY of the cultures demonstrating cranial deformation.

Hmm?

You may notice a conspicuous absence of ANY children depicted in the majority of primitive art.
Why?
High Mortality.

When children were depicted, or referred to it was typically in a ritualized context as opposed to a historical record context.

Thus, the absence of depictions of children of ANY variety as well as attendant accoutrements, and cultural paraphernalia.

Other than the bone morphology, how else do we know about cranial deformation?
Oh, wait, because we've directly observed the phenomenon, in modern primitive cultures, and, oh, wait, there's more, we know the LANGUAGES of these dead cultures where they have written records, and a funny thing about cultures that tend to write things down is, well, they tend to tell us all about themselves, including practices of cranial deformation.



Now, you might be tempted to bring up depictions of children in ancient Egyptian culture, and possibly another prolifically verbose and illustrative culture, but, these are more the exception than the norm, and though there's some artificial cranial deformation that was practiced in ancient Egypt among royalty, the practice wasn't always in fashion, and depictions of children in Egyptian renderings are more for accounting of property (slaves), and symbolic of prosperity.



EDIT:
Further, as far as modern instances go, I recommend the following article:
The Sociopolitical History and Physiological Underpinnings of Skull Deformation
Of particular note, we have:

Plagiocephaly continues to affect nearly 10% of all children, with a large rise in incidence beginning in 1992 corresponding with the initiation of the "Back to Sleep" campaign by the American Academy of Pediatrics. This campaign urged parents to position their children supine during sleep to decrease the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome. The impact of this initiative can be seen in the near elimination of frontal plagiocephaly (attributed to prone sleeping) and a concomitant rise in the incidence of posterior plagiocephaly.

So, wait, what? Cranial deformation can occur in infants just from SLEEPING?
Actually, yes.

Thus, we can see a primitive solution to plagiocephaly in the practice of willful artificial cranial deformation, plus the preconception voiced about forcing children to wear some contraption non-stop for years and years is also effectively broken.

reply to post by CornShucker


THX THX FOR YOUR KIND REPLY.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

And, if that ONE point was all there was, IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT to prove something very strange was going on.

However, there are several OTHER points about the skulls that are ALSO, in and of themselves, QUITE SUFFICIENT.

Added together, the PROOF is beyond convincing . . . for anyone with a fair-minded SCIENTIFIC perspective about the phenomena.

Obviously, a shocking number of folks hereon don't seem interested in the truth at all . . . but rather in their own quite intensely elevated perspective on their own purported "brilliance" and deeply entrenched biases.

Sigh.

What else is new.

LOL.

reply to post by nixie_nox


WRONG AGAIN.

I'd GREATLY PREFER there was no evidence that ANY 'other' critters were involved. Have been hostile toward the ET's/fallen angels for a decade or 3 now.

However, I believe that folks make better decisions for their own welfare and the welfare of their families if they DEAL WITH THE TRUTH, WITH FACTS

vs DOGMA from the religion of pseudo-scientism--pontificated loudly and constantly by the priests and acolytes of the religion of scientism hereon.

BTW, I found your post one of the weakest I've read in the last year or several years on ATS.

reply to post by nixie_nox


No doubt?

Oh, right . . . for those suitably indoctrinated and brainwashed . . . initiated solidly into the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM . . . under pain of excommunication from "the learned and bright" etc. etc. etc. yada yada.

Globalists are such masters at propaganda and brainwashing. How grand! /sarc.

reply to post by giugliot


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

What is soooooooooooo terribly difficult for folks

who pretend to be sooooooooooooooooooooooooo erudite and "scientific"

to understand the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

Changing the SHAPE of a body mass

vs

GREATLY CHANGING THE AMOUNT OF CUBIC CENTIMETERS IN THAT MASS?

I think what . . . I should look it up . . . Piaget would call that what developmental stage . . . being able to tell that a change in shape but not in mass was the same . . . Concrete Operational . . . YES, Concrete Operational stage--i.e. age 7-11.

Soooooo evidently the contrarians spewing on this thread have not achieved the developmental stage of 7-11 year olds where they CAN distinguish THE DIFFERENCE between whether shape results in a change in QUANTITY, or not.

That's absolutely INCREDIBLE.

Yet, such folks want US to think that THEIR view is MORE factual, true, reality based!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL What a farce.

I don't think this short primer will help folks who's minds are set in concrete at a PRE-CONCRETE OPERATIONAL STAGE of development . . . however, one must try . . .

HINT: If a pint of milk is poured into a vertical column

vs

another pint of milk is poured into a tube the same size but slanted at 30 degrees . . .

BOTH CONTAINERS OF MILK STILL EACH EQUAL ONE PINT. I realize that seems to be hard for some hereon to grasp but it is easily proven--regardless of how mystifying it seems to be for some folks.

Sigh.

HINT: Changing the SHAPE of a skull, does NOT add 50% or more to the cubic centimeters of brain mass within the skull.

HINT: The coneheads have a massively greater amount of brain mass than NORMAL OR MISSHAPEN HUMAN skulls.

I love it when arrogance proves itself to be soooooo ignorant and foolish.