A Doco on the Pre Incas...

[Rockhopper]

In Peru. It also describes the Paracas Skulls and how the distortion was done.

It also shows the actions of grave robbers stealing the artifacts from the sites.



Tim.

[Agartha]

Ta, will watch later

[Monk (in hiding)]

21:34 The collection of over 16,000 skulls in the Archaeological museum in Lima makes it possible to study the pathology of these ancient cultures. These Nasca and Paraca skulls were subjected to a traumatic deformation, apparently simply for aesthetic reasons. A long, thin skull was a symbol of the upper class.

It is well-known that most cases of skull elongation are the result of cranial deformation, head flattening, or head binding, in which the skull is intentionally deformed by applying force over a long period of time. It is usually achieved by binding the head between two pieces of wood, or binding in cloth. However, while cranial deformation changes the shape of the skull, it does not alter its volume, weight, or other features that are characteristic of a regular human skull.

The Paracas skulls, however, are different.  The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening. They also contain only one parietal plate, rather than two. The fact that the skulls’ features are not the result of cranial deformation means that the cause of the elongation is a mystery, and has been for decades.


Human


Paracas


The results of a DNA analysis of one of the skulls are now back

It had mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) with mutations unknown in any human, primate, or animal known so far. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Link

[Rockhopper]

Brien Foerster eh!


Tim.

[Rockhopper]

http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/foerster-pye-and-ketchum-collaborate-paracas-elongated-skull-exposed-its/

Well, it seems Foerster would like us all to believe he has preliminary results of that analysis in hand, and through an appearance on JustEnergyRadio, he has released some rather spurious details that on first glance seem quite intriguing, but upon closer inspection, aren’t really all that impressive.
Several bloggers who specialize in the paranormal, have published posts telling of these preliminary conclusions, claiming that the DNA offered unexpected results.  Headlines such as ‘Initial DNA analysis of Paracas elongated skulls released – with incredible result’ are giving people the wrong impression of the situation.
Foerster is claiming that mitochondrial DNA was found in at least one sample and that analysis of that DNA showed mutations that don’t conform to mutations known in humans or other animals.

Source.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Scientific Facts:

FACT!

1.) The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening.

FACT!

2.) They also contain only one parietal plate, rather than two.



Top of skull from rear view shows no visible suture between two halves of parietal and no suture between two halves of frontal


The suture between the parietal and occipital in normal skulls is a low curve. In this one, the suture is tall and almost rectangular. Note also the "Inca bone", the heart-shaped extra bone, common in some Incan skulls. This woman had two!


Left side. Note four extra bones in the temporal suture

[Agartha]

Scientific Facts:

FACT!

1.) The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening.

FACT!

2.) They also contain only one parietal plate, rather than two.

Oh not this again....... ok, here goes my usual answer:

1) Google the Boskop man, found in South Africa at the beginning of 1900. Their skulls had a capacity 40 to 50% bigger than ours..... so nothing unusual there.

2) That is also a known condition called cranyositosis. The most common form is Saggital synostosis, which produces on parietal plate and elongated skulls. It still happens now, if you google it you  will see many children that have it and need surgery to correct it. But, I did look for a pic to show you... again: nothing unusual here.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Colin Patterson, Ph.D.
Paleontologist

Imperial College, London (1955–1957)
Zoology, First Class Honors

University College (1961)
Ph.D.

British Museum of Natural History, London (1962-1993)
Senior Principle Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department

He described "evolution as faith…evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it…One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it."

"It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow… Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics… During the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here."2


http://genesisfile.com/?page_id=138

[Monk (in hiding)]

Scientific Facts:

FACT!

1.) The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening.

FACT!

2.) They also contain only one parietal plate, rather than two.

Oh not this again....... ok, here goes my usual answer:

1) Google the Boskop man, found in South Africa at the beginning of 1900. Their skulls had a capacity 40 to 50% bigger than ours..... so nothing unusual there.

2) That is also a known condition called cranyositosis. The most common form is Saggital synostosis, which produces on parietal plate and elongated skulls. It still happens now, if you google it you  will see many children that have it and need surgery to correct it. But, I did look for a pic to show you... again: nothing unusual here.

Diversity of species, nothing to do with so called evolution.

[Agartha]

Not diversity: deformities. Things that go wrong while a fetous is developing.

The Boskop man was a hominid anyway. 

My humble opinion: if we had been created by intelligent design, we wouldn't have soooo many flaws.... we all have something wrong. Intelligent design would have made sure we were a perfect creation, which is what humans playing god are trying to achieve right now...... right?

[Rockhopper]

Agreed Ags. There are several medical conditions that can cause skull deformities. All of which are quite common.

That fact doesn't stop the Fringers from banging on about their pet ideas.

VM/Omega, there is nothing new in what you posted, just the same old same old. Spare me that old canard that there is some grand conspiracy to cover up the "Truth". There is not and never was a conspiracy and it's just paranoia on the part of the Fringers!

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

YOU CAN ONLY LABEL IT

ONE

OR

THE

OTHER.

IT'S EITHER

THIS

OR

THAT

TIT

FOR

TAT

THIS

OR

THAT

DOG

OR

CAT

[Rockhopper]

???

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

"If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-even-without-bible/

[Monk (in hiding)]

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.

If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.

In Darwin's landmark book  On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.


http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-even-without-bible/

[Monk (in hiding)]

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.

A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?

Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.


http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-even-without-bible/

[Rockhopper]

Oh Dear Hanky, here we go again. Cherry-picking data.

No Scientific Theory is set in stone. Only the wafflings of the Fringers is.

All Theories are open to adjustment as new data becomes available. Even my ideas have changed since what I learned in High School and what I know now. I left High School in 1958!! The science is in flux all the time.

Just in case you missed it I'll repeat how a Scientific Method comes to the conclusions.

1/ Is it falsifiable? If yes, then check why it is. If not -- why not?

2/ Can it be tested by experiments? If so, by what experiments and who does them? 

3/ Do the conclusions of the experiments show the hypothesis to be correct? If not why not? If so why so?

Have the hypotheses been published in reputable Science Magazines where they can be scrutinised by others who are specialists in their fields? If not why not?

Now let's look at one of your examples: the symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers and that they must have evolved at the same time. That implies that flowers can only pollinate with bees and that is not true (falsifiable). Flowers have many ways of pollinating and bees are just one of them. It is common knowledge that flowers evolved long before bees (some millions of years in fact) so they could not have evolved at the same time. Furthermore explain how the flowers native to NZ pollinated when there were no bees here for millions of years?

The glorious 'Red Herring' that somehow we evolved from amoebas which changed to fish which changed to monkeys and on to us is utter bullshit. There are thousands of fossils of the intermediate stages that show how it happened. Further Humans DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS!! We are from the same ancestor as the apes, a completely different branch. Go and find out for yourself.

Going back to our original discussion; Why is Foerster so reluctant to allow other Labs to test his skulls? What is he trying to cover up?

The word of a few rogue scientists are not proof and as I have suggested before, go and examine all the pages of reports by eminent Archaeologists/Anthropologists and the testing that has been done. The Smithsonian has a complete dept. of copies of all that data. What are you so afraid of VM/Omega? Do you think that they might change your mind and you would have to think outside of the square?

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Scientific Facts:

FACT!

1.) The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening.

FACT!

2.) They also contain only one parietal plate, rather than two.

Oh not this again....... ok, here goes my usual answer:

1) Google the Boskop man, found in South Africa at the beginning of 1900. Their skulls had a capacity 40 to 50% bigger than ours..... so nothing unusual there.

2) That is also a known condition called cranyositosis. The most common form is Saggital synostosis, which produces on parietal plate and elongated skulls. It still happens now, if you google it you  will see many children that have it and need surgery to correct it. But, I did look for a pic to show you... again: nothing unusual here.

The Paracas people did not suffer from Craniosynostosis, impossible.

Sagittal Synostosis (Craniosynostosis)

The skull of an infant is made up of free-floating bones separated by fibers called sutures. This arrangement allows the infant's head to pass through the birth canal and also enables the skull to grow as the brain grows in early infancy.

These bones eventually fuse and form the developed skull. If fusion occurs prematurely, skull and brain growth are restricted. This is called craniosynostosis. The cause of this premature fusion is unknown. If left untreated, children born with craniosynostosis are at risk for increased pressure on the brain and vision problems.



http://www.newyorkcraniofacialsurgery.com/craniosynostosis.php

[Rockhopper]

No-one said they did VM/Omega, it was just a suggestion that's all.

They may well be a combination of a mutation and mutilation. There is insufficient evidence to date. And there won't be until Foester et al release the skulls for forensic testing by reputable labs. The little that has been done shows that they are perfectly human just like you and I.

I also note that you haven't come up with an answer about my response to your Bee/Flower analogy. It's just Creationist/ID bullshit.

Tim.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Damaged ventromedial prefrontal cortex........?

[Sponsored content]