Archeologists Unearth Alien-Like Skulls In A Mexico Cemetery

reply to post by Phage


Watched the movie. These look more naturally elongated than the ones that are bound.

I have seen a lot of different shaped heads on people also. Some guys from the war, WW!! had plates in their heads and the skull changed shape quite a bit after that. If these were people they could have done something like this to change the shape and it would be more of a natural transition without the binding marks. This would mean that metal would have to be in contact with the bone though. It doesn't really have to be a different species, it could be a genetic line that got distorted someway. But isn't that how new species start?

Originally posted by shauny
I searched about 100 times for this on ATS. So it ain't been posted, or the search as usual, is rubbish

funny that, I simply searched for alien skull mexico and found:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
and
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by rickymouse

You are looking at still pictures of skulls in a youtube video. The archeologists handled and examined the skulls. Maybe, just maybe, the obvious signs of skull binding would be apparent to them.

Why do you think archeologists would not be excited about the possibility of a new human species being found if that were the case? Did you hear about the "hobbits"? Pretty big news.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by rickymouse

 

So you are a skull expert? What are your credentials I am just wondering because you are saying you know more than archeologists. I have seen skulls as well but that doesn’t mean a gosh darn thing.

Well, I have held real human skulls in my hands back when I was in college in the seventies and watched as they shoveled out bones in skulls from a cemetery that was being moved to build a church. Other than that I have read many articles on skull shapes of the different hominoids and even the comparison of the skulls of ancient vs present humans. Just a hobby, I haven't spent more than a hundred hours researching skull shape and size. I was in Premed in the seventies studying to be a doctor so the human body has always been an interest of mine. I've spent over ten hours in the last week alone looking at all the evidence both ways on skull size in relation to intelligence and the shapes of skulls of present humans and it's relation to intelligence. Maybe it doesn't interest some people but it interests me.

reply to post by Phage


Archeology, like any other science, is required to show proof and also they need to get many others on board to get something to be accepted. You can have a lot of variences within a species also, the DNA could show human but the "junk DNA" or rest of the genome can still be way different. I am different than other humans but we are still all humans. The differences between humans and neanderthals isn't much either but the "Junk DNA" is much different. There is a name for the Junk DNA but I can't remember it off hand. It distinguishes who we are and the immunities we have. I'm sure that this DNA will be tested and at that point it will be released if it does not interfere greatly with present consensus.

reply to post by rickymouse

I'm sure that this DNA will be tested and at that point it will be released if it does not interfere greatly with present consensus.

Why? Discovering a recent new human species would be much bigger news than homo floresiensis and they interfered quite a bit with present consensus. It's been a battle for those involved but it's now pretty certain they are right about it.

But if they know the skulls were bound, which would be obvious on close inspection, there isn't a lot of reason to even suspect a new species. Is there?

reply to post by rickymouse


So are you saying the team of archeologists is lying?

Do you feel that you have more experience with bones and skulls than an archeologist?

I am just wondering because you sound like you are certain that they are wrong.

It is of course known that some natives used practices such as "boarding" to alter the shape of the skull.

However, I have read that something like boarding should not increase the volume of the skull. I don't know how true that is, but logically it seems to make sense. And some of these oblong skulls have volumes which far exceed that of the normal human range.

I'll try to see if I can dig up the link for an interesting page I was looking at recently, that talked (and showcased) a bunch of these skulls. A lot of skulls like this can be found-- there are tons of pictures and articles online.

reply to post by Phage


Did the archeologists say in the movie that the skulls were bound? It was in some Hispanic language and I can't understand it.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by rickymouse

 

So you are a skull expert? What are your credentials I am just wondering because you are saying you know more than archeologists. I have seen skulls as well but that doesn’t mean a gosh darn thing.

That is what they are taught to say because binding was a practice used. If you question consensus of the time you better have proof. If I was an archeologist I would just say they were bound. Why would you jeopardize your reputation. I did the same kind of thing different times in my life, agreeing with the consensus of the time knowing it was wrong. Later on things change and people remember you meekly mentioning it at the time. This meek practice gets you ahead in the world, if you outright challenge things it gets you destroyed. Most people aren't fools.

reply to post by rickymouse

You could read the OP, that's English.

reply to post by Phage


I did, the archeologists said they were bound but I have seen pictures of the bound skulls and they did not come to a point, they were more bulbous on the top. I even saw pictures of some present living humans who had this done and it was evident that they were bound.

Humans ape things. That means they copy things they see. This is more evident in ancient cultures than it is nowadays. That means that they saw conehead people and they made an impression on them so they figured a way to make their children's heads like that. All things have a beginning which means there were probably some people/beings that were actually like this that impressed us originally. Monkey see monkey do is a big part of the way people learn. You can't truly learn if all you did is read books, the best way is to have someone show you. That is something that society is tossing in the trash, experience is the best teacher.

reply to post by rickymouse

I did, the archeologists said they were bound but I have seen pictures of the bound skulls and they did not come to a point, they were more bulbous on the top.

Ok. So you say the archeologists are lying or stupid because you know more than they do. We get that.

reply to post by Phage


No. I am saying they are not going to blindly challenge the system and get discredited. Would you have gone against the teachings of your profession if you weren't absolutely sure you were right and destroy your livelyhood?

reply to post by rickymouse

Ok. You know they are lying because you've seen pictures of bound skulls. Ever closely examined them? Ever seen small, not so obvious indications of binding?

Reputation. Two words... homo floresiensis.
Brown and Morwood took a lot of criticism but that didn't stop them. Believe it or not, scientists are not really that timid.

reply to post by Phage


No they aren't that timid but only a fool would make a premature assumption without adequate evidence to back it up. I say that some of the ones shown look like they aren't bound. There may be others I can't completely see that are bound and there even appears to be some normal skulls. You can almost see where the boards and cloth was used to bind some of the other skulls on the net.

The real skulls have different suture lines. I know someone that has examined some skulls in south America. The guy has also seen and handled the bound ones. He is supposed to be making a documentary for PBS on these I guess in the future after he finishes his research. I don't know if he has been down to this place yet.

When my daughter was born she had a conehead but it naturally went back to it's normal shape within days. It would have been possible to put a leather cone on her head at birth and it may have stayed that shape. The cone was straight up though, not like these. It would have had to be coaxed into that position and would have caused a distortion of the brain. The skull will not get larger than original though, the volume would be the same.

reply to post by rickymouse

No they aren't that timid but only a fool would make a premature assumption without adequate evidence to back it up.

So now are you saying they aren't lying but are actually doing more study to see if it's a new human species before presenting their findings?

Or are you saying they haven't examined the skeletons closely enough to determine they are bound skulls? How long have they been working on the site? Do you know anything about the dig? You seem to.

Or are you saying they know they aren't bound skulls but just are not going to bother with further research?

I say that some of the ones shown look like they aren't bound.

I know you say that, you've made that much quite clear. To you, the pictures in the youtube video don't look like bound skulls. But what you've said about the archeologists and their expertise/motives isn't...except that you think they are wrong.

reply to post by Phage


If it was me, I would initially state they were probably bound but would research the ones that looked a little more odd than the others. In order to do it right DNA testing would need to be done on all of them but testing is very expensive. A guy I know does DNA testing and also both kinds of dating at his business in Minnesota. He is not cheap by any means. He flies all over the world collecting samples for different archeologists and paleontologists. I guess he must not really like being stuck in the lab, his employees can run that. I like tax deductible trips myself

reply to post by rickymouse

If it was me, I would initially state they were probably bound but would research the ones that looked a little more odd than the others.

But you don't think they are bound. If it were you, why be so timid? You'd be doing what you accuse them of doing.

They said they are bound because they know they are bound. They know more about it than you. They closely examined them. The held them in their hands.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by rickymouse

 

You are looking at still pictures of skulls in a youtube video. The archeologists handled and examined the skulls. Maybe, just maybe, the obvious signs of skull binding would be apparent to them.

Why do you think archeologists would not be excited about the possibility of a new human species being found if that were the case? Did you hear about the "hobbits"? Pretty big news.

edit on 2/11/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

For some reason, I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation of how cranial binding increases the interior volume of a skull to almost double its normal volume. The skulls in Peru have an interior capacity that is almost 200% the interior volume of a normal human skull, and from the looks of it I'm willing to wager that these newly discovered skulls are enlarged to a similar capacity.

The skulls are not simply deformed, they are actually greatly enlarged.