Archeologists Unearth Alien-Like Skulls In A Mexico Cemetery

reply to post by TWILITE22

Not only imo is the volume off but I would think that there would be more physical evidence on the bone itself of binding,as in the sides of the skull looks too smooth and natural.

You measured the volume? How did you do that?
Yet another opinion from someone who has seen a picture of a skull.
Maybe if you actually held one in your hand and examined it closely you might see some of it. But probably not, your confirmation bias may be too powerful.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Try this.
The head is turned slightly to the right.

aahhhh now I see it, also by looking at where the top of the manible is attached to the skull I can now see which bones have moved where
wow, that looks like it was painful to have your skull mashed like that!

reply to post by Tardacus

that looks like it was painful to have your skull mashed like that!

Not necessarily. It's a gradual process. The procedure was done during childhood while the skull is growing. Uncomfortable though, definitely.

Originally posted by TWILITE22

Originally posted by rickymouse
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?

Yeah can you imagine them announcing they found alien skulls?never going to happen.
But I can imagine the whispers among some of them whether these are natural skull bindings.I'm sure someone has asked privately of course
Not only imo is the volume off but I would think that there would be more physical evidence on the bone itself of binding,as in the sides of the skull looks too smooth and natural.

I also wanted to add that even if it is binding as children they would have had to wear these binding contraptions until they stopped growing because the skull would try to go back to it;s natural shape otherwise.

edit on 12-2-2013 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)

Google is your friend.

wiki.bme.com...

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Try this.
The head is turned slightly to the right.

aahhhh now I see it, also by looking at where the top of the manible is attached to the skull I can now see which bones have moved where

wow, that looks like it was painful to have your skull mashed like that!

Took me a while to see what you were seeing, but I did. Just mistaken perspective.

reply to post by shauny


The slits for the eyes and the mouth where the bone overlaps almost on itself is the most interesting to me.....I am by no means an expert, just what I see...

Great find!! S&F......Unfortunately we will never know, I am sure of that!

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

You can't see the eye sockets.

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
Unfortunately we will never know, I am sure of that!

So am I.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TWILITE22

 

Not only imo is the volume off but I would think that there would be more physical evidence on the bone itself of binding,as in the sides of the skull looks too smooth and natural.

You measured the volume? How did you do that?
Yet another opinion from someone who has seen a picture of a skull.
Maybe if you actually held one in your hand and examined it closely you might see some of it. But probably not, your confirmation bias may be too powerful.

edit on 2/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

just giving my opinion as it stands none of us has actual evidence either way,but then again I didn't jump down your throat for your OPINION!!
must be great being you...

reply to post by TWILITE22

Opinions are fine. Especially when they are based on facts.
What fact indicates the volume is too great?
What fact shows there is no indication of binding?

It is obvious to me that the reason this thread has gone on and on with arguments is that the eye socket which is hidden is being mistaken to be the slit on the side of the skull.

It is not an alien, as much as all of us would like that to be true. The diagram finally posted 3 pages down confirms this.

Thank you to visual diagram creator. At first look I about crapped because of what appears to be a slanted pinched eye socket on an elongated skull. This is not the case. The eye socket is hidden.

Cheers to all

Originally posted by WormwoodSquirm
At first look I about crapped because of what appears to be a slanted pinched eye socket on an elongated skull. This is not the case.

Emergency averted. :-)

reply to post by rickymouse


As you can see here that there were several ways of doing it. You can also see there were different variations of the deformation. Three Different Styles from the Inca I believe. Here are many different variations of it to look at (some fake) and the nasal bone and point is visible on several.

great find, Op.

"Archeologists have unearthed what looks like a cone-shaped alien skull from 1,000 years ago in Mexico. The skull, which dates from 945 A.D. to 1308 A.D., was discovered accidentally while digging an irrigation system in the northwest state of Sonora in Mexico. Cristina Garcia Moreno, who worked on the project with Arizona State University, explained that 13 of the 25 skulls found in the Hispanic cemetery had these deformed heads."


One question; If they were digging an irrigation ditch, why would they not dig around the cemetery? Instead they dug through the cemetery and found this... I'm not expert on irrigation but that just puzzles me.

none the less, this is still an awesome find!
S&F

reply to post by slapjacks



THEY ONLY MOVED THE HEADSTONES!!!

Have u watched the mermaid is real on animal planet? That is awesome!

Already discussed on other threads. Closing duplicate thread.

Please add comments to the ORIGINAL thread on this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...