Elongated skulls of Paracas Peru

[themiddleway]

If one carefully reads the above quote, Koonin uses the verb 'seems' several times which is not an absolute statement of fact. Furthermore, to cherry pick from the Internet, videos, writings for ones own agenda, is clearly being disingenuous.

 

Review of Koonin's work.

 

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/eugene-koonin-and-biological-big-bang.html

And so is cherry picking from fringe internet sources that are distorting a prelimanary statement about an ongoing test. Your exaggerating Koonin´s use of the word fact. (Dose the statement "absolute fact" have a place in scientific discource anyway?) Koonin is generalizing about his research to make it assesible to the wider academia and layperson. Most popular science i.e. Dawkins, Gould is collating "facts" that are the subject of interpretation and ongoing research, these are then spun into a narritive to suit the authors agenda. Scientists still opperate under a Zeitgeist, research is made normative by spinning it into a narrative. Where the layperson gets confused is assuming that these narratives represent a unfied collation of the research on a subject or represent the unified views of the wider scientific establishment.

Link for congenital hydrocephalus images.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=congenital+hydrocephalus+images&client=opera&hs=zl7&biw=1024&bih=670&tbm=isch&imgil=v6p5_gcFm0hbGM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRln1CFvF9tTcGWGZ_1MfcPNsSYPRKMaVhlO3Ea0F2ZNs_mmUB1rQ%253B300%253B228%253B1KdjMxf05E9FLM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.neuros.net%25252Fen%25252Fabout_hydrocephalus.php&source=iu&usg=__ge_cwh2jaDfQMbJm6FQSEM8E93I%3D&sa=X&ei=Ig4vU76MKoWWyAH5-YG4DQ&ved=0CD4Q9QEwCg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=v6p5_gcFm0hbGM%253A%3B1KdjMxf05E9FLM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.neuros.net%252Fes%252Fimages%252Fholoprosencefalia_alobar.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.neuros.net%252Fen%252Fabout_hydrocephalus.php%3B300%3B228

Craniosynostosis occurs in one in 2000 births according to wikipedia or the skull base institute reports one in every 4,200, nice to see the science is settled on that issue. The Paracas skulls are predominantly adults that exhibit a singular parietal plate at the rear of the skull. We are looking at possibly hundreds of adult skulls with a phenotype uncommen in homo sapiens. Evolutuionary scientists spend much time researching and debating over minutia in poorly preserved transitional fossils that they extrapolate to missing link status. Much of the bad press this recieves tarnishes an obviously worthy topic for research, rhetoric like "missing alien species" could easily be rationilized with " The Incidence of Craniosynostosis among Dolichocephalic Human Crania in Peru". Edited March 25, 2014 by themiddleway

[ralis]

LAURENCE A. MORAN is a professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto. His comments are not fringe. Your rant is nothing more than antiscience. Do you have any credentials or degrees in any scientific field of endeavor? I do.

Edited March 23, 2014 by ralis

[themiddleway]

I want to clarify my understanding and position on the Paracas skull topic, from memory..

 

Brien.Foerster has claimed to have taken three samples from three elongated skulls housed at a muesum in Paracas Peru to a geneticist for an analysis. This was done because the skulls exhibit phenotypical abnormalities not consistent with head binding, this includes the singular parietal plate. Brien.Foerster has kept the identity of the geneticist confidential but has released a statement that he claims was made by the geneticist doing the testing. The testing has not been finished.

 

I have chosen to believe all of the above.

 

As for the content in the preliminary statement made by the geneticist, I am undecided.

 

Brien.Foerster has a science diploma but given that this issue can only be properly resolved by genetic testing I have no issue with his credentials or lack of, I trust that he is capable of taken a proper sample which included molar teeth.

 

As to why Brien has kept the identity of the geneticist secret and to what extent this calls into question the validity of the testing I can only speculate. Is it uncommon for research or the identity of persons involved to be kept secret, at least untill such testing has been completed?

 

Even if the geneticists and testing proves to be credible and the subsequent results shows genomic anomalies, there will still be a long way to go before any concrete conclusions can be drawn.

 

My specaltive theory is that the Paracas skulls represent an archaic (extinct) human.

 

Thats it.

Edited March 23, 2014 by themiddleway

[Nungali]

The above video shows clear examples of unknown phenotypes, at 2:20 there is clear evidence of this. It's axiomatic to anyone with a basic understanding of anatomy. Please watch it before indulging in misleading attempts at trying to derail the topic

 

Why does that skull ( @ 2.20 ) have a two-tone look to it ..... note the white and the darker brown. It looks like many ancient 'skulls' that are studied today (in that respect) ;

 

[Nungali]

My speculative theory is that this follows a very similar pattern to other similar things ; the way the 'research' is set out, what happens when one follows the track of the references given, other works written and associated to the authors, connections to series of books on similar subjects (and going back earlier the books and connections get more wacky), an association with a company that offers tours of the areas and these tours are linked with other similar dodgy ones, eventually tied in with some wacky 'space religion' Nephalim / reptilian overlord idea.

 

I dont care how 'good' the 'science' is , in the past when I could be bothered to track this type of 'science' (by track I mean follow up the references, find the alleged papers and journals, read them and their references) , it all starts to fall apart - in the past I have done that and found no reference in a paper at all that was cited .... you post the results and they are conveniently ignored . Then the next story arises - pyramids in Russia .... or whatever ... carry on ....

 

These people are betting that most readers are not going to be bothered to follow up their references and links in detail. The people that want to believe this stuff (beats me why ? ) wont see that side of it.

 

Thats it.

[themiddleway]

Why does that skull ( @ 2.20 ) have a two-tone look to it ..... note the white and the darker brown. It looks like many ancient 'skulls' that are studied today (in that respect) ;

 

 

I have no idea about the two tones. But the skull at 2.20 clearly has one parietal plate. They are pre Incan and because of the aridity of the region skin and hair is still attached to some the skulls, though red hair dose not necessarily indicate ethnicity. I believe they have found infants skulls that show the same abnormality, I think at the very least its a mutation going back generations. Brien speculates that the Nazca people killed them off.

Edited March 24, 2014 by themiddleway

[themiddleway]

My speculative theory is that this follows a very similar pattern to other similar things ; the way the 'research' is set out, what happens when one follows the track of the references given, other works written and associated to the authors, connections to series of books on similar subjects (and going back earlier the books and connections get more wacky), an association with a company that offers tours of the areas and these tours are linked with other similar dodgy ones, eventually tied in with some wacky 'space religion' Nephalim / reptilian overlord idea.

 

I dont care how 'good' the 'science' is , in the past when I could be bothered to track this type of 'science' (by track I mean follow up the references, find the alleged papers and journals, read them and their references) , it all starts to fall apart - in the past I have done that and found no reference in a paper at all that was cited .... you post the results and they are conveniently ignored . Then the next story arises - pyramids in Russia .... or whatever ... carry on ....

 

These people are betting that most readers are not going to be bothered to follow up their references and links in detail. The people that want to believe this stuff (beats me why ? ) wont see that side of it.

 

Thats it.

 

I agree credulity is an issue here but it all stands and falls on whether they circumvent the peer review process, not on Brien´s business or connection to the alternative history crowd. Skeptics rightly keep asking for papers and journals but the research into the Paracas skulls has only just started- at least involving DNA testing - nothing has been submited to any journal because there are no results yet. The majority of the testing is being done at a undisclosed lab in the U.S.A. not connected with Melba.Ketchun.

There is a Peruvian archaeologist who is in charge of the research being done into the Paracas skulls, including the DNA testing, to get archaeological samples out of Peru you have to be registered with COARPE. Brien is really just publicizing it, perhaps captilizing on the hype but is it that different from R.Dawkins who´s anthropomorphizing of genetic biology is equally as misleading ? And more profitable I might add.

[themiddleway]

The stone building styles outlined in the video are also repeated in Ancient Egypt; early, very precise stonework done with stone tools, skill and patience (virtually incomprehensible to modern people) from an earlier age far surpasses later stonework when virtually all metal tools were used. In many cases we understand the technique used but not the .... 'viability' of the process.

 

 

 

 

Ancient (stone) and more modern (metal tool carving) block fitting processes are very different.

 

Could you elaborate or provide some info on the building techniques? The most plausible theory to date on how the ancient Egyptians built the great Pyramid is Jean-Pierre Houdin´s internal ramp but its still just a theory of how 2.3 million blocks were put into place and the site was leveled to within a fraction of an inch. Much of the problem has been the orthodox accounts have been woefully inadequate, which fuels alternative history.

[Nungali]

Well, all we can do is wait and see. If they are 'archaic humans' then they are quiet strange ... we have some pretty archaic skulls and remains here, nothing like that .... but they didnt do do head binding here so ... anyway, I'd bet it IS from head binding and when done at an early age it fuses the plates together.

 

A 'two tone skull' (as above) is a mock up skull made of found fragments with another media replacing the missing bits

[Nungali]

Could you elaborate or provide some info on the building techniques? The most plausible theory to date on how the ancient Egyptians built the great Pyramid is Jean-Pierre Houdin´s internal ramp but its still just a theory of how 2.3 million blocks were put into place and the site was leveled to within a fraction of an inch. Much of the problem has been the orthodox accounts have been woefully inadequate, which fuels alternative history.

 

Yes, agreed about the theories ... also the lack of detail from the people that built it seems curious with only partial techniques (but no overall ones) found so far. Yes the internal ramp theory does seem the best so far, yet Houdin's plan seems different to the one I am familiar with ; it has an initial steeper first ramp internally and then the ramp starts to twist around the inside. Also the method of moving the blocks up the ramp ; a cradle system where the block has 4 'wheel templates' (which were previously mistaken as a sled that a block was put on and dragged) attached to 4 of the blocks faces, turning the block into a type of thick axle of a wheel and if a rope is wound around that axle , pulling on the rope, as well as pulling the block up the ramp turns the axle and rolls the block up the ramp; this method greatly increases the angle of the ramp that can be used and decreases the number of people needed. Corners are the tricky bit - I have seen that demonstrated a few ways. I have a few books on it; mostly from the engineers perspectives or evidence based research. Its been a while ... I am thinking of a method that uses a straight internal ramp, in parts, that used the grand gallery. I am not sure if Houdin uses that idea?

 

Houdin's ideas have critics. I doubt just one plan was used .

 

However there is more to it that we will probably ever know ... simplistic (or overly fantastic) explanations are offered as we often seem to have trouble recognising the natural genius and persistence of ancient peoples ... perhaps because we have lost so much of that ?

 

Its all very fascinating, but I was actually referring in the post and pics above to the accuracy of fitting the blocks together. In many cases throughout the ancient world stone work was more accurate when stone tools were used than it was after the introduction of metal tools.

[ralis]

There is a scaling problem when it comes to these skulls. For further info. on scaling, Dr. Lewin's MIT lecture is excellent. I think I have the correct lecture here since it has been years ago that I watched it.

 

 

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-1/

[Brian]

I will watch tomorrow, ralis. Thank you!

[themiddleway]

There is a scaling problem when it comes to these skulls. For further info. on scaling, Dr. Lewin's MIT lecture is excellent. I think I have the correct lecture here since it has been years ago that I watched it.

 

 

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-1/

Thanks I will check it out. But inferring from the word scaling, do you mean the plausibility of such skulls being a 'natural' mutation vs the larger the animal is...'the less surface area it has relative to overall body mass and the harder it is for the creature to rid its body of excess heat' *Scientific American*

Which would make a temperature sensitive organ like a larger brain implausible?

 

Another problem I can see is birth, such large crania would require a wider pelvis, that might inhibit bipedalism see here http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/resources/clarifications/HumanBirth.html

 

Further, larger brain vs diet.

 

I don't know if any complete skeletons have been found but I will try and find out.

Edited March 25, 2014 by themiddleway

[themiddleway]

However there is more to it that we will probably ever know ... simplistic (or overly fantastic) explanations are offered as we often seem to have trouble recognising the natural genius and persistence of ancient peoples ... perhaps because we have lost so much of that ?

 

Its all very fascinating, but I was actually referring in the post and pics above to the accuracy of fitting the blocks together. In many cases throughout the ancient world stone work was more accurate when stone tools were used than it was after the introduction of metal tools.

I agree a complete reconstuction is impossible. But unless we apply some critical thinking of their motives( e.g. the great pyramid is a tomb for a despotic ruler, a very convientent fit) we will never make any progress. People like Christopher Dunn have pointed out that the construction techinques are not consistent with a slave work force, its too precise.

 

In regards to stone tools, what stone tools and methods were used ? The Cuzco wall is polygonal and the accuracy of the dressing is amazing. A watertight 2-D and 3-D fit can not be passed off with "they had more time on their hands".

Edited March 25, 2014 by themiddleway

[themiddleway]

Polygonal masonry

http://www.dry-stone.co.uk/Pages/Books/Articles/Polygonal/Polygonal.html

[themiddleway]

A very interesting read on polygonal masonry:

http://davidpratt.info/andes2.htm

 

 

"Jean-Pierre Protzen conducted experiments that convinced him that the trial-and-error method was the most likely method used for shaping stones."

Typical lazy approach because such sites do not conform to a strictly linear view of development.

 

See below:

 

"The welded rhyolite stones used at the Inca site of Ollantaytambo had a hardness of between 6 and 7 on the Mohs scale. Protzen does not mention performing experiments with that type of rock. Nor did he try to shape many-angled, interlocking stones. Nor did he experiment with multi-tonne blocks. A. Hyatt Verrill writes:

 

No sane man can believe that a twenty-ton stone was pecked here and there, dropped into position, hoisted out and trued and cut over and over again, until a perfect fit was obtained. Even if we can imagine such endless herculean labor being performed, it would have been impossible in many cases owing to the fact that the stones are locked or dovetailed together. Although some of the stones are fairly square or rectangular and with six faces, many are irregular in form, and some have as many as thirty-two angles. The only way in which such complex forms could have been fitted with such incredible accuracy was by cutting each block to extremely fine measurements, or by means of a template, a process which would indicate that these prehistoric people possessed a most thorough and advanced knowledge of engineering and the higher mathematics"

Edited March 25, 2014 by themiddleway

[themiddleway]

 

@2:40 the mind boggles.

Edited March 25, 2014 by themiddleway

[Nungali]

Its certainly a 'mystery'. In some cases it can be shown that pound and ground was used but in others, as you and the article say, it seems impossible.

 

Over the years most of my views have come to 'evidence based' as speculations are too loaded. However, as one interested in anthropology, I feel one cannot discount local traditions and stories .... the Easter Islanders were not taken seriously when they said their monoliths 'walked' in to their positions ... yet :

 

 

In some cases the details of walls are just too .... well ... it appears they were just showing off , no obvious reason to do what they did (eg. in your linked article; Lost Civilisations of the Andes , Fig 5.16 ), I am also curious about the 'bosses' that protrude from many of the flat surfaces of the stone (a common feature throughout different world-wide locations).

 

Softening of the stone is interesting. I read Joseph Davidovitt's book ... but meh ... some of it seems valid. Who knows? The Roman's made better cement than we can .

 

 

 

The trick would be in the delaying and setting agents. But every time there seems contra indications ; occasional chisel marks, pounding marks around joints, little mistakes that show techniques ... but then again you find a GIANT stone or a perfect configuration like in Fig. 5.16 that seems to be for no other reason than ; 'look how clever we are', or decorative (e.g. the small stones in Fig 5 .16; why? they appeared to have plenty of stone, why use those small ones , why go to all the trouble, in that one little section to cut fit and polish a number of stones when one could have done it, like in the rest of the wall?

 

Its a mystery.

 

Anyway, thanks for the great article, I will read it in greater detail later

[themiddleway]

That video on the Easter Island moai is classic but it depends on terraine, weight, height, man power etc

 

As for evidence based,I keep an open mind, or rather I have the luxury of being able to keep an open mind .

 

I think that machinists and engineers are some of the best people to study these sites because they are not restricted by trying to establish themselves in academia.The purported decuctive evidence that the "sarcophagus" in the Great Pyramid (featuring Aswan rose quartz granite and perfect rights angles) was machined is within the bounds of rationality. It may not be agreeable to the wider academia but its a conclusion based on a disinterested analysis by some engineers.

 

Of cource such speculation fuels all kinds of nonsense as well, "advanced civilisation" sells books, tours, talks,cults etc...but its still a valid hypothese, providing one unpacks the word `advanced`. Its well within the bounds of sense to suggest it, based on the genius of some megalithic construction.

 

I wonder sometimes how much the spirit of disinterested enquiry has been compromised under the zeitgest of strict linear development. Its irrefutable that all life on Earth has a common ancestor but some of our ancestors were way ahead of their time.

Edited March 26, 2014 by themiddleway

[Nungali]

 

 

 

[Andrei]

Very good read, I liked the conclusion:

 

http://davidpratt.info/ape1.htm#a0

 

Spoiler : evolution is a true fact, but ape evolved from man, not man from ape.

[ralis]

Very good read, I liked the conclusion: http://davidpratt.info/ape1.htm#a0 Spoiler : evolution is a true fact, but ape evolved from man, not man from ape.

 

Apes did not evolve from Homo Sapiens and that is a fact. The two species are related primates.

[themiddleway]

Very good read, I liked the conclusion:http://davidpratt.info/ape1.htm#a0Spoiler : evolution is a true fact, but ape evolved from man, not man from ape.

If ya gonna take aim at science don't do at the 99% of DNA we share with chimps...

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/06/5993/what-makes-us-human-studies-chimp-and-human-dna-may-tell-us

[gendao]

There seems to have been some highly-advanced (ET?) stonemason technology that got lost within the last several thousand years.. Because prior to that, many stone monuments, dolmens, megaliths, mounds and buildings were built all over the world! Perhaps by the remnants of some ancient (Atlantean?) root culture diaspora?

Edited March 27, 2014 by vortex

[Nungali]

Great pics. Wouldn't it be great to live in Ireland and check them out for a while.

 

But nothing in those pics suggests stone masonry or ET's to me . Its quiet simple to get a giant rock like that (which is 'unmasoned') poised on top of the little ones (well, simple compared to what would be involved in developing an alien culture, them travelling here and somehow 'doing it' with some type of 'stonemason' technique (even though none is evident ) ... but anyway ... yes, a relatively simple exercise for smart thinking 'primitive' people.

 

Anyone want to take a shot at it ?

 

 

(Some times I think it is US who are the dumb cavemen scratching our heads and looking stupidly and uncomprehending at ancient works .... especially when the solution is quiet obvious )