10333Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: New host Digging for the Truth : Chachapoyas ...
- Sep 10, 2007Steve,
That theory has always bothered be too. We could be
looking at a much different cause than the old craddle
I just wanted to throw out what had been previous
explanations to better understand the history of the
problem and the fact that it was observed-with some
regularity-in the Ohio River Valley.
Do you have any theories or historic analysis of the
Good to hear from you and hope you are well.
I wasn't a big fan of Josh's either but I got used to
him after a while-He doid cover some pretty
interesting material. I'll have my fingers crossed
that the new guy ups his game.
--- bigalemc2 <sgtti@...> wrote:
> Charles -____________________________________________________________________________________
> Yeah, the new guy seemed pretty green around the
> gills. I didn't stick
> around long.
> I wasn't a huge fan of Josh's, either, though. Just
> my taste, probably.
> .. .. .. Webb's idea makes no sense: What woman
> would strap their infant
> so tightly? And it doesn't consider that the
> baby''s neck gets strong
> enough long before any set could happen to the
> And people who think cradle boarding can account for
> the INCREASED size
> of the cranial cavity doesn't know that squeezing
> one diameter of a
> spherical object doesn't increase the interior
> volume, but DEcreases it.
> So, the dolicocephalic skulls - with volumes up to
> 2500cc and even
> larger (vs 1350cc for a present day cranium) - are
> evidence that
> something ELSE was going on. Not only that, but the
> circumference of them is very close to the same
> circumference as
> 'normal' human skulls. So, why isn't that
> circumference smaller?
> . . . Steve Garcia
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>