Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Coneheads

Expand Messages
  • Rick Osmon
    Hello Loopers!! Here s your copy of the e~newsletter for the week of 8 October 2007 In this issue: This Week s Show: Coneheads Op/Ed: Missed Opportunites Other
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 9, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
       
       
      Hello Loopers!!
       
      Here's your copy of the e~newsletter for the week of 8 October 2007
       
       
      In this issue:
       
      This Week's Show: Coneheads
       
      Op/Ed: Missed Opportunites
       
      Other news: Disappearing languages and cultures; obscure tools provide clues to transocianic migration
       
      Last week's show: Live from Roberts Centre
       
      Upcoming Shows
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
      This Week's Show: Coneheads
       
      This week I am pleased to welcome Randy Koppang to the show. Randy has compiled a great deal of research surrounding the odd, elongated skulls displaying what we moderns can only describe as "coneheads".
       
      You can read some of Randy's research and view images of the skulls HERE
       
       
      I hope you can all join in the discussion of this amazing evidence of a lost race. Who knows, maybe Dan Akroyd will join, too.
       
       
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
       
      Op/Ed: Missed Opportunites
       
      By Rick Osmon
       
      The ongoing drought in Florida has lowered the waters in the swamps there to the point (pun fully intended) that artifacts and ancient habitation sites previously hidden from view are revealed as never before. The academic and law enforcement institutions are warning people not to seek or gather these relics under penalty of law. While I fully support the idea of preserving the cultural heritage represented by these and by any such artifacts, there are a few facts being overlooked and a great opportunity being ignored.
       
      Many of the relics revealed by this drought have been where they now lie for up to 15,000 years and have no direct link to the current tribes, but rather were the result of occupation be a much earlier group or, perhaps, several groups. The Seminoles, who are the only recognized major tribe in central and south Florida, have only lived there for some two to three hundred years, having been driven from south Georgia and extreme northern Florida at that time. Many of the upper layer relics could easily be of Carib or even Yucatan origin. Lower layers were, perhaps, deposited by peoples from even much further places and much earlier times, and the only way to test that hypothesis is to gather and analyze both those relics and the sites where they are found. Now, with the waters so receded, is the time to perform that gathering and cataloging while it is comparatively easy and economic to do so. Analysis can come later with the funding cycle to support it. The latter can often take several years to complete in itself.
       
      When wildfires stripped and blackened the turf at the Little Bighorn National Battlefield, the powers that be invited anyone with a metal detector to bring it, layed out grids, and handed out those orange survey flags by the thousands. The result was a comprehensive picture of how the Battle of the Little Bighorn pregressed. That picture could not be discerned from the witness accounts that were available, at least, certainly not to the degree that the bullets and cartridge casings provided. Forensic ballistics science was able to determine which bullets were fired from where and a definitive map of fields of fire was assembled. The amount of information acquired was unprecedented and it was possible almost soley due to the participation of those volunteers.
       
      Where I think the academia of Florida is missing the boat (I can't pass up a good pun) is that there are tens of thousands of retirees in nearby cities with both the time and the means (and cognitive ability) to act as volunteers in surveying, gathering, and documenting these numerous sites and the potential for finding tens of thousands of new objects and sites to study. If nothing else, just give these folks access to the swamps and to an unlimited supply of orange survey flags to plant next to any exposed relics. Even after the rains, these markers would allow easier identification of sites and possibly of patterns of habitation or other ancient activity. In other words, use the currently available and willing human resources to locate the evidence of ancient human activity, then analyze the data as time and money allow. If you, the academic community of Florida, debate this too long, the rains will return and you will have deliberately avoided opportunity on an historic and shameful scale.
       
       
      Have something you want to get off your chest? Submit letters to oz@...
       
      -----------------------------------------------
      Other News:
       
      * A language dies every two weeks, researchers 
      say
      :
      The demise of each obscure language in some corner
      of the world snuffs out centuries of tradition,
      culture and thinking.

      http://www.world-science.net/othernews/070917_languages.htm
       
       
       
       
      ---------------------------------------------
       
      Last week's show: Live from Roberts Centre
       
       
      Last week's show was podcast live from Roberts Centre in Wilmington, Ohio. It was a rare pleasure for me to to sit and chat in person with the likes of Hoolie De Caire, Glenn Devlamnick, Lee Pennington, Jay Wakefield, Myron Payne, William and Gloria Smith, and many others. I even coerced my betrother, Pat, into saying "Hi" on the air. You can listen HERE
      ----------------------------------------------
       
      Upcoming Shows
       
       
      Brian Kannard, Live from Paris  (Special day and time, Saturday 13 October, 7PM eastern)
       
       
      ====================================================================================================
       
      If at any time you no longer wish to receive these weekly reminders, simply reply to this email and I will reluctantly and gently remove you from the list.
       
      Did someone forward this newsletter to you and you'd like to recieve it regularly? Subscribe at
       
      Your host
      Rick Osmon, aka Oz
       
      Call in during show (646) 652-2720
       
      IM to "oopaloopacafe" on Yahoo Messenger or Windows Live messenger, during show
       
      Mobile (not during show, please) (812) 259-1102
       
    • bigalemc2
      Okay - Where to start . . . I agree in principle with Randy Koppang about the dolichocephalic skulls being evidence of another race. In doing so, I disagree
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 12, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Okay - Where to start . . .

        I agree in principle with Randy Koppang about the dolichocephalic skulls being evidence of another race.  In doing so, I disagree with David Hatcher Childress - and David knows I disagree with him.  These skull, IMVHO, could not be formed by headboarding.  My understanding of the application of forces, put together with what I believe is sound logic, and also with an engineer's eye for structure, all these tell me that headboarding would produce a skull morphology considerably different to the skulls I have seen in photographs taken in Ica and Lima and in Mexico.  (I traveled with a group to Peru, with one of my main aims to see the skulls in Ica, but our traveling schedule got us into Ica too late to visit the Museum - and too late on our trip to stay till morning.  So, I have not seen them in person - YET.)

        As I read Randy Koppang's treatise, I was both impressed and disappointed. 

        I was impressed because he actually saw beyond just the individual and asserts that it was a race, a real live (at the time) other member of the great ape family.  Although that evidence was right in front of me, I never made that leap.

        I was also impressed that Randy also shows how widespread the dolichocephalic skulls are, and how many were found in some places.  I had only known about a hand full, maybe two had fulls, of them.

        I was impressed that Randy was able to compile such a large bibliography regarding these skulls and their provenances.  Those earlier researchers are gold to me.

        I was impressed that there were found examples of foetuses with dolichocephalic skulls.  If true, this would - in and of itself - be incontrovertible proof that head binding was not the cause of the skulls' odd proportions.

        Why was I disappointed?

        IMHO, the only resolution for the artificial/natural argument is to do anatomical, DNA and microscopic examinations of the skulls and compare the results to humans - and apes, too, for that matter.

        I am disappointed because I see the issue as being one of science, whereas Koppang argues in historical and archaeological terms.   While those arguments can be made to persuade toward the opening up of the issue for study, they can never resolve the issue conclusively.

        (Now you may say, "But archaeology IS a science!"  I actually have come to the conclusion that archaeology is history that uses some scientific method to collect data, then uses historical paradigms to interpret the data, thus rendering the science to a supporting role.   In other words, I think archaeology adds an artificial layer of "spin" on what should be allowed to speak for itself, thus muddying the waters of understanding for everyone.)

        It seems to be a very straightforward to do DNA sampling on the skulls, for a variety of reasons:
        1. The DNA might show a difference in the number of chromosomes from humans, just as apes do.
        2. The DNA might show some anomalous gene sequences.  This might put them outside known human variations.
        3. The DNA might show that the ones in Malta, Iraq, Egypt, Peru and Mexico are related genetically.  If they are due to head binding (which would have been done on essentially random people, DNA-wise), the chances of them being related genetically is basically zero.
        Similarly, anatomical study should include these:
        1. Comparison with KNOWN headboarding specimens.  I believe that the methods of head flattening (see for example A Chinook Woman Head Binding Her Child ) can only serve to diminish the volume in the cranial vault.
        2. Comparison of the cranial suturing on dolichocephalic skulls with "normal" human skulls.  In looking at photos, the suture patterns look to me to be very different from normal skulls - though I could be mistaken on this.  (I don't want to be right about any of this; I just want to know the truth.  If I am mistaken, then my logic and perceptions were not functioning well on this issue, and I can live with that - I will have learned something new, after all!)
      • Rick Osmon
        Dear Einstein derivative, I appreciate the response. Shall we turn it into a dialog? Shall I include your response in the Op/Ed section of the Oopa Loopa Cafe
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 13, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Einstein derivative,

          I appreciate the response. Shall we turn it into a dialog? Shall I
          include your response in the Op/Ed section of the Oopa Loopa Cafe
          newsletter? I won't do that without your permission.

          One of the aspects we skipped in the interview due to time constraints
          was the fact that these skulls display significantly different
          dentition than "normal" humans. And it's not just the shape of the
          teeth, it's also the number of teeth in some skulls.

          The area we were just beginning to explore when time ran out for the
          segment was the idea of royal crowns and how that tradition came to be
          manifest throughout monarchies. My reasoning of the origin of crowns
          was that in the latitudes of Sumeria and Malta, and in the higher
          altitudes of Peru, even a normal person can lose too much heat through
          the head without a hat of some kind. A person with that much more
          cranial surface would need that much more insulation.

          I intend to get Randy back on the show at some future date and you
          would be welcome to participate.

          By the way, I really like your analysis of archeology vs history vs
          science. Very aptly put.

          Oz





          --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
          <puppet@...> wrote:
          >
          > Okay - Where to start . . .
          >
          > I agree in principle with Randy Koppang about the dolichocephalic skulls
          > being evidence of another race. In doing so, I disagree with David
          > Hatcher Childress - and David knows I disagree with him. These skull,
          > IMVHO, could not be formed by headboarding. My understanding of the
          > application of forces, put together with what I believe is sound logic,
          > and also with an engineer's eye for structure, all these tell me that
          > headboarding would produce a skull morphology considerably different to
          > the skulls I have seen in photographs taken in Ica and Lima and in
          > Mexico. (I traveled with a group to Peru, with one of my main aims to
          > see the skulls in Ica, but our traveling schedule got us into Ica too
          > late to visit the Museum - and too late on our trip to stay till
          > morning. So, I have not seen them in person - YET.)
          >
          > As I read Randy Koppang's treatise, I was both impressed and
          > disappointed.
          >
          > I was impressed because he actually saw beyond just the individual and
          > asserts that it was a race, a real live (at the time) other member of
          > the great ape family. Although that evidence was right in front of me,
          > I never made that leap.
          >
          > I was also impressed that Randy also shows how widespread the
          > dolichocephalic skulls are, and how many were found in some places. I
          > had only known about a hand full, maybe two had fulls, of them.
          >
          > I was impressed that Randy was able to compile such a large bibliography
          > regarding these skulls and their provenances. Those earlier researchers
          > are gold to me.
          >
          > I was impressed that there were found examples of foetuses with
          > dolichocephalic skulls. If true, this would - in and of itself - be
          > incontrovertible proof that head binding was not the cause of the
          > skulls' odd proportions.
          >
          > Why was I disappointed?
          >
          > IMHO, the only resolution for the artificial/natural argument is to do
          > anatomical, DNA and microscopic examinations of the skulls and compare
          > the results to humans - and apes, too, for that matter.
          >
          > I am disappointed because I see the issue as being one of science,
          > whereas Koppang argues in historical and archaeological terms. While
          > those arguments can be made to persuade toward the opening up of the
          > issue for study, they can never resolve the issue conclusively.
          >
          > (Now you may say, "But archaeology IS a science!" I actually have come
          > to the conclusion that archaeology is history that uses some scientific
          > method to collect data, then uses historical paradigms to interpret the
          > data, thus rendering the science to a supporting role. In other words,
          > I think archaeology adds an artificial layer of "spin" on what should be
          > allowed to speak for itself, thus muddying the waters of understanding
          > for everyone.)
          >
          > It seems to be a very straightforward to do DNA sampling on the skulls,
          > for a variety of reasons:
          >
          > 1. The DNA might show a difference in the number of chromosomes from
          > humans, just as apes do.
          > 2. The DNA might show some anomalous gene sequences. This might put
          > them outside known human variations.
          >
          > 3. The DNA might show that the ones in Malta, Iraq, Egypt, Peru and
          > Mexico are related genetically. If they are due to head binding (which
          > would have been done on essentially random people, DNA-wise), the
          > chances of them being related genetically is basically zero.
          >
          > Similarly, anatomical study should include these:
          >
          > 1. Comparison with KNOWN headboarding specimens. I believe that the
          > methods of head flattening (see for example A Chinook Woman Head Binding
          > Her Child
          >
          <http://content.lib.washington.edu/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/loc&CI\
          > SOPTR=2121&DMDIM=500&DMDIMW=600&DMDIMH=600> ) can only serve to
          > diminish the volume in the cranial vault.
          > 2. Comparison of the cranial suturing on dolichocephalic skulls with
          > "normal" human skulls. In looking at photos, the suture patterns look
          > to me to be very different from normal skulls - though I could be
          > mistaken on this. (I don't want to be right about any of this; I just
          > want to know the truth. If I am mistaken, then my logic and perceptions
          > were not functioning well on this issue, and I can live with that - I
          > will have learned something new, after all!)
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.