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

Re: Coneheads

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.