Elongated Skulls of Paracas, Peru Possible Origins Are Amazing

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not a genetic feature. It is (weird) cultural practice.

No, he's talking about the Peruvian skulls having the same genetic markers as those found in graves in the Black Sea area, showing that the two populations were distantly related. Which he then extrapolates, badly, to say that Black Sea populations migrated to Peru, hence why the head binding is present. None of which follows.

 

[timothyu]

Why assume binding?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why assume binding?

Because we have no genetic evidence. And since we have evidence from across the world that shows cranial deformation with no markers for it being caused genetically and we also have evidence of it being down to other parts of the body ala feet binding, even to outright evidence of it occurring in twentieth century France, why shouldn't we assume cranial binding was a thing?

 

[timothyu]

why shouldn't we assume cranial binding was a thing?

Perhaps because that might open a whole can of worms and people prefer to be deluded so they don't have to face other possibilities

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps because that might open a whole can of worms and people prefer to be deluded so they don't have to face other possibilities

Why would it though? We don't need to assume cranial binding was a thing, because we can clearly see evidence of it happening. We have the art, we have the skulls, we have the evidence for it. It happened.

Historians know that it happened. And nothing terrible has happened because of it.

 

[timothyu]

We have the art, we have the skulls, we have the evidence for it

That's presuming there is only one assumption

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's presuming there is only one assumption

It's the one with actual evidence

 

[Hvizsgyak]

View attachment 370263

You really know how to interject good humor . I haven't heard about the Coneheads in years, now when I think about elongated skulls, the Coneheads are all that come to mind .

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Because we have no genetic evidence. And since we have evidence from across the world that shows cranial deformation with no markers for it being caused genetically and we also have evidence of it being down to other parts of the body ala feet binding, even to outright evidence of it occurring in twentieth century France, why shouldn't we assume cranial binding was a thing?

When you say no markers, do you mean the skull shows no signs of being manipulated artificially through binding? You still believe those types of skulls were created artificially through binding because people knew how to do that kind of stuff back then? So, you would rule out any chance of these people being extraterrestrial (I'm kidding, I just wanted to get a reaction from you ).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When you say no markers, do you mean the skull shows no signs of being manipulated artificially through binding? You still believe those types of skulls were created artificially through binding because people knew how to do that kind of stuff back then? So, you would rule out any chance of these people being extraterrestrial (I'm kidding, I just wanted to get a reaction from you ).

You'd have gotten a better reaction if you didn't include the just kidding bit. Because my only reaction to his is .

 

[timothyu]

It's the one with actual evidence

It's the one that fits the narrative.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's the one that fits the narrative.

'Narrative'...

 

[Hvizsgyak]

You'd have gotten a better reaction if you didn't include the just kidding bit. Because my only reaction to his is .

Sorry, I don't like to over provoke people so I let them know now beforehand that I'm joking. Tempers fly fast around here sometimes.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

It's the one that fits the narrative.

I think like you, I am suspicious about what is being told to us from the mainstream media. This Brien Foerster sounds like he is laying out his info before the rest of academia rips it to shreds. And yes, his point might be totally wrong but it is good to hear alternative theories too.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think like you, I am suspicious about what is being told to us from the mainstream media. This Brien Foerster sounds like he is laying out his info before the rest of academia rips it to shreds. And yes, his point might be totally wrong but it is good to hear alternative theories too.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with creating alternate theories... the only problem comes from when people say that there's concrete evidence for them, then when they're shown that's not the case, double-down on the others being either wrong, lying or just any combination.

Science, despite how others talk about it, thrives on current theories and ideas being overturned. But when someone comes along with something outlandish, that has no actual supporting evidence, and the person putting it forward does not accept that they even might be a bit wrong, then there's a problem.