Summations Only

I have magical crystal water for sale, only $1000/ounce, here's an image so you know I speak the truth: You probably want testimonials, too: How many bottles can I sign you up for?--Percy

Do you get some kind of masochistic delight at parading your ignorance around here? Of course elongated skulls exist. It's called head binding. Some cultures, for their own reasons, obviously thought it was appealing. Have you also not heard of neck rings and foot binding?--Percy

Sure I did. Congratulations on believing just about anything you read, I guess.What you have to do is compare what you read with what you know of reality. For instance, your article (Initial DNA analysis of Paracas elongated skull released — with incredible results) said:

quote:

---

However, while cranial deformation changes the shape of the skull, it does not alter its volume, weight, or other features that are characteristic of a regular human skull.

---

Notice that it says that head binding does not change the volume or weight of a skull. When you read that, did you ask yourself whether that's possible? Here's a picture of a woman who had head binding. Do you really believe her skull is still the original volume and weight? So if an article can't even accurately report things as simple as volume and weight, are you really going to believe them about things as incredible as having one parietal plate and mitochondrial DNA with unknown mutations indicating "a new human-like creature very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans"? Don't you think such a stunning discovery might get reported in the New York Times and Scientific American, instead of at Ancient Origins? And instead of by an author who chooses to write under a pen name? And who is evidently just repeating nonsense from another writer for Ancient Origins (Elongated Human Skulls Of Peru: Possible Evidence Of A Lost Human Species?).Come on, Al, wake up and stop being such a rube. Competing with all the actual facts are mountains of fictions and nonsense. You need to begin developing some ability to tell the difference.--Percy

Except that you can't name anywhere I was inaccurate. You said that I hadn't bothered to look at your link when I had. I looked at the headline and the image and saw an obvious example of head binding. I didn't actually read the nonsense in your link until you indicated you were still buying the nonsense hook, line and sinker. So I read it. It's nonsense. Anyone can put words on paper, I proved that earlier with my Magic Crystal Water example. Is your knowledge of the real world really so paltry that you can't tell what fits with what you know and what doesn't?So I ask you again. If a link can't even accurately report about simple things like weight and volume, are you actually going to believe it about parietal bones and mitochondrial DNA? Have you no ability to distinguish between sense and nonsense?--Percy

The 'globalists'? Really?Al, you're just making up stuff, now. Stick to the evidence. What evidence have they provided beyond putting words on paper? How do you know there's a single parietal bone? How do you know the mitochondrial DNA contains 'unknown mutations' that mean it's only distantly related to human beings? This makes sense to you? Get a clue, Al.--Percy

First it's photoshopped giant skeletons, then it's false claims of a previously unknown distant human cousin, and now it's the "globalists." You're all over the place. Do you have anything to say about actual fossils - you know, the topic?--Percy

We're all just people who demand evidence for what we believe, including new claims, especially unusual ones. You'll usually find a unanimity of opinion behind ideas supported by mountains of facts. People trained to only accept fact-based claims will immediately recognize when there is a lack of facts.So of course we agree where facts are involved. We know that the moon orbits the Earth, Paris is in France, Genghis Khan never met Caesar, eight-story tall people would have to have massively more robust skeletons, photos can easily be faked, and the discovery of new species isn't announced by flim-flam artists whose YouTube page is titled, "Ancient Lost Worlds and Hidden History." Basing beliefs upon evidence isn't rocket science, and it certainly isn't group-think.Looking into your elongated skull claims a little more I found this article: The Brien Foerster-Paracas Skull Fiasco Updated. Apparently the DNA sequencing was done by Melba Ketchum, the same "geneticist" (actually a veterinarian) who found Bigfoot's DNA a few years ago (see Bigfoot DNA Studies at Wikipedia).What's really incredible about this is that some people actually need it proved to them that some people just make stuff up. We encounter it everyday. No one with any sense accepts everything they read. So if you have a modicum of sense then apply some critical analysis to what you read. A discussion about "the globalists" belongs over at Coffee House, not here. You can discuss the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Elders of Zion at the same time.Do you have anything to say about fossil support for the theory of evolution?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Wordsmithing first para.

Could you take this to a thread where it would be on topic?--Percy

Whether people are trained or programmed, there is no better foundation than facts for understanding. If you're basing your beliefs on something besides facts than you'll be wrong over and over again, as you're demonstrating before our very eyes. I said "we." Our fact-based studies of the world in which we live have revealed facts telling us that the moon orbits the Earth and that Genghis Khan and Caesar's lifespans did not overlap. You're missing the point. I of course was not advocating the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, but if you're going to take someone's word for something, wouldn't it be better to trust a reputable scientist than someone with a reputation for fabrication? This is what happens when you get distracted by "the globalists" and silly math blunders: you lose your way in the discussion. As DrJones* already told you, no one has claimed the skulls are fabricated (it was the photo of the excavation of a giant human skeleton that was fabricated). In fact, it has been stated at least several times that the skulls are very real. What was actually said is that the claims of a single parietal bone and of mutations that distance the skulls from humans are fabricated. They were made up. Making things up is something that some people do and that you seem to be especially vulnerable to. I really can't believe I haven't received your order for Magic Crystal Water yet.--Percy

You seem to be working as hard as you can to misunderstand the point. The foundation of knowledge is facts. Whatever the knowledge, if the ultimate source isn't facts (whether you gathered them yourself or someone else did) then the knowledge is not reliable. I'm relying upon knowledge built upon a body of evidence that can be found in the published literature. The key point is that the knowledge is based upon evidence.If you're not using facts to decide what is true and what is not then it's just your personal opinion. And what is the source of this information? Given your arguments, we can presume this isn't based upon anything factual. You've got it exactly backwards. It is your guys, Juan Navarro and Brien Foerster and April Holloway (a pen name), who haven't provided "a look in." We know this because they haven't written any technical paper describing their evidence of a single parietal bone and significantly mutated DNA. All you have is an article at a flim-flam site making unsupported claims. When you find the technical paper describing the findings you let us know.True scientists are very open and always provide "a look in" by publishing their work in technical journals. A scientist's work is reviewed by his peers when they read his papers (there's an earlier peer review by a subset of peers prior to publication). You have the reading comprehension of a chipmunk. Everyone here says it's head binding. No one claimed a deformity or that the skulls were fabrications. You're misinterpreting Message 295 where AZPaul3 referred to them as deformities created in infants, and pointed out that the "scientist" making these bizarre claims runs a "paranormal tour" business. What credentials? You mean the veterinarian who supposedly does DNA analysis and then makes claims without publishing any data? You're veering off course again. I think the globalists have got in your head. You're imagining things again. Nobody argued that elongated heads don't exist. This has been pointed out to you countless times now. What is your problem? You're hopeless. I can only repeat that if you want to know something, you should seek out facts.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : More grammar.

It *is* your place to provide evidence. From the Forum Guidelines:

• Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

It shouldn't need to be explained why evidence is the foundation for what we believe is true about the real world. If you're not going to argue from evidence then you shouldn't be in a science thread.--Percy

I switched from moderating this thread to a regular participant some time ago. I guess if you persist in flouting the Forum Guidelines for a little longer that will force me to shift back to a moderator role (after withdrawing from participation for two days), but I'd really rather not do that.So just let me beg upon your integrity to follow the Forum Guidelines that you agreed to follow when you registered for EvC Forum. I think everyone would be happy to discuss actual evidence, but the "evidence" you've presented so far has already been considered and found to be obvious concoctions like fabricated images of giant skeletons and claims where the evidence is held secret. Real evidence differs from the kind of "evidence" you've been presenting in that it has actual tangible existence. If you have any tangible evidence, please present it.But first figure out if you're making the point you intend. For instance, if fossils of giant humans actually exist then we'd all have to accept that giant humans once roamed the Earth and begin work on how it fits into the human evolutionary bush, but it would only reinforce the main claim of this topic: Evolution. We have the fossils. We win.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix garbled grammar in 1st sentence of last para.

Hi Al,It's great that you're seeking evidence of the giant humans that you obviously believe once roamed the Earth, but your evidence is about the Statue of Liberty and the stone blocks of pyramids. This thread is about fossils. If you want to discuss evidence of giant humans, in this thread the evidence has to be fossils.--Percy

I think you've got a good handle on how to take what has captured Al's fascination and connect it to the topic, but Al doesn't. If you want to connect the necessary dots then the thread could be poised to take the turn toward woo that you seem to want, but you don't really expect Al to do this himself, do you? Or even follow along while you do it?--Percy

I can't find the message now, but wasn't an image of the excavation of a giant human skeleton part of Al's evidence for giant humans? This isn't the image that was presented, but it's the same general idea: Or am I misremembering?--Percy