Thanks Josh....with a few strokes of your keyboard...youve destroyed my world view of Giants, Demons, and UFOs...Im not sure if I should laugh or cry.
Well, Domenic, Looks like we've made ourselves unlikely allies. You can post your skulls, bones, and dental records on my thread "Tabloid Special" any day, buddy. The nephilim bones are out there....I just know they are! Theres something going on on mars too...and it aint the rover!
As for the skulls, there's nothing special there either. Cultures have been head binding for thousands of years. Here just click on this SEARCH. Nothing but human intervention on growth to change appearances...
The drawing of skulls a and b; the seam running across the top is not a drawing of a human skull. On a human skull that seam goes from front to back on all humans. The picture of the THING with two rows od teeth prove this scripture is true: Genesis 4 "The Nephilim proved to be in the earth in those days and after that, when the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men and bore sons to them." There are other scriptures that prove there were also giants after the flood. The first sever kings after the flood were giants. These came through the seed of Ham. Josh, I know nothing is going to change the course of your thinking. You believe you are correct. When you stand before Jesus you will have to bow to the truth.
So your telling me that two of the drawings in the diagram are not human, and the others are???? That's what your telling me? Could you please provide your medical credentials here? Perhaps a doctorate of some kind? Because my information is coming from specialists, and if you maintain such erroneous statements please feel free to present your credentials... So it is your stance that Gen 4 proves that the person in the picture I posted is from a blood line of demons? That's what you are saying? You are saying that the picture I posted with the person having two rows of teeth is proof of the Nephilim before the flood????? I'm not even going to say anything further on that. If you can't see your errors, I don't know what to say to you... I don't have to believe anything, I didn't have to post what I believed, the doctors and science speaks for itself. Wow, what arrogance...
And what name would this specialists be know as? or is it just one more of the things you pull out of the air? and never back up...and no, it's not up to me...it is your specialists, not mine.
The key issue I understand on the Peru skulls is that the bone plate is single while human skuls have 2 plates, this is unrefutable. Also the volume of the skulls is reported to be 25% more, the skull binding does not add volume ?? How do you respond to these aspects
Oh you know, the doctors and SPECIALISTS who report and write on the subjects that are excepted in the medical world that are posted in Wikipedia of which I quoted, that's all...
I'm really not sure why I have to do the research for you. One would think since you have latched onto a theory so strongly as you have you would have made sure to study any possibility it could be wrong, but clearly you never did. Brain capacity varies in the world, and really, should it be that much of a surprise that there would be variation?; So volume of a skull is proof of DNA outside the human race? I think not... Now how about those sutures? Well, here you go, SOURCE; "In at least one skull possibly more (hows that for clarity?) the lack of a “parietal suture†is mentioned, partially it seems, to prove how different these skulls are from human baseline. Indeed, a missing piece of anatomy would be an incredible piece of evidence. Even more, the hybrid skull enthusiasts are perfectly correct that some, and I would venture that every single one of these skulls have no parietal suture. In fact, neither do you or I. Because there is no such thing as a parietal suture. Take a good look. This is a very elementary mistake, so much so that it’s a shock no one else has picked up on it yet. It’s such a basic mistake, that one of my friends and I, who are perfectly inept in the area of human anatomy, picked it up as soon as we started examining the claims. That’s an incredibly sad state of affairs indeed. But even if the skull(s) lack the SAGITTAL SUTURE (which connects the two parietal plates and is likely the one the Peruvian team is talking about) there are some good explanations as to why and how this suture could be missing. First, of course is outright misrepresentation. Intentional or otherwise. Many of the elongated skulls do have the sagittal suture, but due to severe deformity, it is not where it ought to be. It seems that there are some people photographing the skull from an angle that pretty much omits the area that the suture appears on the elongated skull. Emphasis added. “There are few photographs that show the top of the Paracas skulls, but it is obvious that the frontal bone (the bone behind our foreheads) is stretched enormously; it is also evident that the sagittal suture (between the two parietal bones) begins very high up on the skull on those few photographs that show this element.†And even if there are skulls that were legitimately missing a suture, that too is easily explained. Due to the practice of headbinding, “missing†sutures are not: “entitled to be considered natural productions; if the evidence to prove their artificial origin is allowed due weight, the partial or total obliteration of the sutures in all those skulls which I examined must be regarded as so many proofs of the application of compression in infancy…†Further, head binding to make heads longer could quite possibly fuse the sagittal suture, turning it to bone. That process is called “ossificationâ€. It also affects brain growth as well. “Premature closure of the sagittal suture, the most common form of craniosynostosis, causes elongation of the skull in the anteroposterior direction.†( McCance, P. 573) “Sutures can calcify and turn to bone with age.†McCance, P. 1346) “Some sutures, although present during childhood, are replaced by bone in the adult. Such a suture is called a synostosis (sin’-is-TO-sis; os- = bone), or bony joint — a joint in which there is a complete fusion of bone across the suture line. An example is the frontal suture between the left and right sides of the frontal bone that begins to fuse during infancy.†(Torrora, P 242) “fused sutures act as barriers to the brain’s normal growth, forcing the brain to expand in abnormal directions and thus creating a visible skull deformity. He observed that, acting as the underlying and expanding matrix of the skull, the brain and its development and growth directly and strongly affect skull growth and shape. He noted that when a suture is synostosed, the rapid force of brain growth is restrained and altered because the brain cannot expand in the direction of the synostosed suture. The brain and the skull shapes are thus forced in dimensions perpendicular to the fused suture as a consequence of a compensatory growth along the adjacent open sutures. This theory is still commonly accepted today†(Ridgeway, P 362) This Ridgeway article does go on to describe a variety of skull deformities including triangular shaped and long heads as well as environmental and genetic factors involved with the deformity. There are even genes that are known to cause certain deformities, though none of them are as extreme as the Peruvian examples. Interestingly, longer heads seem to involve fused sagittal sutures, though again, not as extreme as the Peruvian skulls. Given that the Peruvian elongation was intentional, the process of becoming longer may differ from that which was discussed in the article, but my suspicion is that it would only serve to make the elongation more uniform as compared to a natural deformity. With the head binding potentially causing the suture to become fused, the brain would be forced to develop and grow in an irregular manner and in unusual directions. It is my hypothesis that this could account for the extra brain volume mentioned by those touting these as any sort of hybrid skull. The bound head’s brain would be unable to grow in the usual directions, and thus forced to expand in unusual directions, making parts of the skull bigger than normal. To be certain, an expert opinion would be needed. Essentially, everything about these skulls is within normal human parameters, especially once the effects of skull binding are considered. There is not anything going on with the skulls that would require them to be alien hybrids, nephilim or anything else. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise does not have their facts straight or is selling something, though there may be other options available. - See more at: http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/another-bone-to-pick-with-peruvian-nephilimalien-hybrids/#sthash.eko6gVf0.dpuf"
I have posted images and descriptions from medical journals, and all you can say is the top two aren't human, and that Gen 4 proves that???? I'm still at a loss for words on that, so let's go to a differn't medical website; ITS RIGHT HERE, click on it and learn about Scaphociephaly and deformities that can cause different suture admoralities, as well as genetics and external influences that can cause sutures to fuse. That page is from a Pediatrics website, and here are the credentials of the writer of the article, "By Linda S. Nield, MD and Deepak M. Kamat, MD, PhD". IDK about anyone else here, but I tend to believe the MD, PHD...
Here is a fact: Satan runs this system. Who he wants he give power to. These are the Tares that Jesus warned us about. They will do anything to hide the fact that is was Satan who started the death of the human family by injected a seed that is not 100% human...and yes, may are experts in this and that...like their father Satan, they are also expert liars. Those who tell the truth tell it. They will be there when the Tares stand before God Jehovah.
It's tough though right? PHD / MD are indoctrinated into Darwinian notions. Raw science, yes I would agree, we can trust them. Basic mechanics, physics, chemistry, etc Questions about authenticating the Bible a la flood / nephilim / genetics / anthropology / biology? No trust. 'though being wise, they became fools'
Here are a few thoughts that I learned quite a while back, while reading about Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize recognized Physical Theorist. I believe we all need to use these methods when gathering information. “I don’t know what’s the matter with people: they don’t learn by understanding; they learn by some other way — by rote, or something. Their knowledge is so fragile! . . . this kind of fragility is, in fact, fairly common, even with more learned people.†- Richard P. Feynman “These books always simplify things so the world will be more like they want it to be:†- Richard Feynman “Until we see how many dimensions of behavior even a one-celled animal has, we won’t be able to fully understand the behavior of more complicated animals.†- Richard P. Feynman “Knowing merely the name of something is the same as not knowing anything at all about it;†- Richard P. Feynman “During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas— which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn’t work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked— or very little of it did. But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFOs, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.†- Richard P. Feynman; "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" (p. 338). “So we really ought to look into theories that don’t work, and science that isn’t science.†- “we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation.†(p. 340). “For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid— not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked— to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can— if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong— to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.†- Richard P. Feynman; "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" (p. 341).
Feynman called the other type as “Cargo Cult Scienceâ€, and gives a good example of where it comes from.