Dubstepforum.com

fretn wrote:

curse wrote:Out of interest, what makes Klaus Donas any more credible than conventional sources on human history? For people that seem sceptical on all information you get, you are swallowing up his claims pretty easily.

this is what i'm talking about.
I don't understand why regular archeology is not enough, come on I mean "is this also a conspiracy"?
Why should this conspiracy even exist?

if that is your belief then you definitely aren't ready to accept things as many see that they are..

People are kept from the truth to keep us from our true potential and under control....understanding the exact aims of the illuminati is difficult but there can be no doubt it is happening....not seeing this i guess means you haven't looked into it or maybe don't want to imho...

if you don't believe in the illuminati then well.....do you believe in the knights templar or freemasonry at all?

y'all ****** need to stop smoking son

i don't drink or smoke and treat my body with respect..

i even don't indulge in the worst drug...tv

i am more sober than anyone here thanks

deepfiend wrote:y'all ****** need to stop smoking son

most of the biggest idiots or bastards i've met in this life didn't smoke

curse wrote:Out of interest, what makes Klaus Donas any more credible than conventional sources on human history? For people that seem sceptical on all information you get, you are swallowing up his claims pretty easily.

klaus donas by himself means nothing
klaus donas' discoveries are there since a long time, nobody denies their existence.
the only debates are:
1. how you explain them in the historical context we've been taught?
well, official explanations suffer from down syndrome, that proves they can't even invent something to fit in properly, and that's because it's impossible, not because other scientists are morons or don't have resources.
did you read any acceptable explanation for the questions asked only in this thread? or can you think of any? do you have ANY reason to think those discoveries fit in our official history?
2. why very few people know about these, same as about many other things that should be of huge global interest?
if you still need someone else to convince you about the answer i don't think i have the nerves to help now. you should have already enough to think about and to drive you to the correct conclusion

curse wrote:Out of interest, what makes Klaus Donas any more credible than conventional sources on human history? For people that seem sceptical on all information you get, you are swallowing up his claims pretty easily.

so his finds mean nothing? christ, even when the facts are staring you in the face people have issues with info other than the norm

fretn wrote:

curse wrote:Out of interest, what makes Klaus Donas any more credible than conventional sources on human history? For people that seem sceptical on all information you get, you are swallowing up his claims pretty easily.

this is what i'm talking about.
I don't understand why regular archeology is not enough, come on I mean "is this also a conspiracy"?
Why should this conspiracy even exist?

this isn't a conspiracy, i think your the first to call this one
regular archaeology is fine, it just misses out on a lot evidently, i honestly can't see what's so difficult about this to grasp

and i'm still waiting for you to pick apart his finds
if he's so full of shit, why don't you say why he's so full of shit rather than just say it's a conspiracy, don't believe it? lulz

1. The skulls that are published are just the result of misforming the skull on purpose.
Let's take this example:

These skulls have been found in Peru & Mexico and were part of the heritage of Mayans, Aztects & Inca's.
In some occassions it was normal for people to break the skull of their newborn children, and then wrapping it in thight clothes so that the skull would deform to symbolize animals or gods, which gives you these kinds of skull which seem weird, but are in fact all man made.
as the bones of children are very weak (fontanelle), you can make it grow in almost every kind you want.

+ the guy always claims that other experts or doctors claim that this is impossible, but i want names, making statements without sources is not credible.
+ why doesn't he do a dna check then, or an age dating?

2. What's his point with the blacklight, some gems or semi-gems just have to ability to glow in the dark... it's just coincidence that when they shine with a blacklight on them they light up.

3. what is this luddite, i can't find any info on it...

fretn wrote:In some occassions it was normal for people to break the skull of their newborn children, and then wrapping it in thight clothes so that the skull would deform to symbolize animals or gods, which gives you these kinds of skull which seem weird, but are in fact all man made.
as the bones of children are very weak (fontanelle), you can make it grow in almost every kind you want.

except none of those skulls have the three plates at the top as we have as homo sapiens, therefore they are not homo sapiens
so your saying that childrens skulls were used for this? how the fuck can a childs skull be bigger than an adults?

fretn wrote:making statements without sources is not credible.

where's your source lol

fretn wrote:+ why doesn't he do a dna check then, or an age dating?

he's done age dating on some things, do you know how expensive that is as well as dna testing?? he gets fuck all funding, how is he expected to pay for all of that?

fretn wrote:2. What's his point with the blacklight, some gems or semi-gems just have to ability to glow in the dark... it's just coincidence that when they shine with a blacklight on them they light up.

what's your point with the black light? hows it a coincidence? have you ever seen any other artefacts that do that?

fretn wrote:3. what is this luddite, i can't find any info on it...

can't find any info either, maybe he's translating it wrong or spelling complicated

again, amazing that cos you have a few issues over some minor points it eclipses all the other information
i can't be fucked man, really

fretn wrote:1. The skulls that are published are just the result of misforming the skull on purpose.
Let's take this example:

These skulls have been found in Peru & Mexico and were part of the heritage of Mayans, Aztects & Inca's.
In some occassions it was normal for people to break the skull of their newborn children, and then wrapping it in thight clothes so that the skull would deform to symbolize animals or gods, which gives you these kinds of skull which seem weird, but are in fact all man made.
as the bones of children are very weak (fontanelle), you can make it grow in almost every kind you want.

i just reread this, are you actually suggesting that if you take a skull out of a child it will continue to grow????

fretn wrote: 2. What's his point with the blacklight, some gems or semi-gems just have to ability to glow in the dark... it's just coincidence that when they shine with a blacklight on them they light up.

all i can add to hackman's reply is that your question sounds preposterous, have you ever in your life met/read about many hard to process rocks encrusted with designs of eyes, constellations or other shit having those properties? i'm starting to doubt your will to really understand, seems more like a will to conserve the status quo that gave you the comfortable and fake sensation you had things figured out. i'm sorry man, the education you've been given in school is a lie.

Yeah, wait, wut, I've never heard of people doing that to their kids' skulls, that's fucked up. o_0

Wouldn't "breaking" the skull kill the child or at least severely damage the brain? I mean, people are warned to be careful with how they let their babies rest their heads so they don't become misshapen...

I'm rewatching the lecture now as I was wayyyy too blazed to follow last time.

alien pimp wrote:

fretn wrote: 2. What's his point with the blacklight, some gems or semi-gems just have to ability to glow in the dark... it's just coincidence that when they shine with a blacklight on them they light up.

all i can add to hackman's reply is that your question sounds preposterous, have you ever in your life met/read about many hard to process rocks encrusted with designs of eyes, constellations or other shit having those properties? i'm starting to doubt your will to really understand, seems more like a will to conserve the status quo that gave you the comfortable and fake sensation you had things figured out. i'm sorry man, the education you've been given in school is a lie.

Keep in mind that these people were specialists at what they did, experience went from father to sons, they perfectionised lots of tools for the use of it.
With the start of sedentarization lots of these skills dissapeared because they were no longer necessary.

hackman wrote:

fretn wrote:1. The skulls that are published are just the result of misforming the skull on purpose.
Let's take this example:

These skulls have been found in Peru & Mexico and were part of the heritage of Mayans, Aztects & Inca's.
In some occassions it was normal for people to break the skull of their newborn children, and then wrapping it in thight clothes so that the skull would deform to symbolize animals or gods, which gives you these kinds of skull which seem weird, but are in fact all man made.
as the bones of children are very weak (fontanelle), you can make it grow in almost every kind you want.

i just reread this, are you actually suggesting that if you take a skull out of a child it will continue to grow????

No, not at all but a child's skull is soft and easy to break. It was like advanced playdoe for those people.
keep in mind that not many people with these things got old, most of them died at an early age because of tumors, and blood clots in the brain due to the unnatural growth of the skull.

i'm really confused, so the skull is elongated as seen in the picture whilst the child is still alive?
either way, whether it is done while the child is alive or the skull taken out (which you say is not the case)
neither makes sense! you'd never be able to do that without killing the child

hackman wrote:i'm really confused, so the skull is elongated as seen in the picture whilst the child is still alive?
either way, whether it is done while the child is alive or the skull taken out (which you say is not the case)
neither makes sense! you'd never be able to do that without killing the child

No i'm serious as fuck,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_flattening
take a look.

P.S. I've googled then minutes about the giant in Ecuador on the last thing, and i found nothing...

wow, didn't know about that, that's different though, the skulls he's talking about are much bigger than a childs even if they had been elongated
and what about the prominence and strength of the jaw, not seen in homo sapiens

and i just googled giants, found a lot of stuff, a lot of it claimed to be a hoax, but then of course it is if it goes against the theory of evolution that we've been following since darwin

procedures similar to these are/were used by tribes in many continents as far as i know, but apparently is impossible to TRIPLE the volume of the skull due to lack of bone mass, as donas makes a very believable point in the video

really, it's a loooong list of discoveries there i've been asking of ways to fit them in the official history... even if this was a doubtful issue [and it isn't], the conclusion is still obvious, why is it so hard for some to accept it? why is it so important for people to believe in the official history in this era of lies and manipulations??
it's plato's cave effect, the light is blinding i know, but we're in 2010 wtf, people minds should be more flexible!
and if you dig you find out easily you could fill in many hours of reports like these

alien pimp wrote:procedures similar to these are/were used by tribes in many continents as far as i know, but apparently is impossible to TRIPLE the volume of the skull due to lack of bone mass, as donas makes a very believable point in the video

really, it's a loooong list of discoveries there i've been asking of ways to fit them in the official history... even if this was a doubtful issue [and it isn't], the conclusion is still obvious, why is it so hard for some to accept it? why is it so important for people to believe in the official history in this era of lies and manipulations??
it's plato's cave effect, the light is blinding i know, but we're in 2010 wtf, people minds should be more flexible!
and if you dig you find out easily you could fill in many hours of reports like these

there have always been exceptions...

Because there are no lies, people see what they want to see.
But give me clear evidence, a scientific study from a university/scientist and i will accept this possibility.
Until then it's just guessing...
You are acting like a creationist at the moment...
claiming it to be true, but lacking evidence