Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Tuesday Roundup 13-09-2005

By Gregon

A varied list of readings to get you through the week…

  • Loren Coleman has written this obituary for pioneering cryptozoologist Richard Fitter.
  • Lloyd Pye gives an update on the Starchild skull.
  • SETI man Seth Shostak replies to Ufology criticism.
  • Tim Boucher interviews Ben Mack, author of Poker Without Cards (Amazon US).
  • Phenomena Magazine has a retrospective on the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident, 25 years on.
  • A review of The First Psychic (Amazon US and UK), a study of Victorian celebrity psychic Daniel Dunglas Home by Peter Lamont.
  • Randi’s latest weekly newsletter.
  • The RRR Group dismisses the Phoenix Lights.
  • An interview with Thomas Horn, author of The Ahriman Gate (Amazon US and UK).
  • The Book of THoTH has an interview with J.C. De La Torre about his upcoming book Ancient Rising. Also on site is this piece on Adam: The Missing Link by Marshall Klarfeld.

Enjoy!

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

14 Comments

  1. Starchild Hoax
    that starchild stuff is just horse-shit – everyone knows it’s the deformed skull of a human child, and anyone with a whiff of knowledge about ancient practices knows many civilised people practiced the art of head binding, often with wooden boards or leather straps, to create a pronounced and distinctive head shape considered to be attractive for one reason or another. You may as well freak out and start screaming ‘alien skeleton’ at all those women in African nations whose necks are stretched to great lengths to make them attractive to the locals. It’s just another beat up for the sake of publicity in order to felch money out of naive gullible types …

    1. Head binding
      George Bush had his head bound as a child.

      That sure explains why there’s no space for brains.

      Pardon my French, but you sound like a twat. When you say “Everyone knows it’s the deformed skull of a human child”, just what do you mean by “everyone”, and who elected you the spokesperson for “everyone” anyway?

      Nobody “knows” anything unless it’s been investigated and proven by scientific method. Hell, even the most simple equation “1+1=2” has a lengthy, multi-page method of proving it from basic first principles.

      yer ol’ pal,

      Xibalba
      (This post was brought to you by “Realm of the Dead”)

      1. twat
        that’s not really nice considering i didn’t actually insult anyone, i just happen to be referring to the vast swathes of information out there to anyone with the brains (or interest) to look. Eg a New Scientist article from two weeks ago, countless anthropological works in the literature, BBC documentaries dating back 25 years etc etc etc etc etc – as for who elected me spokesperson for the academic world, well, gee, sorry to upset you hellboy, but isn’t the internet primarily a means for the communication of ideas. if someone presenting alternative views from yours upsets you maybe you should just get a really good internet filter and that way you don’t have to read anything that would contradict your ignorance.

        Still, it is generally the way that people who don’t have anything informed to offer commence their diatribe with an insult, just to prove that a) they’re not interested in actual dialogue and b) they’re capacity for cogent cognizance has stalled at the kindergarten stage.

        btw, if you looked up what science claims to be able to achieve, old fella, you’d find it puts forth reliable theories that explain evidence – science by definition refutes the concept of proof and acknowledges its conclusions and conventions are tools of best fit and invariably flawed and in need of refining. go read something about the philosophy of science and come back in ten years when you’re out of your intellectual diapers.

        1. Attitudes
          Hi George_Bush,

          I think that there is little reason to be surprised at responses to your posts, considering the tone you are posting in. By describing theories as ‘horse-shit’, making statements such as ‘anyone with a whiff of knowledge’, and referring to ideas as being based in ‘felching’ money, you sound like a generic 16 year old troll with nothing intelligent to say. Beyond the rhetoric, it sounds like you might have some intelligent things to say, so how about toning down the attitude and arguing cogently any points you may have?

          Peace and Respect
          Greg
          ——————————————-
          You monkeys only think you’re running things

          1. no
            if you don’t like my posts then bar me, i will not be censored

            i understand where you’re coming from, i just happen to disagree

            btw, you’ve deliberately taken a quote from me out of context – i referred to ‘anyone with a whiff of knowledge about ancient practices’, you’ve snipped the first six words off and presented them as if i was implying that only morons don’t know about headboarding practices; i was saying that anyone who’d done a bit of delving into the field (as i have) would understand that the entire escapade is horse shit, and it is a money felching exercise.

          2. Hi GB,

            I didn’t say I was
            Hi GB,

            I didn’t say I was going to bar you or censor you. I just said that with the tone you are taking, nobody here will take you seriously, and you’re posts will likely be disregarded as the rantings of a juvenile troll. Just my advice, feel free to disregard.

            Peace and Respect
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

    2. Starchild Skull
      Seems to me you’re quite irate about something which obviously you’ve not spent any time researching. Cradle boarding and skull binding both produce irregular deformities as well as a host of other physiological effects. The skull exhibits a uniformity and bilateral symmetry not seen in any skull binding techniques, as well as a different biological makeup.

      I’m not so much interested in a response to your rant, but I’m very interested in why you feel the need to communicate your message of ‘truth’ in such an arrogant fashion.

      “As for the cradle-boarding argument, in the many dozens of genuinely cradle-boarded skulls I had been shown or seen in studies, which included the human skull found with the Starchild, every single one stopped at the center-rear of the skull just above the knob of bone known as the “inion.” This is because thick neck muscles attach to the inion, and to extend the compression further would severely damage the neck of any infant. Also, cradleboards leave the compressed bone with a glass-smooth surface, with even small convolutions pressed flat by the pressure of constraint. The rear of the Starchild’s head, though quite flat by ordinary standards, nonetheless retains its natural convolutions”

      “The Starchild’s inion is missing, replaced by a very shallow, thumb-tip-sized concavity relative to the surrounding surface. Furthermore, its neck muscles attach fully an inch below where they belong, and only an inch (half of normal) from the foramen magnum opening where the spine enters the skull. The foramen magnum itself is shifted forward an inch from its position in a normal skull, placing it dead center under the overall mass of the cranium. This means the Starchild’s neck would have been 1/3 to 1/2 the width and volume of a normal neck”

      http://www.starchild-uk.com/data.html

      Everyone knows? I think not.

      1. Royal Pain
        hello dolphin, i believe your true identity as a website was already established, accordingly i wonder ‘who’ it is making these claims of examining skulls since it looks like a quotation, but reads like a statement.

        if you’ve got any academic credentials i think now would be a good time to flash them, otherwise you’re nothing but a crank with another whacked out book to sell to naive dingbats with more money than sense – congratulations, you’ve learnt how to weazel people out of a few bucks, it’s great you’ve found yourself a living but don’t expect anyone with actual functioning neurological structures to believe you, just bundle your snake oil back in your case and run along.

        oh, and as for all my critics, i’m not angry, i’m bemused by the sensitivity of people who make claims that are totally unsupported, spurious nonsense. i have no time for fools, and fools have no time to spare.

    2. Tom Horn
      Kat

      I thought that the interview with Tom Horn was interesting; but, you have a point about page 3. When the subject of disinformation came up, I felt that he was trying to talk around it instead of answer the question about whether or not he was a disinformation agent. This put question marks in my brain about the accuracy of other answers that gave. I’m not implying that he didn’t tell the truth; but, he may not have told all of it. One primary strategy for distributing disinformation is telling some the truth but not all of the truth.

      What do you think?

      kennc

      1. implications
        >>I’m not implying that he didn’t tell the truth; but, he may not have told all of it. One primary strategy for distributing disinformation is telling some the truth but not all of the truth.

        I don’t remember if he directly said the above, but that’s what it sounded like to me. He said his sources didn’t tell everything they knew, the implication being neither did he.

        Unfortunately another disinformation ploy is to just flatly lie – along with dancing around questions you’d rather not answer. The latter, imho, raises the ‘pure bs’ potential of this article exponentially. I guess it just reminds me too much of a televangelist who tearfully prays for donations, and is then caught with his pants down.

        Kat

        1. He Didn’t Say It! I Did!
          Kat

          I Said, “I’m not implying that he didn’t tell the truth; but, he may not have told all of it.” The second sentence of your second paragraph explains why I said this. Then, I said, “One primary strategy for distributing disinformation is telling some of the truth but not all of the truth.” I said this; because, it is true. It is much easier to lie with the truth; because, the facts in the lie can be verified.

          What do you think?

          I agree with your comment!

          kennc

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal