Stonehenge baby Dental record Forensics

[Garry Denke]

Stonehenge baby Dental record Forensics

http://images.google.com/images?q=baby+teeth&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

Compare proportional Girths:

1st pair Upright sarsen Girths = Stonehenge baby First Molar and Second Molar
2nd pair Upright sarsen Girths = Stonehenge baby Canine Cuspid and Lateral Insisor
3rd pair Upright sarsen Girths = Stonehenge baby Left and Right Central Insisor
4th pair Upright sarsen Girths = Stonehenge baby Canine Cuspid and Lateral Insisor
5th pair Upright sarsen Girths = Stonehenge baby First Molar and Second Molar

Compare proportional Girths:

Stone 51 - 52 sarsen Girths = Stonehenge baby First Molar and Second Molar
Stone 53 - 54 sarsen Girths = Stonehenge baby Canine Cuspid and Lateral Insisor
Stone 55 -56 sarsen Girths = Stonehenge baby Left and Right Central Insisor
Stone 57 - 58 sarsen Girths = Stonehenge baby Canine Cuspid and Lateral Insisor
Stone 59 - 60 sarsen Girths = Stonehenge baby First Molar and Second Molar

Compare proportional Girths:

Note the Stonehenge baby Altar Stone tongue in the center, and the outer sarsen circle, Stones 1 - 30, the baby's mouth emerging through the Stonehenge birth canal mouth, both representing the same. The German dentist, Dr. Garry W. Denke (1622-1699), first proposed the theory in 1656. Many believe it proves Dr. Anthony M. Perks and Dr. Darlene M. Bailey's theory correct, because Stonehenge sarsen Stones 51-60 are also as smooth as baby teeth.

As a final note I might add that neither horses nor horsehoes were present in Neolithic times, therefore British (and world) archaeologists who describe the above as a horseshoe are wrong.

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist

 

[Xen]

its still FAR more likelly that its a giant fertility symbol- there is no reason, or evidence to greate a big monument in the shape of a mouth, teeth, ect...

 

[Garry Denke]

Originally posted by Xen
its still FAR more likelly that its a giant fertility symbol- there is no reason, or evidence to greate a big monument in the shape of a mouth, teeth, ect...

As you know, the point is, it's both. Unless of course, you think babies come from storks.

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist

--

(added for context)

Stonehenge has dominated the Wiltshire landscape for more than 4,000 years and is one of the world's most important heritage sites, but its purpose has remained a mystery. Some researchers have claimed the stone circles were used as a giant computer; others that Stonehenge was an observatory for studying stars and predicting the seasons; and a few have even argued that its rings acted as a docking pad for alien spaceships. Now a University of British Columbia researcher who has investigated the great prehistoric monument for several years has announced he has uncovered its true meaning: it is a giant fertility symbol, constructed in the shape of the female sexual organ. 'There was a concept in Neolithic times of a great goddess or Earth Mother,' says Anthony Perks, a gynaecologist who decided to investigate the idea that the circles could have symbolic anatomical links. 'Stonehenge could represent the opening by which the Earth Mother gave birth to the plants and animals on which ancient people so depended.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,992215,00.html

 

[Kafka2]

The two images don't compare. The arch of the stones is too deep, and the sides too parallel, to equate to the shape of the human jaw.

 

[Garry Denke]

Originally posted by Kafka2
The two images don't compare. The arch of the stones is too deep, and the sides too parallel, to equate to the shape of the human jaw.

A good point Kafka2. Ever hear of evolution?

Stonehenge was built a long time ago.

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist

 

[Xen]

at that time humans were in a modern physical form- the only differnce was height, and age of sevula maturity....

 

[Garry Denke]

Originally posted by Xen
at that time humans were in a modern physical form- the only differnce was height, and age of sevula maturity....

Prove it - Here's how things go where I live -

statement (thesis)

"evidence"
- source

"evidence"
-source

"evidence"
- source

conclusion in light of YOUR interpretation of the evidence
-bibliography

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist

 

[Xen]

there is NO theory here, ONLY fact-


cro-magnon man is the direct equivlient to modern man- it apperasi in the fossil record approximatley 30,000-40,000 years ago

source-

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence/prog6/page6.shtml

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0814089.html

http://www.bartleby.com/65/cr/CroMagno.html

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/pccromagnon.html

http://www.mikedust.com/history/cromagnon.html

and I can get MANY more sources if need be.

 

[Kafka2]

It's even more distant from Neanderthal and Heidelbergensis jaws, as they had flatter faces than modern Europeans. It looks far closer to a canine muzzle to me.

 

[Garry Denke]

Originally posted by Xen
there is NO theory here, ONLY fact- and I can get MANY more sources if need be.

Please do, for none of your references are of the specific baby teeth of the specific baby jaw of the specific child modeled by the specific Stonehenge builder (who may or may not have been much of an artist). Please be specific in your next posting of your specific (hopefully) not your generalised (previous) sources.

Also, the evidence indicates that such specific child model needed braces, for there are large gaps between the specific baby teeth of the specific baby jaw modeled, so that should help you in your specific search of that certain. Thank you for your efforts in trying to prove all human jaws and teeth are identical.

Gaps between Teeth shown Aiding specific Search:

Perfect denture (Teeth) and Perfect denture (Jaw):

I await your specific sources and Neolithic artist talent surveys.

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Garry Denke


Please do, for none of your references are of the specific baby teeth of the specific baby jaw of the specific child modeled by the specific Stonehenge builder (who may or may not have been much of an artist). Please be specific in your next posting of your specific (hopefully) not your generalised (previous) sources.

unneeded information, and tedius to gather- just go look at modern humans for this information, we and cro-magnons are one in the same

Originally posted by Garry Denke

Also, the evidence indicates that such specific child model needed braces, for there are large gaps between the specific baby teeth of the specific baby jaw modeled, so that should help you in your specific search of that certain. Thank you for your efforts in trying to prove all human jaws and teeth are identical.

the thought that braces in childs teeth during that time are absured at best, and an insane lie at worst- there is also the fact that you are interpreting my meaning wrong- I never said such an unbased comment such as "all humans teeth are the same"- having worn braces at one time myself I know this is far from true, I have merelly pointed out that another species of Human, or a ancestor species of humans cannot be responible for stonehenge, nor the design, i have also pointed out that there is no reason for it to bes designed in that shape, as it holds NO siginicance what so ever to anyone, in any time- my evidence for this? simple, no one ever addresses it, therefore it is a mute point with no credibility to it. then there si ample evidence to prove that it is based of the female genitalia, and thing which has held the revernce of man for ages- and has a set presedence in art work from both that time, before, and after it artwork of various cultures world wide- the Venus sattue of Willendorf should be the most famous example of this fact.

 

[Vrylakas]

Also, there are many more megalithic circles across Britain than just Stonehenge, spanning a wide time range. Avebury I think is the largest. Wiltshire, Stanton Drew, Lancing, Silbury Hill, etc. They do not all have the same layout, construction nor design, though astronomy seems to have played a prominent role in their setup.

 

[Garry Denke]

Originally posted by Kafka2
It's even more distant from Neanderthal and Heidelbergensis jaws, as they had flatter faces than modern Europeans. It looks far closer to a canine muzzle to me.

And that crooked tongue (Altar Stone), pitiful art, a real dog.

At least the artist of the Stonehenge birth canal captured the emerging relative girths of the baby molars, the canine cuspid/lateral incisors, and the central incisors, correctly.

But why does all that female genitilia disappear to the sides in the form of a circle as a baby is born... that, I will never figure out.

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist

 

[Vrylakas]

A good point Kafka2. Ever hear of evolution?

[...]

Stonehenge was built a long time ago.

Not that long ago. Stonehenge is dated to around 4000 years ago, while human civilization was well under way. Cromagnon man (Homo sapiens) disappeared around the dawn of human (Homo sapiens sapiens) civilization c. 10 000 years ago, while Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) disappeared around 30 000 years ago. The humans who built Stonehenge and the like were anatomically exactly the same as humans today.

Unless of course you buy into alien conspiracy theories...

 

[Kafka2]

So it's a model of a freakishly deformed jaw, with mis-aligned teeth, twenty (!) tiny adult teeth in the inner arc, and a large megalithic tic-tac being sucked on in the middle?

 

[Kafka2]

You know, it also looks like the outline of a fingernail.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Garry Denke


And that crooked tongue (Altar Stone), pitiful art, a real dog.

At least the artist of the Stonehenge birth canal captured the emerging relative girths of the baby molars, the canine cuspid/lateral incisors, and the central incisors, correctly.

But why does all that female genitilia disappear to the sides in the form of a circle as a baby is born... that, I will never figure out.

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist

that assumes this theory is correct- which there is little real evidnec to conclude this theory (the dental based design theory) is even plausible, or probibal...

the only evidence sited on this site has been in the form od design similarities- there has been NO culteral basis for it being designed after what you (the man known to us as Denke) has said to be based after.

this is the major flaw in all of your stonehenge theoris- you give circumstatial evidence based on design similarites- or you conform your theories so that they can meet the spefic parmiters set posed by the site in question.you have not posted any sort of reason for the design, nor any significance, nor even a mention of the builder sof the monument! how can you expect such an outlandish theory to gain any sort of credibility if 9/10's of the evidence needed is left out of the equation?

 

[Garry Denke]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Not that long ago. Stonehenge is dated to around 4000 years ago, while human civilization was well under way. Cromagnon man (Homo sapiens) disappeared around the dawn of human (Homo sapiens sapiens) civilization c. 10 000 years ago, while Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) disappeared around 30 000 years ago. The humans who built Stonehenge and the like were anatomically exactly the same as humans today.

Like these same humans today?

Yes, I see what you mean.

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist

 

[Xen]

considering that most people are not born as such, and that such mutations are recorded in other species on a frequncy about matching Humans, it is a mute point- Cro-magnons had thire own "fair share" of such mutations, just like any other creature

 

[Vrylakas]

Like these same humans today?

There's a difference between evolution (i.e., natural selection) and simple mutation.

Evolution is a process based on adaptation to changing environmental conditions; your picture shows a malady, something simply gone wrong with one organism's (or two in this sad case) prenatal development. An organism does not a species make. Things go wrong, they always have and always will with all living beings. A sad fact. However, I think it is safe to say that these children's malformed bodies do not represent an evolutionary step for homo sapiens sapiens. They do represent one aspect of the many, many things that can go wrong with any given individual's development, but nonetheless I wouldn't rush to include these children's sad condition into the list of defined traits of homo sapiens sapiens. Most humans, both 4000 years ago and today, are not born like this.

It just occurred to me that you may not understand Evolution, and may be suggesting that any physical change in an individual organism could represent Evolution at work; not so. Evolution is geared towards the survival of a species, not any given individual, so its measure of adaptability is defined in the traits any given species has and how well those traits allow it to survive in its environment. These traits are passed down exclusively through procreation from one generation to the next; species evolve, but individuals do not. When you were born, you started with a blueprint that laid out all of your physical traits and all of your physical potentials. That can be altered along the way by accident, disease or surgery, but while it can always be less than originally intended it will never be more. In any event, whatever change befalls you in your life is irrelevant so long as you produce children. That is what Evolution is geared for, the continuation of the species. Once you're past child-bearing age, evolutionarily speaking you're as good as dead. (Pleasant, eh?)

When an individual of any species is born with a malady such as that pictured in your attachment, Evolution's answer is simply get them out of the way - they die. Modern humans are the only species who look upon life with an individual perspective, and see a necessity in preserving each individual - meaning that doctors will do their best to try to save both children and give them functionally as normal a life as possible. 4000 years ago, I strongly suspect such children would have been abandoned. All over the world, weak and malformed infants were usually abandoned through most of human history.

But back to the point, by 10 000 years ago modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) were the last hominid species alive. You've suggested that the contorted shape might represent an earlier evolutionary step in human dental development, but my reply was that's simply not possible. We have plenty of specimens of humans living in that period all over the world; they all belong to one species (us) and they all have fully developed dental structures. Remember that 4000 years ago, the Pyramids in Egypt all existed already, with the oldest - Khufu's - clocking in at 500 years old by then.

If you are now suggesting that the Stonehenge builders based their design on a malformed child, well, that seems very curious indeed given what I said about how malformed children were usually dealt with then. however, I leave it up to you to further develop this. As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are making just such a claim, and the website you've provided falls far short in the evidence department.

You would also need to address my initial post in this thread, which pointed out that there were many megalithic circles in Britain, some larger than Stonehenge but many of them with very different structures and designs. If one had decided to move massive stone blocks in the shape of a child's malformed dental structure, we can assume there was an extremely important reason to go through all this work, and it was not merely a whim. If it indeed was so incredibly important to do then, why didn't anyone else feel compelled to do the same when they built their megalith circles?