...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Correspondence with the Elisabeth Daynes studio
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: Of course the skull is accurate, but that fleshy reconstruction is totally off.[/QUOTE]Even before Tut's fleshy parts were reconstructed, Fordisc didn't assign his cranio-facial measurements to the Teita, Dogon or Zulu samples. Instead, he had a weak assignment to a male European sample. If you want to think that adding flesh on top of that will yield a radically different facial appearance than that reconstruction, you're free to latch onto that belief all you want if that's what you need to cope. You've been reduced to nagging and pouting. You're basically saying "it's either my way or the highway". I have no intentions of staying longer in this thread than I have to. I made my point. The level of skin pigmentation on that pale reconstruction is completely wrong. But the craniofacial features of that reconstruction is not radically far off from what he would have looked like. Whether you want to accept it or not. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3