ColdHands
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2012
- Messages
- 876
- Reaction score
- 2
Warning - graphic discussion. If you are uncomfortable, please scroll past.
Where is the skull? IMO There's a reason skulls are generally found mostly intact and it's because they are not easily broken up. Even archaic discoveries generally include the skull, even a hundred thousand years later. An animal may fracture a bone to get at the marrow inside and in doing that digest some of it, but that seems less likely with a skull. The search team included archeologist and anthropologist who would know this also - would they have stopped searching "we found all we're going to find" without the skull?
I'm beginning to think it is possible that the searchers also found the skull but did not share that fact with anyone, including the parents. Just a gut feeling - IMO.
Where is the skull? IMO There's a reason skulls are generally found mostly intact and it's because they are not easily broken up. Even archaic discoveries generally include the skull, even a hundred thousand years later. An animal may fracture a bone to get at the marrow inside and in doing that digest some of it, but that seems less likely with a skull. The search team included archeologist and anthropologist who would know this also - would they have stopped searching "we found all we're going to find" without the skull?
I'm beginning to think it is possible that the searchers also found the skull but did not share that fact with anyone, including the parents. Just a gut feeling - IMO.