posted 05 May 2005 08:21 AM            

• If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

  
  

• If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.
  

These Afronut monkeys had better come up with some answers fast, because their time is almost up...

posted 05 May 2005 10:14 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Note that the following constitutes the Afronuts' only two shreds of evidence to support their agenda on Greece, which I dub [b]Operation: Steal Greek Culture to Raise Negro Self-esteem.

• If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

  
  

• If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.
  

These Afronut monkeys had better come up with some answers fast, because their time is almost up...

[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 05 May 2005).][/B]

---

Thought Writes:

No need to address this or any other question here. We have all the answers on your 'clown' thread:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001888-4.html

posted 06 May 2005 08:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
No need to address this or any other question here. We have all the answers on your 'clown' thread:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001888-4.html

---

Really? It looks to me like you "forgot" to address a few key points . . .

quote:

---

Where's the Negroid...skull shape, skeletal form...? [ . . . ] Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

---

quote:

---

If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.

---

posted 06 May 2005 07:46 PM            

The Greeks, Kemetians, original Chinese, Japanese, and MesoAmericans were caucations (white). Did I forgot anyone one?

Yes, and the Arabs, Indians (Hindus) and North and East Africans are Caucasian or Caucasian like..

It was Horemheb that put it best by stating..the nubians had to be white due to have some from of history in Africa.

posted 01 June 2005 04:44 PM            

So just about everyone was originally white except a few tribes in West Africa. Amazing. How on earth did all of those white people turn so many different colors. Especially since the DNA evidence shows that Black, and only Black people can exhibit such overarching human diversity.

What is even more funny is how the definition of being white always changes when there is something worth taking credit for. 150 years ago Egyptians were Negroes according to Champollion. So were the Ethiopians. Italians were considered also in America.

But even more amazing is how a Black Ethiopian is Caucasoid/white on paper, but of course that is not dealing with the present population.

But going back, the thing is you want Caucasoid to be "whatever it takes" to give you credit for civilization anywhere.

So for example, there are civilizations (not settlements, not huts in the dirt) being unearthed in West Africa. I know, I know for certain that people like you will find a way to classify them as Caucasoid, skulls or no skulls.

The 18th dynasty (the most prominent dynasty of Egyptian history) showed all the signs of Negroid traits, including the skull shape. But guess what, you will want to change it around again. I know it, you know it.

But besides all that. We have seen the photographs of Greeks, Italians, Jews, and what not. They have knappy hair, remember? They have wide noses, remember? You people tease them for their "noses". And that is despite so much mixture over the centuries with whites. Now how can they remain their intermediate traits in the 21st century if they didn't have them in Europe for the past 2000 years???
Thats the other side of this silly coin. IF they didnt' start off negroid or at least substantially so, then how on earth can they have ANY admixture left after TWO THOUSAND YEARS???

Even funnier is how about 50 years ago Jews and Greeks and Arabs weren't white enough. they were "sand ni$$gers", and "mulattoes". Now they are Caucasoid!!!

We see pictures of them in history. They look MORE black than they do now. So you can't say that "blacks infiltrated their genes in the past few centuries with slavery".

And gene markers, thats even funnier. You find gene markers that disprove your theories and so you either ignore them or try to make them "not count". You find some gene markers to support your theory (and you will in everyone in the world) and viola.

That's called DIFFUSIONISM. It's an old trick. Everyone is human is caucasoid because they are human... lol... they all have 2 arms and 2 legs, and since caucasoids have 2 arms and legs, they must be caucasoid. You see straight hair in Ethiopia and you say "caucasoid", you see kinky hair in ireland and italy and you say "caucasoid". You see dark skin in Ethiopia and you say "caucasoid" you see dark skin in India and you say "caucasoid"... you see skull shapes in Ethopia and Egypt and say "caucasoid" you see skull shapes that resemble Africans outside of Africa and you say "Caucasoid".

Trust me, all of that doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny.

But I'm fascinated as to how Jews, Arabs, Greeks, Japanese, East Indians and all the "original people" became Caucasoid and/or White.

With Ethiopia its even more backwards.
Lol how can the descendant be the descendant of the son? How are you going to call the ancestors of humanity "Caucasoid" just because one BRANCH of humanity obviously had to come from them?

I mean where do we draw the line? We go back to the dawn of humanity 200,000 years ago, we see black negroid ethiopian skulls, but oh thats too far back for you. We go back 2000 years ago, we find Ethiopian skulls that look negroid, oh that's too soon. We go back to 6000 years before Christ, negroid skuls, and that's too soon, but then again it's too late. Where are all of these caucasoid skulls in Ethiopia anyway? I can't find ONE picture of one on the internet.

This is hilarious, because it's like a mechanical device how you thieves operate.

posted 01 June 2005 04:49 PM            

Ethiopians are not Caucasoid, nor are the Ancient Egyptians. Caucasoids may have come FROM them, but that was after they left Africa.

This silliness all goes back to the "skull shape determines brain size and brain size determines intelligence, and intelligence determines how a civilization came to be."

Why on EARTH aren't the neanderthals flying space ships anyway?

posted 01 June 2005 05:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
These guys tried to take this black crap to one of the other message boards and were quickly banned for stupidity.

---

Oh yea, what site was this? I find it funny how everytime Evil E posts some crap...you make some assinine comment after him.

posted 01 June 2005 05:12 PM            

Classic Mediterraneans (Type B)

Classic Mediterraneans ... They are virtually identical with ancient Libyans and modern Sicilians, and similar to Upper Egyptians of prehistoric and Early Dynastic dates...

---

Now looking at those pictures, i find it outragegously funny how that came to pass. http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htm

-- Come on guys, he must have been a slave. Oh wait wait... they must have misdated the sculpture's creation date. Oh oh oh wait I got it, he was just a lucky guy that came to Egypt from way deep from Africa (not Ethiopia, not Nubia, because they were caucasoids) on a hunting trip and somehow became a rich noble of Egyptian history.

Oh wait wait, my favorite one is this:
the site says "Excavated in a shaft with another head, this one was originally identified as the Nubian wife of the tomb owner. Recent study, however, suggests that it probably represents the male owner of the tomb"

One Euronut insisted that the first sentance is true, but the second couldn't be true. This was a PH.D doctor. RECENT STUDY was ignored, but the first assumption was given MORE weight than the later study.