The fact of Whites being merely the Albinos of Blacks, has of course, long been known by White scientists. Genetic studies of the late 20th century proved it beyond a doubt: It was found that there were no unique White genetic haplogroups. All the haplogroups that are common to Europeans such as R1a&b, I1&2, are traced back to Africa or India then Africa - genetically, there is no difference between Blacks and Whites. To hide this fact, Whites embarked on many bogus studies which sought to categorize Blacks as being somehow "morphologically distinct" from the Albinos that they had produced. These studies were of the Cranial and Limb proportion type. And they spawned some truly bizarre terminology as relates to modern Humans. Examples: True Negro, Super Negro, Cold Adapted body plans, metabolically generated heat dissipation, and more. Stranger yet, some Black scientists bought into these bogus studies, because they were too naive to understand the White mans motivations, or just too lazy to check the source of the data.
We of course have no such encumbrances, so lets begin with the Cranial studies.
In 1912 Franz Boas demonstrated that cranial shape is heavily influenced by environmental factors, and can change within a few generations if conditions change, and therefore cranial measurements cannot be a reliable indicator of inherited influences such as ethnicity. This conclusion was supported in 2003 in a paper by Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard. A study by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) found that “race” and cranial variation had low correlations, and that cranial variation was instead strongly correlated with climate variables. This view is also supported by Kemp. Other studies have shown that the typical cranial shapes of some African (Sudanic and Ethiopic, but not Bantu), Arab and Berber ethnic groups are largely the same.
A craniofacial study by C. Loring Brace et al. (1993) concluded that: "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World." He also commented,"We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well.".
A survey cited by Kemp (2005) of ancient Egyptian crania spanning all time periods found that the Egyptian population as a whole clusters more closely to modern Egyptians than to other groups, but that they also cluster more closely to the Asian and Mediterranean groups than they did to the earlier Sub-Saharan African groups. Kemp also noted that Egypt conquered and settled Nubia beginning in the 1st Dynasty.
Anthropologist Nancy Lovell states the following:
[Data] "must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography."
This view was also shared by the late Egyptologist, Frank Yurco.
A 2005 study by Keita of predynastic Badarian (Southern Egyptian) crania found that the Badarian samples cluster more closely with East African (Ethiopic) samples than they do with Northern European (Berg and Norse) samples, though no Asian and Southern European samples were included in the study. Keita has also said that the predyastic crania are different to the lower Egyptian samples, which display a mean part way between modern Europeans and Ethiopians.
Sonia Zakrzewski in 2007 noted that population continuity occurs over the Egyptian Predynastic into the Greco-Roman periods, and that a relatively high level of genetic differentiation was sustained over this time period. She concluded therefore that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration, particularly during the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom periods.
In 2008 Keita found that the early predynastic groups in Southern Egypt were similar craniometrically to Nile valley groups of Ethiopic extraction, but as a whole the dynastic Egyptians (includes both Upper and Lower Egyptians) show much closer affinities with the modern day population and Eurasians than they do to Sub-Saharan Africans. He also concluded that more material is needed to make a firm conclusion about the relationship between the early Holocene Nile valley populations and later ancient Egyptians
And after all of those studies, points and counter points: Then they must always give this little gem of a Caveat for cover:
What that means is that all of the above is PURE WHITE MAN BULLSHIT, that's what it means! They took a self generated proposition that they hoped for, which had no basis in fact, extrapolated it to give the results that they wanted; and as expected, people who needed and wanted to believe it, believed it! We will not go into the motivations of Black researchers who accepted this nonsense.
The Limb ratios studies:
Anthropologist C. Loring Brace points out that limb elongation is "clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat" in areas of higher ambient temperature. He also stated that "skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics".
Of course, the only part of that which is true is the skin color part. UV intensity is greatest at the equator, therefore Humans need the darkest skin to survive there. Whites have also created temperature maps like below, to support their bogus theories.
But this temperature map is a lie. It shows the equatorial region as being very hot. It is not, the temperature range at the equator is a perfect 69 - 79 degrees F, year-round. Whereas the average Summer temperature of Houston Texas is 92 degree F. To the logical mind, the White Texan would have more occasion to dissipate excess heat, than the Blackest African at the equator. Therefore the White Texan should have the more elongated limbs.
Later on, Anthropologist C. Loring Brace, begins to "Walk Back" from his earlier statements. "He also points out that the term super negroid is inappropriate, as it is also applied to non negroid populations."
According to Robins and Shute the average limb elongation ratios among ancient Egyptians is higher than that of modern West Africans who reside much closer to the equator. Robins and Shute therefore term the ancient Egyptians to be "super-negroid" but state that although the body plans of the ancient Egyptians were closer to those of modern negroes than for modern whites, “this does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes".
Anthropologist S.O.Y. Keita criticized Robins and Shute, stating they do not interpret their results within an adaptive context, and stating that they imply “misleadingly” that early southern Egyptians were not a "part of the Saharo-tropical group, which included Negroes".
Quote "which included Negroes"??? Out of respect, we won't go into it.
Trikhanus (1981) found Egyptians to plot closest to tropical Africans and not Mediterranean Europeans residing in a roughly similar climatic area. A more recent study compared ancient Egyptian osteology to that of African-Americans and White Americans, and found that the stature of the Ancient Egyptians was more similar to the stature of African-Americans, although it was not identical.
Gallagher et al. also points out that "body proportions are under strong climatic selection and evidence remarkable stability within regional lineages". Zakrzewski (2003) studied skeletal samples from the Badarian period to the Middle Kingdom. She confirmed the results of Robins and Shute that Ancient Egyptians in general had "tropical body plans” but that their proportions were actually "super-negroid".
Here again, the results of Robins and Shute are cited, and the term "super-negroid" is used. So lets see what that is all about.
The Robins and Shute study:
Predynastic egyptian stature and physical proportions
G. Robins and C. C. D. Shute
An attempt has been made to estimate male and female Egyptian stature from long bone length using Trotter & Gleser negro stature formulae, previous work by the authors having shown that these rather than white formulae give more consistent results with male dynastic material. Evidence is presented that the tibia length should include the spine in the later (1958) formulae and should exclude it in the earlier (1952) formulae. It is also shown that better results are obtained if the constants in the stature formulae are modified so as to conform more exactly with the basic data published byTrotter &Gleser. When consistency has been achieved in this way, predynastic, proportions are founded to be such that distal segments of the limbs are even longer in relation to the proximal segments than they are in modern negroes. Such proportions are termed «super-negroid».
In the introduction to their book, they immediately "Walk back" from the whole point of their book, by correctly quoting Brothwell (1981) as saying in effect, that it is bullshit: Brothwell makes it clear that their calculations cannot be used on ancient populations. But they knew that no one would let that little caveat get in the way: they understood, "who cares when you are dealing with Albino denying Whites in fantasy mode."
(scroll down to see the intro. and Brothwells comments)
As stated, they are using the Trotter & Gleser negro stature formulae, so lets see what that formulae is all about.
Mildred Trotter (February 3, 1899 – August 23, 1991) was an important 20th century forensic anthropologist.
Trotter's work with Goldine C. Gleser in 1952 created statistical regression formulae for the calculation of stature estimates from human long bones, based on a population of American casualties of the Korean War and the Terry collection of human remains. These formulae are still widely applied in the field.
The Terry collection
The Robert J. Terry Anatomical Skeletal Collection is a collection of some 1,728 human skeletons held by the Department of Anthropology of the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. It was created by Robert J. Terry (1871–1966) during his time as professor of anatomy and head of the Anatomy Department at Washington University Medical School in St. Louis, Missouri from 1899 until his retirement in 1941. It was transferred to its present holders in 1967. The collection is an important source for anthropological research because of the extensive documentation that accompanies each skeleton.
Dr. Terry was keenly interested in human anatomy and particularly in normal and pathological variants in the skeleton. He was aware that there was an absence of documented human osteological/anatomical specimens from which skeletal biology, anatomy and pathology could be investigated. In the second decade of the 20th century, Dr. Terry began to collect human skeletons from cadavers used in the Medical School's Anatomy classes. These bodies were primarily obtained from local St. Louis hospital and institutional morgues. There was also a small portion of the cadavers that were collected from other institutions throughout the state of Missouri. The cadavers predominantly consisted of individuals whose bodies became property of the state when they were not claimed, or whose relatives signed over the remains to the state. The bodies were subsequently turned over to the Medical School for cadaver research. After the passage of the Willed Body Law of Missouri in 1955-6, it was required to have a signed release document from the individual or their immediate family to be able to use the body for scientific purposes. This certainly changed the demographic complexion of cadavers coming to the Medical School. The early part of the collection is predominantly composed of people of lower incomes, but the latter component of the collection comes from middle or upper middle incomes.
Even to the almost brain dead, it is clear that there is no way that the above material could be used to measure or distinguish between any human populations. And of course, at some point, even other Whites had to distance themselves from this nonsense.
Modification of the Trotter and Gleser female stature estimation formulae.
Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 37996-0720.
J Forensic Sci. 1993 Jul;38(4):758-63.
Stature-estimation formulae in common use are those of Trotter and Gleser. Their formulae for females are based on Terry collection skeletons. These skeletons are from people who died in the early 1890s. Because there has been considerable change in body size since then, it is possible that the Trotter and Gleser formulae are inappropriate for modern forensic-science application. The Trotter and Gleser female formulae are tested using data from the Forensic Data Bank at the University of Tennessee. For whites, the femur and tibia yield stature estimates differing from one another by about 3 cm. Using femur and tibia lengths from modern forensic cases and modern height data from anthropometric surveys, new regression intercepts are calculated for Trotter and Gleser's female formulae. The new intercepts improve the performance of the formulae on modern individuals. The Trotter and Gleser formulae for black females require no adjustment. Both blacks and whites have experienced a secular increase in bone length, but whites have experienced a change in proportions as well.
So then; Brothwell says that "Trotter and Gleser" can't be used on "Ancient" populations. And Jantz says that it can't be used on "Modern" populations. Seems to me that pretty well renders "Trotter and Gleser" useless. Yet like the cranial nonsense, all of those White studies were based on it - Whites seem to have established a trend. First it was modifying Black statues, paintings, and relief's to make them appear White. Now it's bogus scientific studies - where does the truth fit in?
Note: On the issue of modifying Black statues, paintings, and relief's to make them appear White: Some have asked an intelligent question. They say "if Whites have a phenotype that is the same as Blacks somewhere or other" then how can Whites be accused of making Black statues, paintings, and relief's appear White, couldn't Blacks have those features?
That is of course correct, there is nothing uniquely Albino or White about narrow noses and thin lips, sadly, many PIGMENTED people were NOT blessed with generous lips and nostrils either. As with the Dravidian Albinos, if one did not know their background, there would be no way of knowing that they were Albinos, they look exactly like ordinary White people.
So the answer to that question is twofold:
1) When there exists other artifacts of the SAME person, which have typical Negroid features, that is a sure indication that Whites have been up to mischief.
2) In the case of Egypt, the Middle East, Europe: If these founding civilizations were located in areas such as the horn of Africa, which has a preponderance of Caucasian looking Blacks, then of course these determinations would be much more difficult. But they were not in such areas, they were located in areas were Blacks had the typical Negroid features.
The White man is merely a pigmentless Black man - an Albino. He is in no way different - except for skin color - from the Black populations that spawned him, the same for the Mongol. Because the Human race (Black people), have so many varieties, of course Whites and Mongols are different from some Humans, many even, but not all Humans. All Humans evolved from equatorial Blacks, therefore all Humans are the same - regardless of pigmentation.
Except for the differences attributable to Albinism: Straight Blond Hair, light Colored Eyes, Pigment Deprived Skin, are these children different from their parents and siblings?
If these children foolishly Marry, and breed among themselves: what will you have over the generations?
Just another group of White People - correct?
Will their morphology be different from SOME Blacks - YES!
Will their morphology be different from ALL Blacks - NO!