PDA

View Full Version : Very Nordid looking Icelandic model



Glynd Eastŵd
Monday, May 8th, 2006, 08:08 PM
Stumbled across her doing some google searches. ;)

What do you think? Goeta?

Nicola_Canadian
Monday, May 8th, 2006, 08:44 PM
Stumbled across her doing some google searches. ;)

What do you think? Goeta?

In general, I agree... however, there maybe some other admix - her nose may be slightly Dinarish... The shape of her eyes is also kinda strange... But anyway, these are all very minor things...

Mannerheim
Monday, May 8th, 2006, 08:52 PM
She is noric,very beautiful noric.

Notice her prominent nose.

Agrippa
Monday, May 8th, 2006, 10:23 PM
Skandonordid but with a small Keltic touch and very leptosomic. Fully Nordid with textbook qualities of North Western provenience.

fms panzerfaust
Monday, May 8th, 2006, 10:47 PM
Fifth pic from left to right. Notice the middle of her nose, near her eyes. The middle of my nose have that characteristic too, and I'm a dinaricized atlantomed.

She is a dinaricized nordic.

Agrippa
Monday, May 8th, 2006, 10:56 PM
I saw various pictures of her on the Icelandic model site, still dont think she is Dinarised, though again, to speak of a certain Keltic influence might be justified. Dinarised looks different, Norid even more so.

Lissu
Monday, May 8th, 2006, 11:02 PM
Well Icelandics have a Celtic element in them, so (at least minor) Keltic Nordid influence on her is very possible. I don't see any Dinarid influence in her either.

She has something similar with Tilda Swinton. To my eyes, they are both an excellent examples of ultimately Nordid females :)

fms panzerfaust
Monday, May 8th, 2006, 11:09 PM
I marked the area.

RedJack
Monday, May 8th, 2006, 11:23 PM
Nordics can have bumps on their noses, too.

Agrippa
Tuesday, May 9th, 2006, 01:55 AM
Nordics can have bumps on their noses, too.


Not only that, its considered being typical even (!) to see the transition from the bony to the cartilage tissue, more often in males though. The typical nasal profiles are straight to convex and wavy. The relatively high percentage of wavy comes from that transition...

larcher
Tuesday, May 9th, 2006, 05:02 AM
Very Nordid with a slight hint of Atlantid

fms panzerfaust
Tuesday, May 9th, 2006, 07:17 AM
Not only that, its considered being typical even (!) to see the transition from the bony to the cartilage tissue, more often in males though. The typical nasal profiles are straight to convex and wavy. The relatively high percentage of wavy comes from that transition...

Ok. What other types can have this?

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, May 9th, 2006, 08:07 AM
Pigmentation: Hallstatt Nordic. Likewise body build is Nordic. But her face is somewhat heart-shaped and so not so Hallstatt. I would say she has a little touch of Keltic Nordic since they have this feature, sometimes, which probably came from mixing with Cro-Magnon types.

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, May 9th, 2006, 08:13 AM
Hallstatt Nordic + Keltic Nordic.

Agrippa
Tuesday, May 9th, 2006, 02:29 PM
Ok. What other types can have this?

In lower frequencies it can occur in various types and with a different form in various mixed forms between a convex-straight and concave-straight nasal form in particular, but usually it looks different then. But also in f.e. Atlantomediterranid (rather straight) + Dinarid (rather convex) etc. too and always considering individual variation.

Lissu
Tuesday, May 9th, 2006, 03:06 PM
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=58815&d=1147111306

Normal and straight nose IMO, even though it might be a little big... But perfect for her face.

I think she's very pretty :)

Nseag
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 06:05 PM
Nordid+Dinarid+east-baltid

Sigurd
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 06:35 PM
Where can people see the Dinarid influences? :-O
She's the expression of Nordid beauty! :P

PS: Hope this wasn't too off-topic ;)

Susisaari
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 09:44 PM
Stumbled across her doing some google searches. ;)

What do you think? Goeta?


Her white hair looks stupid and unnatural. I don't understand why young people dye their hair white because usually only extremely old people have white hair, so why would any young people want look like their grandparents?

Anyway, she looks extremely in Finnish in that black-and-white picture. It's funny how some people on Skadi and other racialist forums classify people as Hallstatt Nordic or "Keltic Nordic" or "Atlantid" if the person in question is from Iceland or Norway, but if an exactly identical individual is from Finland, people say she looks "East Baltic" or "Ladogan" or "semi-Mongolid" or whatever. This proves that these classifications are a joke. People just say what they want to say on the basis of the nationality of the individual in question, not at all on the basis of the actual racial features of that person.

Glynd Eastŵd
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:06 PM
Anyway, she looks extremely in Finnish in that black-and-white picture. It's funny how some people on Skadi and other racialist forums classify people as Hallstatt Nordic or "Keltic Nordic" or "Atlantid" if the person in question is from Iceland or Norway, but if an exactly identical individual is from Finland, people say she looks "East Baltic" or "Ladogan" or "semi-Mongolid" or whatever. This proves that these classifications are a joke. People just say what they want to say on the basis of the nationality of the individual in question, not at all on the basis of the actual racial features of that person.

What are you talking about? If she came from Finland (although her looks are probably untypical there), I would still classify her the same. There is nothing "East Baltic" or "semi Mongoloid" about her. She has a narrow face, prominent nose, is tall, and has the classic Nordid leptosomic body type. Those are very un-Mongoloid features. If you want a semi-Mongoloid looking Ladogan from Iceland then look up the Bjork thread. ;)

Susisaari
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:12 PM
What are you talking about?


Don't you understand English?



If she came from Finland (although her looks are probably untypical there),


No. Extremely typical.



I would still classify her the same.


Good. Then you would be honest. Most people on this forum (or other racialist forums) aren't that honest.



There is nothing "East Baltic" or "semi Mongoloid" about her.


My point exactly. There is nothing "East Baltic" or "semi Mongoloid" about the millions of Finns who look like her and who routinely get classified as "East Baltic" or "semi Mongoloid" on this very forum and other racialist forums.

Lissu
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:18 PM
Well she does have (slightly) heart-shaped face which I wouldn't exactly call a Nordid trait. But that's just one feature of her which makes her looks perfect IMO ;)

Glynd Eastŵd
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:26 PM
Good. Then you would be honest. Most people on this forum (or other racialist forums) aren't that honest.
I'll agree that sometimes the ethnicity of people gets in the way. Sometimes people generalise. That's why I think it's best to refrain from giving away too much extraneous information if you want an objective classification. That way you cannot accuse people of stereotyping.



My point exactly. There is nothing "East Baltic" or "semi Mongoloid" about the millions of Finns who look like her and who routinely get classified as "East Baltic" or "semi Mongoloid" on this very forum and other racialist forums.

Most of the Finns I've seen suggest otherwise. Not trying to offend here, just my observations. I understand it must be a very emotional subject for you to be accused of looking Mongoloid.

vingul
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:27 PM
She has some non-Nordid (in the classic sense) features, such as a shallow mandible, a relatively low forehead, a somewhat larger interorbital diameter, and an exceptionally prominent nose. These traits, when present in an otherwise Nordid context, only partially define Coon's Keltic variety, however imo she is much closer to this category than to the Hallstatt/ěsterdal/G÷ta type.

She is a peculiar subject, imo not typical of any particular strain.

Susisaari
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:32 PM
Most of the Finns I've seen suggest otherwise.


You've probably never been to Finland.



Not trying to offend here, just my observations. I understand it must be a very emotional subject for you to be accused of looking Mongoloid.


It's not an emotional subject for me, it just sounds extremely stupid. It's like if somebody said Finns were Negroes. I generally think that the people who say Finns are Mongoloid are not worth having a discussion with because they are clearly retarded. I have plonked a lot of people like that here on Skadi.

Glynd Eastŵd
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:37 PM
You're right, I've never been to Finland. I have many friends from the region that I met through gaming. I've drawn my observations from sites like this one (http://irc.fi) which they have shown me. You cannot deny that large numbers of Baltids reside within your borders. Are you now going to claim they aren't Finns?

vingul
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:38 PM
Anyway, she looks extremely in Finnish in that black-and-white picture.

Which is why more than one (stylized) photo must be available for any attempt at classification. Nobody would deny this.


It's funny how some people on Skadi and other racialist forums classify people as Hallstatt Nordic or "Keltic Nordic" or "Atlantid" if the person in question is from Iceland or Norway, but if an exactly identical individual is from Finland, people say she looks "East Baltic" or "Ladogan" or "semi-Mongolid" or whatever.

This is sometimes the case, I agree. The problem is not the constant geographical correlation, which is simply another feature taken into consideration, but the failure of many posters to specify their precise reasons for making their specific classification. In many cases, posters are simply not aware of the exact feature correlations which define the anthropological types.


This proves that these classifications are a joke. People just say what they want to say on the basis of the nationality of the individual in question, not at all on the basis of the actual racial features of that person

Such sweeping generalizations only serve to state the fact that you have not been paying adequate attention.

But everyone needs to blow off some steam sometimes.

Susisaari
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:45 PM
You're right, I've never been to Finland. I have many friends from the region that I met through gaming. I've drawn my observations from sites like this one (http://irc.fi) which they have shown me. You cannot deny that large numbers of Baltids reside within your borders. Are you now going to claim they aren't Finns?

No. I don't believe in the existence of a "Baltid" race.

These classifications that are based on a system of several dozens of subraces of the white race are utter bullshit. There are only 3-5 meaningful categories of white people.

A system that includes something like 50 different classifications for white people leads to totally absurd situations like calling this woman (http://suomi.colinsfreehost.com/fe/01/ElinaNurmi02.jpg) an American Indian. Believe it or not, this actually happened on Skadi. People who say that woman has "American Indian" features think they are "experts" on racial classifications. This means these classifications are totally phoney.

Susisaari
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:49 PM
This is sometimes the case, I agree. The problem is not the constant geographical correlation, which is simply another feature taken into consideration, but the failure of many posters to specify their precise reasons for making their specific classification.


Even if they specify those reasons (such as "epicanthic eyefold" or whatever), these "reasons" are most often totally made up.



In many cases, posters are simply not aware of the exact feature correlations which define the anthropological types.


These definitions are arbitrary and unscientific.



Such sweeping generalizations only serve to state the fact that you have not been paying adequate attention.


LOL!!



But everyone needs to blow off some steam sometimes.


I'm not "blowing off steam", I am calmly stating the fact that your childish classification games are irrational and illogical and arbitrary and unscientific.

Glynd Eastŵd
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:52 PM
No. I don't believe in the existence of a "Baltid" race.
What would you rather call it, then? There certainly is a high incidence of these people within your borders. Whether they have part Asiatic blood or not is open to debate. It would be nice to hear some other Finns opinions on this, though.

Mannerheim and Lissu, what do you have to say on the matter?

vingul
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 10:54 PM
These classifications that are based on a system of several dozens of subraces of the white race are utter bullshit. There are only 3-5 meaningful categories of white people.

There are a few distinct and basic tendencies which even laypeople recognize. In addition, there are myriad local specializations arising from feature selection in allopatry. These anthropological types (such as "Keltic Nordid") are not "races" as such, but feature correlations which result from this selection, and sometimes from stabilized blending. There is ample anthropometrical evidence for the existence of these types, but there is also much phenotypical overlap, and it is not sensible to expect every individual to conform 100% to a type. However, the existence of these types is far from "utter bullshit".

vingul
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:05 PM
Even if they specify those reasons (such as "epicanthic eyefold" or whatever), these "reasons" are most often totally made up.

This has nothing to do with "making anything up". If a person does not know what a proper epicanthus looks like, the fault rests with that person, not with the discipline.


These definitions are arbitrary and unscientific.

Correlations are either significant or not. There is nothing arbitrary about them.


LOL!!

Whatever gets you off.


I'm not "blowing off steam", I am calmly stating the fact that your childish classification games are irrational and illogical and arbitrary and unscientific.

Yes, you have indeed succeeded in restating that a number of times. However, the best defense you have so far managed to provide for your superior attitude are statements like "I don't believe in the existence of a "Baltid" race" and "It just sounds extremely stupid". Appeals to faith and unreflected impression. Go figure.

That "the millions of Finns who look like her routinely get classified as "East Baltic" or "semi Mongoloid"" amounts to a feeble strawman routine.

Where's the beef, Susi?

Landgar
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:06 PM
Mannerheim and Linnu, what do you have to say on the matter?
Mannerheim wasn't here for 6 days... :(
I hope he will return...
But i spoke with him some time ago and he admitted that there is a recognisable Baltid influence in Finland.
But many Nordids too - it seems to depend on area.

And you mean Lissu, not Linnu. ;)

Susisaari
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:08 PM
What would you rather call it, then? There certainly is a high incidence of these people within your borders.


Define "these people". You start with the assumption that there is a racial type that you call "East Baltic" or whatever and then you just ask my opinion on what "these people" ought to be called. You don't seem to understand that "these people" don't necessarily exist as racial type.



Whether they have part Asiatic blood or not is open to debate.


The hypothesis that Finns/Balts are Mongols is about as plausible as creationism. But of course, creationists always try to say there is a "debate" between creationism and the theory of genetic evolution, as if these two were somehow on an equal footing.

Susisaari
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:15 PM
There are a few distinct and basic tendencies which even laypeople recognize. In addition, there are myriad local specializations arising from feature selection in allopatry. These anthropological types (such as "Keltic Nordid") are not "races" as such, but feature correlations which result from this selection


This means that those classifications are not meaningful in a racial sense. It's like defining a "New York type" based on "feature correlations" which result from the empirically observable traits in the population of the city of New York. Such classifications are totally meaningless because people who are racially totally different are lumped together as an aggregate, whereas two people who are racially similar get a different classification because one of them conforms to this "New York type" and the other doesn't.

vingul
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:20 PM
The hypothesis that Finns/Balts are Mongols is about as plausible as creationism. But of course, creationists always try to say there is a "debate" between creationism and the theory of genetic evolution, as if these two were somehow on an equal footing.

Strawmen again. Who said "Finns/Balts are Mongols", other than the fact that you just rebuked it? I believe the general consensus here, which is also considered and supported by modern scholars like Kajanoja, is that a "Uralic" or "Lappoid" increment is present in NEE, e.g. Finland. This is anthropometrically identical to Coon's Ladogan. It is not considered Mongoloid. I have been to Finland, and I can confirm (by eye) that they do exist there as a population element, along with e.g. Nordids.

Glynd Eastŵd
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:22 PM
You don't seem to understand that "these people" don't necessarily exist as racial type.

What are these people, then? Aliens from outer space?

Susisaari
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:25 PM
Strawmen again. Who said "Finns/Balts are Mongols", other than the fact that you just rebuked it?


What does "Asiatic blood" mean to you? See earlier posts in this thread.



I believe the general consensus here, which is also considered and supported by modern scholars like Kajanoja, is that a "Uralic" or "Lappoid" increment is present in NEE, e.g. Finland.


Define "Uralic" or "Lappoid".



This is anthropometrically identical to Coon's Ladogan.


Define "Ladogan".



It is not considered Mongoloid.


So why do people constantly bring up this 19th century bullshit theory of "Asiatic blood" and whatnot?



I have been to Finland, and I can confirm (by eye) that they do exist there as a population element, along with e.g. Nordids.


And who is "they"?

vingul
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:29 PM
This means that those classifications are not meaningful in a racial sense.

Wrong. You have obviously not grasped the notion of "type" and the dynamic interaction thereof. The fact that I refrain from using the term "race" should not occasion wordplay. It is still "racially" meaningful.


It's like defining a "New York type" based on "feature correlations" which result from the empirically observable traits in the population of the city of New York.

An investigation of feature correlations in NYC would result in isolation of distinct anthropometric clusters readily defined as "Negroid", "Sinid", "Orientalid", "Mediterranid", "Alpinid" etc., not in any "NYC type". Or do all New Yorkers look the same to you?


Such classifications are totally meaningless because people who are racially totally different are lumped together as an aggregate, whereas two people who are racially similar get a different classification because one of them conforms to this "New York type" and the other doesn't.

What are you smoking, Susi? Please read up on speciation and linear regression.

Lissu
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:39 PM
What would you rather call it, then? There certainly is a high incidence of these people within your borders. Whether they have part Asiatic blood or not is open to debate. It would be nice to hear some other Finns opinions on this, though.Well for me the "Baltid" (Though I'm not afraid of saying EB because I don't believe there is any Mongoloid influence in it) component is strong in Finland, majority of Finns have it to varying degree, the other component being Nordid. Majority of Finns are Nordid to varying degree, those areas where Nordid is not so common are sparsely populated, like North-Karelia. To my eyes Nordid/Baltid(EB) mix is the best blend there is :) (East) Baltids have certain softness in features which Nordids usually lack.

I still don't get it why EB has gotten such a bad name here. It merely seems to be a form of cro-magnoid, and the name refers to the area where it's most common - eastern shores of the Baltic Sea.

As for the Icelandic model - Nordid (predominantly) + EB + Dinarid sounds pretty much right to me. The latter ones are far from predominant though.

vingul
Monday, May 15th, 2006, 11:39 PM
What does "Asiatic blood" mean to you? See earlier posts in this thread.

It is not synonymous with "Mongol". Asia and Europe join at the Urals, so Asia need not indicate East or Southeast Asia.


Define "Uralic" or "Lappoid".

I suggest that you read up on this yourself. The fact that you have not, is ample reason for you to review your statements.

http://www.snpa.skadi.net/bilder/kajafig1.jpg


Define "Ladogan".

Better still, rather that cutting and pasting for your pleasure alone, here (http://www.snpa.skadi.net/racesofeurope.htm) is the ultimate source for the term. It is nicely documented.


So why do people constantly bring up this 19th century bullshit theory of "Asiatic blood" and whatnot?

Who are "people"? I seldom encounter this view myself.


And who is "they"?

People carrying the "Uralic increment"/"Lappoid"/"Ladogan" anthropological strain, obviously.

Susisaari
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:01 AM
An investigation of feature correlations in NYC would result in isolation of distinct anthropometric clusters readily defined as "Negroid", "Sinid", "Orientalid", "Mediterranid", "Alpinid" etc., not in any "NYC type". Or do all New Yorkers look the same to you?


So you didn't understand my point that if your definition of "Keltic Nordic" etc. is based on empirical correlations between genetic features and geographical location, you are bound to lump up all people living in the same area in the same racial basket.

Susisaari
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:04 AM
I suggest that you read up on this yourself. The fact that you have not, is ample reason for you to review your statements.


I know the bullshit theory that you et al. are trying to push, I don't need to "read up on it" anymore than I need to "read up on" creationism.



http://www.snpa.skadi.net/bilder/kajafig1.jpg


Nobody looks like this.



People carrying the "Uralic increment"/"Lappoid"/"Ladogan" anthropological strain, obviously.


So you failed to understand my point again. I repeat:


Define "these people". You start with the assumption that there is a racial type that you call "East Baltic" or whatever and then you just ask my opinion on what "these people" ought to be called. You don't seem to understand that "these people" don't necessarily exist as racial type.

Susisaari
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:12 AM
These classifications that are based on a system of several dozens of subraces of the white race are utter bullshit. There are only 3-5 meaningful categories of white people.

A system that includes something like 50 different classifications for white people leads to totally absurd situations like calling this woman (http://suomi.colinsfreehost.com/fe/01/ElinaNurmi02.jpg) an American Indian. Believe it or not, this actually happened on Skadi. People who say that woman has "American Indian" features think they are "experts" on racial classifications. This means these classifications are totally phoney.


Case in point: (from a thread titled Pics of Swedes in the Stockholm Area (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=50748))



if I was to see these people in a pub in West Australia, I would probably assume that the following girls would be partially aboriginal Australian;
1) #7 on the right
2) #11 on the left
3) #13 on the right (although she's quite ruddy)

And I'd suspect that the guy in #6 on the right could be to a small degree part asian (oriental).


All of the individuals in question were normal Europeans, but this Australian guy would assume that they were aboriginal Australians or Asians if he saw them in Australia. This again proves my point that Skadi members classify people on the basis of geographic location and not on the basis of actual genetic features.

vingul
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:12 AM
So you didn't understand my point that if your definition of "Keltic Nordic" etc. is based on empirical correlations between genetic features and geographical location, you are bound to lump up all people living in the same area in the same racial basket.

Genetic features? If you did not already know, PopGen has yet to evolve to the stage where phenotypical subspecies variation on this level can be matched with equivalent genotypical variation. Lineage research and blood-type distribution are irrelevant to strict anthropometrics, which is what we are talking about.

If, however, I should permit the possibility that by "genetic" you mean "phenotypical", you would still be accusing me of something which I have not done. Would anyone, to take your celebrated example, propose to "lump" all NYC citizens in a single "racial category"? You are basically creating your own absurd world here. If this is your "racial m.o.", I guess it is all quite self-explanatory.

Susisaari
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:18 AM
Genetic features? If you did not already know, PopGen has yet to evolve to the stage where phenotypical subspecies variation on this level can be matched with equivalent genotypical variation.


This simply means your "research" on "phenotypical subspecies variation" doesn't have any scientific basis.



You are basically creating your own absurd world here. If this is your "racial m.o.", I guess it is all quite self-explanatory.


What??

vingul
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:20 AM
This again proves my point that Skadi members classify people on the basis of geographic location and not on the basis of actual genetic features.

I can't stress this enough, Susi. If you were in a traffic accident and your left leg had to be amputated, and the doctor performing the operation accidentally chopped off your right leg instead, would you blame the field of Medical Sciences for the Doctor's crucial misclassification? Or perhaps the schools, or his parents, for not teaching him the difference between right and left?

Personally, I would blame the man who made the mistake.

Mannerheim
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Hello

Havent been here for long time.

I have to say that i agree with Vingul 100% Im sorry Susisaari but thats the way it is.;)

vingul
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:28 AM
This simply means your "research" on "phenotypical subspecies variation" doesn't have any scientific basis.

Where do you get all this from? Of course it is scientific. You are basically implying that there was no scientific basis for recognizing any species or subspecies of terrestrial life prior to the genetic advancements of the 1980's.

You are way up paskat creek without a paddle.


What??

You do not possess an understanding of correlation and regression. This fact enables you to suggest that heaping a bunch of racially diverse people together in a city somehow disproves the conclusions of statistical correlation of variables in the populations from which these people were extracted. "New York type"? Think it through, Susi.

Susisaari
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:29 AM
Hello

Havent been here for long time.

I have to say that i agree with Vingul 100% Im sorry Susisaari but thats the way it is.;)

I don't understand why you would have to be sorry. Anyway, your theory is based on fiction, not fact.

Susisaari
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:32 AM
I can't stress this enough, Susi. If you were in a traffic accident and your left leg had to be amputated, and the doctor performing the operation accidentally chopped off your right leg instead, would you blame the field of Medical Sciences for the Doctor's crucial misclassification? Or perhaps the schools, or his parents, for not teaching him the difference between right and left?

Personally, I would blame the man who made the mistake.


If basically everybody who believes in SNPA's theory makes mistakes like classifying Europeans as aboriginal Australians or American Indians, what does that tell about the validity and usefulness of that theory?

vingul
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:38 AM
I don't understand why you would have to be sorry. Anyway, your theory is based on fiction, not fact.
Susi. I have pointed you to some relevant material, and there is plenty to go around at that site, yet you still fail to produce a single plausible argument to the support of your stance. It makes no difference whatever that you "feel" that this is "utter bullshit" or "do not believe" or merely state that this is "fiction". Likening the discipline to Creationism is a nonsensical move, in that you are the one who is constantly referring to a metaphysic of belief, even as you should realize that in the face of the material which you claim to be criticizing (whereas you are actually criticizing laymen who are careless and who make mistakes), the burden of proof is on you.


If basically everybody who believes in SNPA's theory makes mistakes like classifying Europeans as aboriginal Australians or American Indians, what does that tell about the validity and usefulness of that theory?
People make up their own minds.

The SNPA have no "theory". Where do you get this idea? It is clearly stated that what is presented of original textual material and illustrations is a simplification and a generalization, and that it is intended as a resource, not a source. Furthermore, it is a gross overstatement that "everybody who believes in SNPA's theory" is identical to the bulk of Skadi members. Lay off the strawmen.

You still make no acute references to information. Are your suggestive remarks supposed to invoke a "feeling" that this is all "utter bullshit"?

Mannerheim
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:52 AM
Susisaari

You dont believe in baltid race? Then why there are hundreds and thousands evidences,datas,pictures and writings about this sub-type what does not exist, in this very site?

So what are these theories then,imagination of some skadi members?From this site youl find so much info about example baltid race that your eyes will open. :thumbup

Edit

And i have to add some what is off-topic

Always when i see ice-hockey player Olli Jokinen,my view strenghten .There are different sub-types and races.

vingul
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 12:53 AM
I don't need to "read up on it" anymore than I need to "read up on" creationism.

That means you should realize that 1) your presence here is futile and a waste of time, and 2) you cannot disprove that which is not known to you and which you obviously consider a matter of faith (you cannot disprove Creationism either).

Agrippa
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 02:56 AM
Vingul made very valuable arguments, everybody should just read it again.

To begin with, the example with the doctor was excellent. Just imagine: Is official medical science wrong just because some doctors make mistakes? Or because based on some unclear areas of medical science false diagnosis being made?
For sure not. This just means that both people working with it and the theory itself should be improved, not that everything is wrong to begin with.

Furthermore there are just 5-7 basic Europid types in Europe, everything else is just in between or deviates in an insignificant way. Compare:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43330
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=36155

This might not be perfect, nobody says we have the perfect system yet, but its definitely more valuable than most if not all other ways categorising the basic physical, racial variation and evolutionary tendencies (in Europe - for Europe in this case).

I saw a lot of Finns being Nordid and a lot of f.e. Swedes, even Germans being Baltid, even Eastbaltid, even Lappoid. So yes, geography plays a role, but rather for local variants-distinctions IN UNCLEAR CASES FIRST. If the case is clear, the feature combination obvious, it doesnt really matter where someone is from, he fits into the respective category and would be, if not having direct relations, an extreme case of parallel development what can happen, but is a true exception without any more racial-genetic relations.

Genetic refers to common ancestry, to a common ancestry in a common source population which went through the various selective gates, bottlenecks probably, which formed the type. This can happen in different areas too if the same-similar genetic base (only necessary for features relevant for the type and its further specialisation - obviously junk genes and genetic lines being secondary from that perspective) and the same-similar selective pressures being present, thats just obvious.

Susisaari
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 05:34 PM
You dont believe in baltid race? Then why there are hundreds and thousands evidences,datas,pictures and writings about this sub-type what does not exist, in this very site?


There are a lot of pictures and writings about Jesus. That doesn't prove Jesus exists.



There are different sub-types and races.


I never denied that.

Susisaari
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 05:36 PM
Furthermore there are just 5-7 basic Europid types in Europe, everything else is just in between or deviates in an insignificant way.


This is basically what I said. Where's the disagreement?

Nicola_Canadian
Tuesday, May 16th, 2006, 08:58 PM
Baltids dont exist? Well, sometimes I feel the same... However, you have to realise we are talking about proper Baltids or also West Baltids... Not East Baltids, i.e. Baltids + Lappoid admix...

Both Nordid and Baltid have the same major component - Cromagnid... You cant have a Nordic person of whatever racial type having no Cromagnid at all... This is where you get Blonde hair and light eyes... The difference though is that Baltid have slightly more CM while Nordids slightly less... It is really hard to put a line between the two if CM is not so prominent...

Never the less it is common to consider Baltids slightly broader faced, i.e. not leptoprosopic unlike Nordids... The sculp of Nordid is rather close to Med and it is just that the pigmentation is lighter... Baltids have nothing to do with Meds... It is simply a reduction/gracialization without Med influence... However, I totally disagree with the conceipt that Baltization is a sort of "fair type" of Alpinid... Besides it is not easy to find a "pure Baltid" in NEE... Say many Russians have all three components - Nordid+Baltid+Cromagnid and it is not always easy to figure out which one dominates...

So to conclude, I also see a problem with a classic way of defining racial types... I strongly believe that Ladogan type is a product of Coons imagination, same as Neo-Danubians... But unless you provide and justify a better system, we shall follow what is known...