Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-26 19:04:43
Dear Liz,
> The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> a bit of a giant compared to others.
This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
be taller because of better nutrition.
I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
best wishes,
Marianne
> The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> a bit of a giant compared to others.
This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
be taller because of better nutrition.
I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-26 19:48:57
No matter what I believe he will be 2 feet short ( apologies but I could not resist it)
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Liz,
>
> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
>
> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
> be taller because of better nutrition.
>
> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Liz,
>
> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
>
> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
> be taller because of better nutrition.
>
> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-26 20:05:17
One of the things that startled me, at one point, was learning Napoleon was fully 5"7" - not the tiny person most people assume. But he had a slight build; his frame was less robust than a more modern man of the same height. (I had an opportunity to examine a couple of his uniforms....) He would have seemed small, also, compared to his generals, some of whom were rather tall.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Liz,
> The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> a bit of a giant compared to others.
This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
be taller because of better nutrition.
I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
best wishes,
Marianne
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Liz,
> The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> a bit of a giant compared to others.
This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
be taller because of better nutrition.
I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-26 20:38:54
--- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Liz,
>
> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
[Marianne said]
> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
> be taller because of better nutrition.
When some skeletons from a battle were turned up near Evesham not too long ago, one way the excavators concluded that were from the 13th century battle in that area, not from one involving Cromwell's troops centuries later, was many of the men were over six feet tall and that was not the norm for soldiers in the 17th century.
The idea that people were shorter in the Middle Ages may come from the fact that modern-day folk have to stoop to go through the door frames of buildings of that era. That would seem to indicate that people were shorter then, but all it really suggests is that they built lower door frames.
> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
So will I, and it should be easily calculated by measuring the length of the femurs.
Katy
>
> Dear Liz,
>
> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
[Marianne said]
> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
> be taller because of better nutrition.
When some skeletons from a battle were turned up near Evesham not too long ago, one way the excavators concluded that were from the 13th century battle in that area, not from one involving Cromwell's troops centuries later, was many of the men were over six feet tall and that was not the norm for soldiers in the 17th century.
The idea that people were shorter in the Middle Ages may come from the fact that modern-day folk have to stoop to go through the door frames of buildings of that era. That would seem to indicate that people were shorter then, but all it really suggests is that they built lower door frames.
> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
So will I, and it should be easily calculated by measuring the length of the femurs.
Katy
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-26 21:32:33
Dear Katy,
> When some skeletons from a battle were turned up near Evesham not
> too long ago, one way the excavators concluded that were from the
> 13th century battle in that area, not from one involving Cromwell's
> troops centuries later, was many of the men were over six feet tall
> and that was not the norm for soldiers in the 17th century.
Yes, that figures. 13C people would perhaps be taller than late
14-15C, too, being from before the Black Death and later waves of
epidemics. There were also a number of famine periods across Europe
in 17C which reduced heights.
If the average in late 15C was 5' 6-7", we can add about another
couple of inches for people of higher social status (this is the
differential for status I've seen used re: Roman sites), giving an
approximate average of about 5' 8-9" for people of Richard's class.
Some were a lot taller, some a lot smaller, but that's a decent-sized
average.
> That would seem to indicate that people were shorter then, but all
> it really suggests is that they built lower door frames.
Yes: that was to conserve heat in the buildings.
best wishes,
Marianne
> When some skeletons from a battle were turned up near Evesham not
> too long ago, one way the excavators concluded that were from the
> 13th century battle in that area, not from one involving Cromwell's
> troops centuries later, was many of the men were over six feet tall
> and that was not the norm for soldiers in the 17th century.
Yes, that figures. 13C people would perhaps be taller than late
14-15C, too, being from before the Black Death and later waves of
epidemics. There were also a number of famine periods across Europe
in 17C which reduced heights.
If the average in late 15C was 5' 6-7", we can add about another
couple of inches for people of higher social status (this is the
differential for status I've seen used re: Roman sites), giving an
approximate average of about 5' 8-9" for people of Richard's class.
Some were a lot taller, some a lot smaller, but that's a decent-sized
average.
> That would seem to indicate that people were shorter then, but all
> it really suggests is that they built lower door frames.
Yes: that was to conserve heat in the buildings.
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-26 23:37:33
Well this is all very interesting.
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 26 October 2012, 20:38
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Liz,
>
> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
[Marianne said]
> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
> be taller because of better nutrition.
When some skeletons from a battle were turned up near Evesham not too long ago, one way the excavators concluded that were from the 13th century battle in that area, not from one involving Cromwell's troops centuries later, was many of the men were over six feet tall and that was not the norm for soldiers in the 17th century.
The idea that people were shorter in the Middle Ages may come from the fact that modern-day folk have to stoop to go through the door frames of buildings of that era. That would seem to indicate that people were shorter then, but all it really suggests is that they built lower door frames.
> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
So will I, and it should be easily calculated by measuring the length of the femurs.
Katy
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 26 October 2012, 20:38
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Liz,
>
> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
[Marianne said]
> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
> be taller because of better nutrition.
When some skeletons from a battle were turned up near Evesham not too long ago, one way the excavators concluded that were from the 13th century battle in that area, not from one involving Cromwell's troops centuries later, was many of the men were over six feet tall and that was not the norm for soldiers in the 17th century.
The idea that people were shorter in the Middle Ages may come from the fact that modern-day folk have to stoop to go through the door frames of buildings of that era. That would seem to indicate that people were shorter then, but all it really suggests is that they built lower door frames.
> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
So will I, and it should be easily calculated by measuring the length of the femurs.
Katy
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 03:26:34
Oy! I can't believe you said that.
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:40 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
>
>No matter what I believe he will be 2 feet short ( apologies but I could not resist it)
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Liz,
>>
>> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
>> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
>> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
>>
>> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
>> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
>> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
>> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
>> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
>> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
>> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
>> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
>> be taller because of better nutrition.
>>
>> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>>
>> best wishes,
>> Marianne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Recent Activity: * New Members 3
>Visit Your Group
>
>Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
>.
>
>
>
>
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:40 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
>
>No matter what I believe he will be 2 feet short ( apologies but I could not resist it)
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Liz,
>>
>> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
>> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
>> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
>>
>> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
>> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
>> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
>> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
>> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
>> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
>> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
>> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
>> be taller because of better nutrition.
>>
>> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>>
>> best wishes,
>> Marianne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Recent Activity: * New Members 3
>Visit Your Group
>
>Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
>.
>
>
>
>
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 12:54:33
Yeah, George, I'd be asking for divine forgiveness. You know, like I will be because I laughed and then read it to the missus.
--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Oy! I can't believe you said that.
> Sheffe
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> >To: "" <>
> >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:40 PM
> >Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
> >
> >
> >Â
> >No matter what I believe he will be 2 feet short ( apologies but I could not resist it)
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Liz,
> >>
> >> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> >> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> >> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
> >>
> >> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
> >> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
> >> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
> >> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
> >> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
> >> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
> >> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
> >> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
> >> be taller because of better nutrition.
> >>
> >> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
> >>
> >> best wishes,
> >> Marianne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Recent Activity: * New Members 3
> >Visit Your Group
> >
> >Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> >.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Oy! I can't believe you said that.
> Sheffe
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> >To: "" <>
> >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:40 PM
> >Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
> >
> >
> >Â
> >No matter what I believe he will be 2 feet short ( apologies but I could not resist it)
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Liz,
> >>
> >> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> >> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> >> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
> >>
> >> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
> >> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
> >> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
> >> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
> >> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
> >> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
> >> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
> >> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
> >> be taller because of better nutrition.
> >>
> >> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
> >>
> >> best wishes,
> >> Marianne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Recent Activity: * New Members 3
> >Visit Your Group
> >
> >Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> >.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Bad jokes (was RE: height (was: actor for movie?????))
2012-10-27 13:06:08
Guilty! (raising hand)
We could certainly have a file somewhere for bad jokes about Richard like the one that goes What is Richard's favourite day of the week?
Answer: Wednesday.
Why? Because it's Hump Day.
Johanne
(ducking and running)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Yeah, George, I'd be asking for divine forgiveness. You know, like I will be because I laughed and then read it to the missus.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Oy! I can't believe you said that.
> Sheffe
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> >To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:40 PM
> >Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
> >
> >
> >Â
> >No matter what I believe he will be 2 feet short ( apologies but I could not resist it)
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Liz,
> >>
> >> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> >> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> >> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
> >>
> >> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
> >> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
> >> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
> >> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
> >> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
> >> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
> >> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
> >> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
> >> be taller because of better nutrition.
> >>
> >> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
> >>
> >> best wishes,
> >> Marianne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Recent Activity: * New Members 3
> >Visit Your Group
> >
> >Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ⬢ Unsubscribe ⬢ Terms of Use ⬢ Send us Feedback
> >.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
We could certainly have a file somewhere for bad jokes about Richard like the one that goes What is Richard's favourite day of the week?
Answer: Wednesday.
Why? Because it's Hump Day.
Johanne
(ducking and running)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Yeah, George, I'd be asking for divine forgiveness. You know, like I will be because I laughed and then read it to the missus.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Oy! I can't believe you said that.
> Sheffe
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> >To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:40 PM
> >Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
> >
> >
> >Â
> >No matter what I believe he will be 2 feet short ( apologies but I could not resist it)
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Liz,
> >>
> >> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
> >> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
> >> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
> >>
> >> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
> >> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
> >> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
> >> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
> >> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
> >> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
> >> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
> >> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
> >> be taller because of better nutrition.
> >>
> >> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
> >>
> >> best wishes,
> >> Marianne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Recent Activity: * New Members 3
> >Visit Your Group
> >
> >Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ⬢ Unsubscribe ⬢ Terms of Use ⬢ Send us Feedback
> >.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 13:49:42
Hi, Marianne, Katy & Vickie & Everyone -
Vickie wrote (in the message below) about probably being somewhat shorter
than she would have been if she didn't have scoliosis. I had a good friend,
Linda Miller, now sadly deceased, an ardent Ricardian, who also suffered
from very severe scoliosis, so severe that she couldn't sleep comfortably in
a bed. She used to make herself comfortable between a couple of chairs and
pad cushions around herself to mold to her frame and thus provide support.
Anyway, I am sure that Linda was 2-3 inches shorter than she would have been
had she not had scoliosis.
So, when Katy suggests (see email at the bottom) that they can probably
determine Richard's height (if the Greyfriars warrior is indeed he, as we
all hope) by measuring his femur (the major bone of the leg between the
pelvis and the knee), it seems to me that that technique would be more
likely to determine the height he would have been if he hadn't suffered from
scoliosis. But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's actual
height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Vickie Cook
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: actor for movie?????
It's interesting someone pointed out to me yesterday, that because I have
scoliosis, I was probably meant to be taller (I'm 5'1"). I immediately
thought of Richard and that it was probably in his DNA to be taller too.
Vickie
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of oregon_katy
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:39 PM
To:
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
[JLT] <snip 1st. part Marianne's message>
> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
So will I, and it should be easily calculated by measuring the length of the
femurs.
Katy
Vickie wrote (in the message below) about probably being somewhat shorter
than she would have been if she didn't have scoliosis. I had a good friend,
Linda Miller, now sadly deceased, an ardent Ricardian, who also suffered
from very severe scoliosis, so severe that she couldn't sleep comfortably in
a bed. She used to make herself comfortable between a couple of chairs and
pad cushions around herself to mold to her frame and thus provide support.
Anyway, I am sure that Linda was 2-3 inches shorter than she would have been
had she not had scoliosis.
So, when Katy suggests (see email at the bottom) that they can probably
determine Richard's height (if the Greyfriars warrior is indeed he, as we
all hope) by measuring his femur (the major bone of the leg between the
pelvis and the knee), it seems to me that that technique would be more
likely to determine the height he would have been if he hadn't suffered from
scoliosis. But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's actual
height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Vickie Cook
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: actor for movie?????
It's interesting someone pointed out to me yesterday, that because I have
scoliosis, I was probably meant to be taller (I'm 5'1"). I immediately
thought of Richard and that it was probably in his DNA to be taller too.
Vickie
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of oregon_katy
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:39 PM
To:
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
[JLT] <snip 1st. part Marianne's message>
> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
So will I, and it should be easily calculated by measuring the length of the
femurs.
Katy
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 15:24:24
I would think that would be well within the capabilities of the forensics team--they seem to be really sharp. I've been wondering whether the recently-announced ability to reconstruct facial features based on DNA is quite sophisticated enough yet to be able to use with the Grey Friars warrior. If not, I assume it would be possible to use the data being collected in the examination of the Grey Friars warrior at some future point. If the Grey Friars warrior is identified as Richard III, all of us here might have the unprecedented and bittersweet experience of seeing the portrait taken from life that has been lost to history.
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marianne, Katy & Vickie & Everyone -
>
>
>
> Vickie wrote (in the message below) about probably being somewhat shorter
> than she would have been if she didn't have scoliosis. I had a good friend,
> Linda Miller, now sadly deceased, an ardent Ricardian, who also suffered
> from very severe scoliosis, so severe that she couldn't sleep comfortably in
> a bed. She used to make herself comfortable between a couple of chairs and
> pad cushions around herself to mold to her frame and thus provide support.
> Anyway, I am sure that Linda was 2-3 inches shorter than she would have been
> had she not had scoliosis.
>
>
>
> So, when Katy suggests (see email at the bottom) that they can probably
> determine Richard's height (if the Greyfriars warrior is indeed he, as we
> all hope) by measuring his femur (the major bone of the leg between the
> pelvis and the knee), it seems to me that that technique would be more
> likely to determine the height he would have been if he hadn't suffered from
> scoliosis. But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's actual
> height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
> planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Vickie Cook
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: actor for movie?????
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's interesting someone pointed out to me yesterday, that because I have
> scoliosis, I was probably meant to be taller (I'm 5'1"). I immediately
> thought of Richard and that it was probably in his DNA to be taller too.
> Vickie
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of oregon_katy
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:39 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
>
> [JLT] <snip 1st. part Marianne's message>
>
> > I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
> >
> > best wishes,
> > Marianne
> >
>
> So will I, and it should be easily calculated by measuring the length of the
> femurs.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marianne, Katy & Vickie & Everyone -
>
>
>
> Vickie wrote (in the message below) about probably being somewhat shorter
> than she would have been if she didn't have scoliosis. I had a good friend,
> Linda Miller, now sadly deceased, an ardent Ricardian, who also suffered
> from very severe scoliosis, so severe that she couldn't sleep comfortably in
> a bed. She used to make herself comfortable between a couple of chairs and
> pad cushions around herself to mold to her frame and thus provide support.
> Anyway, I am sure that Linda was 2-3 inches shorter than she would have been
> had she not had scoliosis.
>
>
>
> So, when Katy suggests (see email at the bottom) that they can probably
> determine Richard's height (if the Greyfriars warrior is indeed he, as we
> all hope) by measuring his femur (the major bone of the leg between the
> pelvis and the knee), it seems to me that that technique would be more
> likely to determine the height he would have been if he hadn't suffered from
> scoliosis. But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's actual
> height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
> planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Vickie Cook
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: actor for movie?????
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's interesting someone pointed out to me yesterday, that because I have
> scoliosis, I was probably meant to be taller (I'm 5'1"). I immediately
> thought of Richard and that it was probably in his DNA to be taller too.
> Vickie
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of oregon_katy
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:39 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
>
> [JLT] <snip 1st. part Marianne's message>
>
> > I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
> >
> > best wishes,
> > Marianne
> >
>
> So will I, and it should be easily calculated by measuring the length of the
> femurs.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 17:21:28
Dear Johanne,
> But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's actual
> height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
> planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
Yes. The fact they have the rest of him, spine included, they will be
able to allow for that.
With the feet, they'll be able to approximate on the basis of other
skeletons of similar height and build.
The 'Prehistoric Autopsy' programme was good in terms of showing how
they can do this on computer models: for example, if someone has
bones missing on one side, but you have the other side, you can
mirror and flip them to fill in the missing bits on your model.
best wishes,
Marianne
> But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's actual
> height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
> planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
Yes. The fact they have the rest of him, spine included, they will be
able to allow for that.
With the feet, they'll be able to approximate on the basis of other
skeletons of similar height and build.
The 'Prehistoric Autopsy' programme was good in terms of showing how
they can do this on computer models: for example, if someone has
bones missing on one side, but you have the other side, you can
mirror and flip them to fill in the missing bits on your model.
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 17:36:12
Hi, Marianne -
Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the bones, as I
would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the scoliosis
making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If not, I
wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
Take care,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Dr M M
Gilchrist
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Johanne,
> But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's actual
> height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
> planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
Yes. The fact they have the rest of him, spine included, they will be
able to allow for that.
With the feet, they'll be able to approximate on the basis of other
skeletons of similar height and build.
The 'Prehistoric Autopsy' programme was good in terms of showing how
they can do this on computer models: for example, if someone has
bones missing on one side, but you have the other side, you can
mirror and flip them to fill in the missing bits on your model.
best wishes,
Marianne
Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the bones, as I
would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the scoliosis
making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If not, I
wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
Take care,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Dr M M
Gilchrist
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Johanne,
> But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's actual
> height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
> planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
Yes. The fact they have the rest of him, spine included, they will be
able to allow for that.
With the feet, they'll be able to approximate on the basis of other
skeletons of similar height and build.
The 'Prehistoric Autopsy' programme was good in terms of showing how
they can do this on computer models: for example, if someone has
bones missing on one side, but you have the other side, you can
mirror and flip them to fill in the missing bits on your model.
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 17:46:45
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>
>... when Katy suggests that they can probably
> determine Richard's height (if the Greyfriars warrior is indeed he, as we
> all hope) by measuring his femur (the major bone of the leg between the
> pelvis and the knee), it seems to me that that technique would be more
> likely to determine the height he would have been if he hadn't suffered from
> scoliosis. But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's actual
> height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
> planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
Very true, and something I should have taken into consideration. Fortunately, they have the man's (trying not to jump to the conclusion that it is Richard) spine so they can factor in the degree to which the scoliosis would have reduced his height.
Katy
>
>
>... when Katy suggests that they can probably
> determine Richard's height (if the Greyfriars warrior is indeed he, as we
> all hope) by measuring his femur (the major bone of the leg between the
> pelvis and the knee), it seems to me that that technique would be more
> likely to determine the height he would have been if he hadn't suffered from
> scoliosis. But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's actual
> height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
> planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
Very true, and something I should have taken into consideration. Fortunately, they have the man's (trying not to jump to the conclusion that it is Richard) spine so they can factor in the degree to which the scoliosis would have reduced his height.
Katy
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 18:31:45
Dear Johanne,
> Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> bones, as I
> would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> scoliosis
> making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
> Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> not, I
> wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
best wishes,
Marianne
> Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> bones, as I
> would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> scoliosis
> making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
> Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> not, I
> wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 18:55:12
Hi, Katy -
No problem. The thought occurred to me when I recalled Vickie's comment
about being shorter than she would have been if her DNA (and diet, I
suppose) had been the sole determining factor, and since we were in the
middle of the discussion about "height" I thought I should mention the
scoliosis likely having a similar effect on Richard . . . and the man in the
grave in Leicester.
BTW, I don't recall seeing anyone mention a wonderful quote from the
Scottish ambassador which Annette Carson quotes in *The Maligned King* : "So
great a mind in so small a body." (pg. 20)
Richard was the quintessential underdog. I love it!
TTFN :-)
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of oregon_katy
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>
>... when Katy suggests that they can probably
> determine Richard's height (if the Greyfriars warrior is indeed he, as we
> all hope) by measuring his femur (the major bone of the leg between the
> pelvis and the knee), it seems to me that that technique would be more
> likely to determine the height he would have been if he hadn't suffered
from
> scoliosis. But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's
actual
> height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
> planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
Very true, and something I should have taken into consideration.
Fortunately, they have the man's (trying not to jump to the conclusion that
it is Richard) spine so they can factor in the degree to which the scoliosis
would have reduced his height.
Katy
No problem. The thought occurred to me when I recalled Vickie's comment
about being shorter than she would have been if her DNA (and diet, I
suppose) had been the sole determining factor, and since we were in the
middle of the discussion about "height" I thought I should mention the
scoliosis likely having a similar effect on Richard . . . and the man in the
grave in Leicester.
BTW, I don't recall seeing anyone mention a wonderful quote from the
Scottish ambassador which Annette Carson quotes in *The Maligned King* : "So
great a mind in so small a body." (pg. 20)
Richard was the quintessential underdog. I love it!
TTFN :-)
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of oregon_katy
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>
>... when Katy suggests that they can probably
> determine Richard's height (if the Greyfriars warrior is indeed he, as we
> all hope) by measuring his femur (the major bone of the leg between the
> pelvis and the knee), it seems to me that that technique would be more
> likely to determine the height he would have been if he hadn't suffered
from
> scoliosis. But I am sure they have techniques to determine Richard's
actual
> height (even being two feet short, as George mentioned, tongue firmly
> planted in cheek), taking account of the effect of the scoliosis.
Very true, and something I should have taken into consideration.
Fortunately, they have the man's (trying not to jump to the conclusion that
it is Richard) spine so they can factor in the degree to which the scoliosis
would have reduced his height.
Katy
Re: Bad jokes
2012-10-27 20:24:21
Moooooooaan!
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:06 AM
>Subject: Bad jokes (was RE: height (was: actor for movie?????))
>
>
>
>Guilty! (raising hand)
>
>We could certainly have a file somewhere for bad jokes about Richard like the one that goes What is Richard's favourite day of the week?
>
>Answer: Wednesday.
>
>Why? Because it's Hump Day.
>
>Johanne
>
>(ducking and running)
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Johanne L. Tournier
>
>Email - jltournier60@...
>
>or jltournier@...
>
>"With God, all things are possible."
>
>- Jesus of Nazareth
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
>Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:55 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>Yeah, George, I'd be asking for divine forgiveness. You know, like I will be because I laughed and then read it to the missus.
>
>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>>
>> Oy! I can't believe you said that.
>> Sheffe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
>> >To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:40 PM
>> >Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>> >
>> >
>> >Â
>> >No matter what I believe he will be 2 feet short ( apologies but I could not resist it)
>> >
>> >Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> >On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Liz,
>> >>
>> >> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
>> >> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
>> >> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
>> >>
>> >> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
>> >> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
>> >> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
>> >> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
>> >> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
>> >> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
>> >> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
>> >> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
>> >> be taller because of better nutrition.
>> >>
>> >> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>> >>
>> >> best wishes,
>> >> Marianne
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Recent Activity: * New Members 3
>> >Visit Your Group
>> >
>> >Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ⬢ Unsubscribe ⬢ Terms of Use ⬢ Send us Feedback
>> >.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:06 AM
>Subject: Bad jokes (was RE: height (was: actor for movie?????))
>
>
>
>Guilty! (raising hand)
>
>We could certainly have a file somewhere for bad jokes about Richard like the one that goes What is Richard's favourite day of the week?
>
>Answer: Wednesday.
>
>Why? Because it's Hump Day.
>
>Johanne
>
>(ducking and running)
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Johanne L. Tournier
>
>Email - jltournier60@...
>
>or jltournier@...
>
>"With God, all things are possible."
>
>- Jesus of Nazareth
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
>Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:55 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>Yeah, George, I'd be asking for divine forgiveness. You know, like I will be because I laughed and then read it to the missus.
>
>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>>
>> Oy! I can't believe you said that.
>> Sheffe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
>> >To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 2:40 PM
>> >Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>> >
>> >
>> >Â
>> >No matter what I believe he will be 2 feet short ( apologies but I could not resist it)
>> >
>> >Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> >On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Liz,
>> >>
>> >> > The other thing to bear in mind is that most people in those days
>> >> > were probably shorter than people are now so Edward must have been
>> >> > a bit of a giant compared to others.
>> >>
>> >> This is a bit of a fallacy. Average heights in the Middle Ages are
>> >> not much smaller than averages now: 17C famines and Industrial
>> >> Revolution period depressed average heights, to a large extent
>> >> because of the impact of increasing urbanisation and
>> >> industrialisation on diet and living conditions. A study of remains
>> >> here indicates that late mediæval heights were about the same as
>> >> early 20C: a bit lower than current, but quite respectable: about 170
>> >> cms for men (5 feet 6.5 inches). Higher-status people would tend to
>> >> be taller because of better nutrition.
>> >>
>> >> I'll be interested to find out Richard's height.
>> >>
>> >> best wishes,
>> >> Marianne
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Recent Activity: * New Members 3
>> >Visit Your Group
>> >
>> >Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ⬢ Unsubscribe ⬢ Terms of Use ⬢ Send us Feedback
>> >.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 21:55:44
Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Johanne,
> Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> bones, as I
> would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> scoliosis
> making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
> Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> not, I
> wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
best wishes,
Marianne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Johanne,
> Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> bones, as I
> would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> scoliosis
> making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
> Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> not, I
> wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 22:02:20
Just to reassure our American cousins, when this is shown on the US networks, the subject will be wearing blue & white underpants due to the magic of CGI.
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 21:55
Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Johanne,
> Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> bones, as I
> would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> scoliosis
> making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
> Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> not, I
> wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
best wishes,
Marianne
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 21:55
Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Johanne,
> Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> bones, as I
> would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> scoliosis
> making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
> Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> not, I
> wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 22:13:56
Thanks for this, David!
Ain't YouTube wunnerful?!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected] <mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Johanne,
> Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> bones, as I
> would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> scoliosis
> making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
> Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> not, I
> wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
best wishes,
Marianne
Ain't YouTube wunnerful?!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected] <mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Johanne,
> Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> bones, as I
> would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> scoliosis
> making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
> Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> not, I
> wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 22:46:23
Homo Erectus episode available - quick before they pull it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYV5a2uVgv8
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 22:13
Subject: RE: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Thanks for this, David!
Ain't YouTube wunnerful?!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected] <mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Johanne,
> Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> bones, as I
> would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> scoliosis
> making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
> Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> not, I
> wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
best wishes,
Marianne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYV5a2uVgv8
________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 22:13
Subject: RE: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Thanks for this, David!
Ain't YouTube wunnerful?!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected] <mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
Dear Johanne,
> Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> bones, as I
> would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> scoliosis
> making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
> Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> not, I
> wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
best wishes,
Marianne
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 22:48:05
My understanding of DNA reconstructions of facial / bone structure is that at the moment only racial tendency can be suggested European, African S/N American etc.
Unfortunately the DNA sampler does not have the ability to reproduce a face of a historical figure perhaps in years to come?
So the ability to reproduce a factual image from R3 DNA will have to wait.
The only good reproduction would be from forensic reconstruction based on known forensic formula, however things like hair colour height and build may be trended with a good DNA sample so keep your fingers crossed on all accounts with our potential candidate
Regards
George
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2012, at 4:55 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
>
> I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
> Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
>
> Dear Johanne,
>
> > Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> > bones, as I
> > would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> > scoliosis
> > making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
>
> I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
> proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
> feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
> indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
> skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
>
> > Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> > not, I
> > wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
>
> It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
> They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
> modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
> Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
Unfortunately the DNA sampler does not have the ability to reproduce a face of a historical figure perhaps in years to come?
So the ability to reproduce a factual image from R3 DNA will have to wait.
The only good reproduction would be from forensic reconstruction based on known forensic formula, however things like hair colour height and build may be trended with a good DNA sample so keep your fingers crossed on all accounts with our potential candidate
Regards
George
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2012, at 4:55 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
>
> I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
> Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
>
> Dear Johanne,
>
> > Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> > bones, as I
> > would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> > scoliosis
> > making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
>
> I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
> proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
> feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
> indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
> skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
>
> > Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> > not, I
> > wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
>
> It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
> They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
> modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
> Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-27 23:46:54
George, my information conforms with yours. Furthermore, there are subtle variations in facial detail that must be given "best educated guess" status.
When our Leicester Warrior undergoes this process, we must be prepared for some generalization. Certainly proportions will be precise, but little things can make a world of difference.
There is one particular Egyptian mummy, now tentatively identified as that of Queen Nefertiti. A facial reconstruction was done, and yielded certain results. But in the case of this individual, there also exists what many believe to be a sort of "life mask." It was found, along with others, in the same "workshop" at Tell El Amarna that contained the now uber-famous bust (presently in the Berlin museum). While Nefertiti may have been somewhat flattered by the sculptor Tutmose, the "mask" is recognizably the same face, whereas the first generation of facial reconstruction on the mummy was not as clearly that of "A Beautiful Woman Has Come," aka Nefer-nefer-u-aton.
(Additional mystery attends this body, whose arm was broken, post-mortem; there's evidence she was buried in the Pharaonic pose....)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
My understanding of DNA reconstructions of facial / bone structure is that at the moment only racial tendency can be suggested European, African S/N American etc.
Unfortunately the DNA sampler does not have the ability to reproduce a face of a historical figure perhaps in years to come?
So the ability to reproduce a factual image from R3 DNA will have to wait.
The only good reproduction would be from forensic reconstruction based on known forensic formula, however things like hair colour height and build may be trended with a good DNA sample so keep your fingers crossed on all accounts with our potential candidate
Regards
George
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2012, at 4:55 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
>
> I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
> Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
>
> Dear Johanne,
>
> > Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> > bones, as I
> > would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> > scoliosis
> > making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
>
> I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
> proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
> feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
> indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
> skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
>
> > Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> > not, I
> > wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
>
> It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
> They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
> modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
> Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
When our Leicester Warrior undergoes this process, we must be prepared for some generalization. Certainly proportions will be precise, but little things can make a world of difference.
There is one particular Egyptian mummy, now tentatively identified as that of Queen Nefertiti. A facial reconstruction was done, and yielded certain results. But in the case of this individual, there also exists what many believe to be a sort of "life mask." It was found, along with others, in the same "workshop" at Tell El Amarna that contained the now uber-famous bust (presently in the Berlin museum). While Nefertiti may have been somewhat flattered by the sculptor Tutmose, the "mask" is recognizably the same face, whereas the first generation of facial reconstruction on the mummy was not as clearly that of "A Beautiful Woman Has Come," aka Nefer-nefer-u-aton.
(Additional mystery attends this body, whose arm was broken, post-mortem; there's evidence she was buried in the Pharaonic pose....)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
My understanding of DNA reconstructions of facial / bone structure is that at the moment only racial tendency can be suggested European, African S/N American etc.
Unfortunately the DNA sampler does not have the ability to reproduce a face of a historical figure perhaps in years to come?
So the ability to reproduce a factual image from R3 DNA will have to wait.
The only good reproduction would be from forensic reconstruction based on known forensic formula, however things like hair colour height and build may be trended with a good DNA sample so keep your fingers crossed on all accounts with our potential candidate
Regards
George
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2012, at 4:55 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
>
> I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
> Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
>
> Dear Johanne,
>
> > Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> > bones, as I
> > would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> > scoliosis
> > making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
>
> I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
> proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
> feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
> indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
> skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
>
> > Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> > not, I
> > wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
>
> It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
> They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
> modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
> Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
2012-10-28 00:13:15
To me, he looks just like Danny Bonaduce...I'm just saying...think about it.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 27, 2012, at 2:02 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Just to reassure our American cousins, when this is shown on the US networks, the subject will be wearing blue & white underpants due to the magic of CGI.
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 21:55
> Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
>
> Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
>
> I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
> Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
> Dear Johanne,
>
> > Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> > bones, as I
> > would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> > scoliosis
> > making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
>
> I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
> proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
> feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
> indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
> skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
>
> > Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> > not, I
> > wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
>
> It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
> They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
> modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
> Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 27, 2012, at 2:02 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Just to reassure our American cousins, when this is shown on the US networks, the subject will be wearing blue & white underpants due to the magic of CGI.
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 21:55
> Subject: Re: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
>
> Prehistoric Autopsy - Neanderthal man reveal:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svdvm-i0mek
>
> I bet, if you shaved off all that hair, he'd look exactly like Patrick Stewart.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 27 October 2012, 18:31
> Subject: Re: height (was: actor for movie?????)
>
>
> Dear Johanne,
>
> > Thanks for the info. I hope that they have all the rest of the
> > bones, as I
> > would think there might be some problems "flipping" due to the
> > scoliosis
> > making the skeleton asymmetrical (???).
>
> I don't think he should have a problem with this, as he was in a
> proper burial in a well defined tomb. As far as I'm aware, only his
> feet were lost through later building work: the reports so far have
> indicated he's in good condition otherwise. It's more a problem with
> skeletons that have been found in more 'wild' situations.
>
> > Is "Prehistoric Autopsy" available online? I'd like to see it. (If
> > not, I
> > wonder if it would be shown on TV here in North America.)
>
> It should be on the BBC iPlayer: I don't know about for overseas.
> They rebuilt a Neanderthal man (his species have contributed 3-4% to
> modern Western people), a Homo Erectus boy, and Lucy the
> Australopithecus, who is a tiny wee thing!
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.