on the contrary !! any anthropologist can tall the difference between an asian and carcasian skull . but anyone with eyes to see can see the difference in a negroid skull !!
Lol, you still dont get it.
What you are doing is selecting a subset of shapes of skulls from each race that show strong differentiation from the other races, sort of 'classic' skulls that strongly show these features for each race and then comparing them.
But the truth of the matter is that while these features do exist, the variations within the races are as dramatic as the supposed differences between the races. Which is why in the article it poiints out that finding these features on a skull does not in and of itself PROVE the race of the pereson. Taken together with other features present in the skeleton the features of the skull it makes it more or less likely that a person was a particular race. But I have seen blacks with headshapes like the caucasian skulls you show, and I have seen whites with headshapes similar to the negroid skulls you have shown. That is because of the huge variation each race has within its own group.
The pics you are showing are thus little more than a stacking of the deck and dont really prove anything.
Besides all that, all the races have intermingled with each other for thousands of years and will do so again. During the normal 'Ice Age' periods, the northern climes are uninhabitable and areas like Spain, Italy, the Balkans, the Ukraine become like Canada or Sweden. The northern populations are driven southwards to intermingle with the darker skinned ethnicities that have adapted to a previous tropical climate.
We have been living in a warm inter-galatial period that has allowed the human race to spread out and differentiate more. But soon (next few thousand years or less) this intergalatial period will end abruptly and humanity will be driven toward the tropics again.
We are all one species and this notion of race was a failed attempt to show how humanity has various breeds, but instead of using the word breed as that is applied to animals mostly, they use the word race, which originally was a reference to ethnicity not the 19th century definition of race.
Your ideas you present here are archaic psuedo-science from over a century ago and has been known to be obsolete for the last few decades, though anthropologists still find the categorizations useful. But I think that is more due to academic inertia than any current facts supporting these notions of race.
So I guess the real question is 'Why do people like you persist in using outdated terminology and push obsolete concepts?' The obvious answer is that you derive some benefit from doing so or think you soon will be.
So either you are a deluded racists with illusions of restoring racial glory (at what cost in life, blood and treasure?) or you are a libtard who is merely posing as a racist to fan the flames of racial division, suspicion and hatred.
Either way you are a loser fantasist.