Summations Only

Because you have presented no evidence for giants.

Whereas we have presented evidence that there are/were no giants.But then, you seem to be a poster boy for three (or maybe four) of the lines in my signature, below.

Could I remind you once more that we have the skeletons that go with the skulls and they are not giant. This is evidence against your thesis that they are giant.

Is that supposed to be a Polack joke? HBD

Have you seen pictures of this supposed one piece parietal bone with accurate drawings and measurements? I haven't. Are you just taking their word for it that the parietal bone is one piece?I also don't see how a one piece parietal bone is evidence of extraterrestrial origin. That is nonsense. A single parietal bone could be brought about by simple mutation. It would be unexpected and rather shocking, yes... but not evidence of extraterrestrials. What exactly did they find in the DNA and how is it different than modern human DNA? What is actually different and how is it not possible that it is just human DNA with some different mutations? How many bases are different? What regions did they sequence? What method did they use to isolate the mtDNA? There is just so much uncertainty about these claims that I don't know what else to make of it but that they are fabricated (or at the least, exaggerated).I read they sequenced mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) but then they concluded these creatures would not be able to interbreed with humans. You realize that is a huge stretch in reasoning, right? Mitochondria are self contained units and novel mutations within them would not necessarily affect the ability to interbreed. It may be true that the mtDNA sequences they found would not fit into the current human gene tree, but I would say more evidence needs to be presented before those kind of conclusions can be made.So where is the data? What do these novel mutations look like. What region of the mt genome are they in? Are these results being put forward? No. This is the methodology you use to determine if these stories represent true facts or are just exaggerated hype?HBD

It sure looks like his skull has increased cranial capacity. I am curious how that actually happens (increase in capacity rather than just changing shape) and what the extra space might be filled with??? I don't think I have seen where the cranial capacity of the Paracas skulls is actually reported and what the increase over average human capacity is. But it appears that head wrapping does increase cranial capacity... at least from observing a picture on the internet.HBD

?His skull is longer, but also narrower -- after all, the elongation is caused by the narrowing of the width through binding.Refer to the experiments in developmental psychology in which young children are presented with the same amount of something in different containers and until a certain point in their development they think that the amount has changed. Same quantity of juice is poured from a short wide glass into a tall narrow glass and they think the tall glass contains more. Take some ricecake (or clay) in a ball and roll it into a longer narrow shape and they think there's more rice (or clay). It's been a few decades, but I recall that being called "conservation", the ability to realize that changing two dimensions does not change the actual amount.

And so this highlights the reason we need to have the actual data as to what the actual cranial volume of the skulls are. I looked at it again, and it still looks like there is more volume in the deformed skull. But that appears to be all anyone has offered is a subjective assessment of the cranial volume. Is there actual numbers? Because it should be easy to determine for the "scientists" who want to make these spectacular claims.HBD

According to Wikipedia, there are numbers showing that the cranial capacity of the Paracas skulls is not significantly different from normal Peruvian skulls, but the cited source is behind a paywall:Freiss, M. & Baylac, Michel (2003), "Exploring artificial cranial deformation using elliptic Fourier analysis of procrustes aligned outlines", Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 122 (1)

No mention of aliens or giants

Actually I have - but you chose to ignore it. Megalithic structures eg the Sacsayhauman.Anyway, it is not my place to provide evidence. You can do your own research if you want. And if you don't want to that's fine too. I'm not sure why you need proof or evidence. It's a stale subject area and only those who can be arsed are going to bother. Even the evidence I have provided is only for my benefit. I only offer it in case you are interested and I certainly wouldn't provide it to those who demand it.

It *is* your place to provide evidence. From the Forum Guidelines:

• Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

It shouldn't need to be explained why evidence is the foundation for what we believe is true about the real world. If you're not going to argue from evidence then you shouldn't be in a science thread.--Percy

No - it is not my place to provide evidence. And on this point I am quite happy to be barred if this is so.And even though it is not my place to provide evidence I have done so. Which I notice you have ignored - again.

It is not obvious why what you have provided supports your position.Please explain.And, yes, it is your place to provide evidence.

Your evidence was not ignored; it was evaluated. It turns out that your interpretation of the evidence is incorrect. Mega-structures are not evidence of mega-humans.