I would still say it's more likely to be head binding. I wonder who did the work in these skulls. There's also the possibility that their hoaxes....been known to happen...

Okay, came back to the tribe to respond.

<<There is much serious scholarship on the issue>>>

I would hardly call the "research" done by Sitchkin and his followers "serious scholarship". It is nothing of the sort.

I have read more on the Nibiru. I still think it's ridiculous. Why? No, it's not because I'm judgemental and close minded. It's because, as my feeling was before, the scholarship is shoddy and second rate. Sitchkin's ideas are absurd and not based on fact, but pure speculation, misinterpreting the facts and relying on completely outdated and unreliable sources. I won't go into all the details here, since many people have already written about Sitchkin's theories and shown where he is in err.

For refutations of Sitchkin, see:
jcolavito.tripod.com/lostciv...d14.html
kjmatthews.users.btopenworld.com/c...ml
www.lauralee.com/vanflan.htm
www.ramtops.co.uk/siren.html
www.ianlawton.com/mesindex.htm

It's fun, even popular, to believe in the loan crusader of a theory...the genius rebel, who's ideas are scoffed by society, etc, etc. It's a romantic idea. But there's usually a reason why someone's theories are rejected by the scientific establishment. And that reason is that the theories are not supportable and fly in the face of known evidence.

<<<It's much easier to dismiss myth and folklore than to investigate it as encoded messeges of truth that we don't understand.>>>

There're many, many people who research mythology in a very scholarly manner and many, many good books on the many subjects. Realizing the distinction between fact and myth, does not mean you are dismissing the importance or significance of the mythology. Also, some fact is incorporated occassionally incorporated into myths (place names and other geography is common), but that doesn't mean the whole story is true.

With your Sirus example. I seriously doubt scientists of today would call people "poor stupid savages". I think the story you report there is a little subjective...and if there was any seeming connection, yes, based on the evidence put forth, I'd say coincidence.

<<<And head-binding would not create double cc capacity, plain and simple.>>>

Who did these measurements? Was this research published in a refereed journal? Which one? When? Even the website above admits that it is estimating the capacities. They could be wrong. Secondly, head binding is done on a living, growing subject. It is absolutely not, as you compare it, like squeezing a container. It IS possible that binding the head of a "growing" human could artificially increase the cranial capacity. (As for your sarcastic question as to what grade I'm in...I hardly think personal attacks are going to further your position.)

From and archaeologist contact who viewed the web sites:
"As for the skulls, they look to me for all the world just like the head-bound skulls common throughout South and central America from 4000 BC through the Conquest. Claims for their large cranial capacity are just that--claims. As far as I know, no one has actually measured. Moreover, the author admits that there is no confirmation of the skulls' age or archaeological context, opening the door for fraudulant claims to be grafted on to legitimate skulls. In the range of human heads, it is a fact that some are larger than others. By choosing only the largest examples of head-binding, the authors make it appear that these are anamolous when in fact the practice was widespread, not just in the Americas, but worldwide. As late as the 19th century, rural Europeans still bound heads."

As for the giants. The fact that many (most?) cultures have some sort of giant myth does not make it true! That's a logical error in reasoning. There are other explanations. One obvious one, that has been shown to be very likely, is that in pre-scientifically literate times, some of the bones of other mammals, such as elephants or rhinos, were mistaken for their human counterparts. These bones were often thought to be from a giant human. Obviously, they were not. Elephants and their fossil relative for example used to be widespread throughout many parts of the world. Someone living in Western Europe, or N. America (for example) 1000 years ago (or even 100) might find the femur of a mammoth or mastodon. This bone would not have looked like ANY known animal in the area, and yet resembles a human femur. Thus the makings of a giant myth. There are documented cases of this, even into the 19th century; when antiquarians started uncovering "giants" in Native American graves.

Interestingly, it has been also shown that the origin of the cyclops myth is in fact from the finding of elephant bones. A person ignorant of natural history (which most people were long ago) might (and apparently DID) mistake the nasal opening of an elephant skull for that of a single eye socket and erroneously concluded it was the skull of a one eyed human-like creature. (See: animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/si...l).

I'll bring up the issue of giants in the Borderlands and Fringe Science tribe...see where it goes....