> Origyptian Wrote:
> > You might recall my perspective of
> > those RCD C14 studies: They describe very
> > problematic methodology and are replete with the
> > risk of sample contamination due to modern carbon,
> > apparently as a deliberate design component of the
> > methodology.
> I also recall my disagreement with this which you
> conceded namely that of the 700+ samples between
> not just two, but 3 studies, all fall within the
> greater Dynastic period.
Well, not exactly. The '95 study systematically showed more recent dating than the earlier study and the authors conspicuously avoided addressing that clear enigma in the dating. LIkewise, all three Gizamids were dated concurrently which is not at all in line with traditional thought, or even in the realm of logic.
By the way, what's the definition of "greater Dynastic period"?
> These studies comprise
> the largest statistical RCD data sample ever taken
> of the ancient world...
Practice makes permanent, it doesn't make perfect.
> ...so despite whatever
> misgiving you may have which quite frankly I do
> not see as objective, unless we are to conclude
> RCD itself is completely bogus (which I don't)...
That strikes me as a false equivalence. There are other possibilities than your simple "unless" clause allows. I've stated on the record that I have no problem with RCD science. It's the misuse of it that I object to.
> ... at large the majority of the samples cannot all be
> "wrong" and not a one pointed to any date outside
> the Naqada period...
Yes, isn't it interesting that a couple were dated millennia earlier. Why do you think that is? Could it be that we, in fact, do NOT know what the "majority of all the samples" showed since a huge fraction of them were not reported, they weren't included in the analysis, no criteria was offered for their omission, and no reason was given for them being put into a "reserve". We only know about the data they chose to report.
> ... Feel free to interpret this how
> you like but unless one rejects RCD as a whole the
> data speaks for itself and should be deemed as a
> credible guide regardless of how one wants to
> interpret its meaning.
That's a contradiction. The data does indeed speak for itself, and from my read, it loses a great deal of credibility because of the methodology chosen by the authors regarding the handling and analysis of that data.
> > I can't speak for anyone else, but what I "want"
> > is simply the truth and not a contrived narrative
> > based on what appears to be arbitrary correlation.
> > In absence of any certainty, at least something
> > that makes the most sense that fits the evidence
> > while avoiding logical contradictions. I don't see
> > star alignments as meeting that basic criteria.
> > The "effort" I put into this merely revealed to me
> > that Proctor was able to find one of billions of
> > stars that appears to briefly align with the DP's
> > angle at some point in its history that happens to
> > correspond to the results of a couple of very
> > problematic (in my opinion) RCD studies after
> > presuming many long-term mathematical
> > extrapolations about the Earth's tilt, climate,
> > and random celestial events over the past few
> > millennia. While this may be significant to you,
> > it proves nothing to me about any meaningful
> > connection between stars and the angles of various
> > axes measured in G1 that couldn't be drawn up by
> > any number of other star correlations among those
> > other billion of stars.
> I'm sure you understand the pole star is not just
> "one of billions" and is significant to any
> astronomical culture in which the celestial pole
> was paramount to AE religious beliefs.
And I'm sure you understand that if a monument at the 30N latitude was intended to point to the celestial north, the passage would be built at a 30 degree angle and not at 26.5 with the hopes of catching a brief glimpse of a nearby star during its off-axis excursion.
> Given the alignment of the great pyramids to the cardinal
> points and the fact the DP's of all them point in
> the same direction at nearly the same angle it is
> logical to conclude the DP's were made to point
> at something...
Well, that may be one logic, but then when you consider that many pyramid causeways are at the same 4.6 degree incline, what do you suppose is so "logical to conclude" about what they are pointing at?
> ...which given the angle points
> the passage sufficiently close enough to the
> celestial pole it gives credence to the idea this
> was in fact their intended target which is also
> exactly where the AE believed the kings soul was
> supposed to go.
I hear you, and I disagree with that notion. Why point at the closest star rather than the celestial pole itself?
> One could argue these beliefs were
> derived after the fact having nothing to do with
> whoever built them if they wished, but "whoever"
> did build them seemed intent on pointing these
> passages in this direction on purpose which is
> perfectly logical a particular star, the pole
> star, would have been used to make this alignment.
Again, many things are designed to tilt at a certain angle, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're all designed to "point at" something. Aside from all those causeways at 4.6 degrees, modern stairways often show a standard incline between 30 and 37 degrees, so what are they "pointing at"? A standard ramp for a wheelchair is about 5 degrees; what's it pointing at?
What's the GG/AP pointing at? What do the inclined gabled roof blocks point at? what do the walls of the pyramids point at?
Where do you draw the line at whether something is "pointing at" something vs. has an inherent function that simply requires that level of incline?
> > Thanks for thanking me for that effort.
> I will always give credit where credit is due and
> my thanks is sincere.
Likewise, please don't take offense at the above. I sincerely do not see the arguments of star alignment as being very compelling but, rather, seem more akin to pareidolia. But as I've said many time before, I'm certainly willing to stand corrected.
So, do you prefer Orion over Cygnus?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 23-Feb-17 21:37 by Origyptian.