And some are also on www.Academia.edu and on www.Researchgate.net
The fault is not in the stars, but in your assumptions about the roles they play in art and culture. The fault is not in statistics, but in how you abuse numbers. You claim on your site that you have had no rebuttal, but;
The Gobekli science team noted, on Tepetelegrams: “We already expressed a couple of thoughts and remarks on a paper in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry [MAA] in which MB Sweatman and D Tsikritsis have suggested ([external link]) that the early Neolithic monumental enclosures at Göbekli Tepe were space observatories, and the site’s complex iconography the commemoration of a catastrophic astronomical event... we were putting together a more elaborate reply with further arguments and references which, in our opinion, challenge the interpretation and add more context... [MAA] agreed to publish our response... The paper (J. Notroff [et al] A response to Sweatman and Tsikritsis. MAA 17(2), 2017, 57-63.) [external link]... Our reservations... comment on a number of discrepancies we see in the interpretation.”
The Gobekli science team’s public outreach leader Notroff noted in 2018: “a study claiming to have ‘decoded’ Göbekli Tepe... With a rather arbitrary data base and lacking any consideration of the state of research in Pre-Pottery Neolithic iconography, but equipped with an apparently well-organised PR department, the study was widely picked up by news outlets, creating an abundance of rather sensational headlines (“a comet... sparking the rise of civilisations”... [We clarified] problematic fallacies of the study... problematic interpretation.”
Your ‘article’ on Atlantipedia [correction: [atlantipedia.ie] displays cited authors' names as tags on top, if activated by search terms, but the articles are all anonymous, probably by Tony O'Connell] reveal some of your sources and inspirations; ”...dated to over 70,000 BC, which, if true, would throw an even greater number of theories onto the scrapheap.”
Hilarious. Your paper [and book, cited in Atlantipedia] made some anthropology redundant? Hilarious.
Your are not qualified to 'review' my papers, but any comment is welcome.
I have already posted links in the AOM stream, and in the Message board, to my detailed criticism, and those of others on LateralTruth and Colavito. Silence of the majority of scientists working on prehistory in the Mideast, does not mean consent, but the lack of archaeology and anthropology in your articles; and reluctance to tangle their reputations in a field known for correspondences without theories. For which you are the poster boy.
Cloister noted in the AOM stream, "your interpretation is the real subject of your study... This is circular... prove why they are wrong first. Tactic gives alternative views a bad name."
You challenged me to review your interpretation by your rules. Hilarious. The archaeologist on Lateral Truth had already done that using Bugs Bunny et al, with hilarious results.
If you want to study prehistory, start with buildings, the context of which you probably understand. For archaeo astronomy, start with Robert Bauval’s paper on Bootes. And visit here; [stoneprintjournal.wordpress.com]
Join your local Archaeological Society. Read polemical papers in cognitive archaeology. Work your way up to structuralist anthropology. Or rather study prehistoric engineering. I recommend Malinowski's [correction; Malkowski's] book on the gravity pump between the Sphinx pond and the Great Pyramid bedrock shaft. Provided you ignore his unsubstantiated dating to BC 30 000 [correction; perhaps he dated it to BC 300 000? I kept only the pages dealing with the gravity pump]. And resist the temptation to backdate it further.
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 11-Aug-19 15:25 by Edmond.