a separate thread about you has been posted on the Mysteries board, just as you are about to begin your guest visit to Graham's Author board.
Since it starts like this, I thought it should be brought to your attention. I suggest that you follow it closely, and that you take note of the names that may appear there as well as here.
Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised
Author: Edmond ()
Date: August 06, 2019 07:36PM
Martin Sweatman followed up his 'paper' of concocted proto-science fiction (in the otherwise sober MAA journal of archaeometry), with an AOM article based on his supposed archaeo astronomy interpretation of a Gobekli Tepe engraving as a 'zodiac' with Taurid meteor shower. He claims a 'new dating method.' Here is my response to some statements in the AOM article.
Pb. I suspect that you have chosen to not answer my question regarding your thesis, as you have replied to others' questions since. I had just wanted to be sure that my take on your alternative 'zodiac-like' overlay is about right. For what follows I will assume that it is.
For starters, I don't have much interest in GT, in terms of what it might mean. More information is required for yours truly at this point, and I am simply not that curious as to what the future may or may not provide in this context.
But let's be clear on one thing. Your idea, borrowed from Graham and others, is very easy to ridicule. And some will like to do just that, because it is easy, and so we can expect - even though we are dealing with grown adults - to see things like cartoon mockeries of what you are proposing.
With that in mind, let's turn the tables. Leaving our night sky just as it is, and change the art you reference at GT, so that it represents clearly, properly juxtaposed images of our current zodiac - the crab, the bull, etc around the horn.
Next, let's remove ALL other modern cultural references to the zodiac, in particular from Europe and North America, so that GT was the only place that referenced the zodiac we all know in its totality.
And let's further say that you would be right, if you suggested that the various animals at this alternative GT looked like a Ram, next to a Bull, a pair of twins, a crab and so on, until you had identified all 12 signs in a highly coherent, complimentary layout at GT. But let's say that only you and a few other guys were raising this point... as of now, which would eventually be proven correct via the discoveries of the zodiac elsewhere, until the supporting evidence was overwhelming in your favour...
Even though we make you right in this hypothetical, we can sure of at least two other outcomes:
That you would be dismissed by many for even making such a suggestion. And that a meaner minority would ridicule you.
So, you are up against a lot, from the get-go, even if you are right. That said, my current take is, Good on you for going for it, but you have a very tough case to make, if you are hoping to convince others that a set of celestial arrangements represent another set of artistic depictions from eras that we know next to nothing about. The only reason why 'we' accept the zodiac imagery is because of its long-standing, practical legacy. I'm not talking about astrology, but its use for things like navigation.
Finally though, on this board's other current thread about you, you are quoted as follows:
"Sweatman and Tsikritsis make elaborate arguments and extravagant claims for dating Gobekli artworks: “The probability that pillar 43 does not represent the date 10 950 BC is around one in 100 million.” [grahamhancock.com]
I presume that this is one example of your statistical analysis. I think you can agree that math gives us something more tangible to work with. And so, would you kindly drill down on this one conclusion. I'd like to see a sample of your methodology.
Thank you PB
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09-Aug-19 18:16 by Poster Boy.