> Thank you Poster Boy for your well-considered
> comments. Please remember that it is really the
> objective statistical test against Palaeolithic
> art that makes the scientific case practically
> unassailable. This is also described in my videos
> on YouTube. As for the difference of 1000 years,
> most of GT remains to be excavated, and according
> to ground penetrating radar scans there are even
> larger, and potentially much older, structures
> remaining to uncover.
I will take a closer look, thank you. I had been mainly interested in the primary math earlier, and how that related to (what I see as) the most fundamental aspects of your investigation.
A few other interesting things have come to mind in the last 48-72 hours. For starters, it was nice to be reminded by you, as to why we find GT so interesting - that it calls for a reconsideration of what we think we know about human civilization.
Here's one thought that came to mind, perhaps one that you and others have considered. IF you all are on the right track - in seeking to match the constellations with GT art - then you may have inadvertently provided and explanation as to why the various sub sites were carefully preserved: Because the GTers were interested in preserving their history, viz a chronology that is presented by varying celestial positions at various sub-sites. A pretty exciting possibility, imo, but one that will depend on the consistency of art over time. But what better way to preserve their ever-unfolding story?
Another thing that is interesting, is to think that you and others may have identified at least some of the earliest signs which are included, or evolved into the present-day zodiac. I would imagine that some matches would be especially compelling that way, even if the whole of your theory fails to satisfy some of your detractors.
Finally, even at this early stage I would think that we can establish some things about what we already know, which have tectonic implications for mainstream historians. We need engineers, masons and others to step in - like they have at the Great Pyramid - to establish a minimum standard for what these pre-agrarian types were actually capable of. That body of work is going to surely undermine the time-honoured belief that Man only acquired these techs after settling into agrarian mode.
I had a good laugh a year or two back, when I heard someone attack Graham Hancock on this. I'm pretty sure it was Shermer, who implied that GH was bigotted for not crediting pre-agricultural man with such capabilities. I laughed because the orthodox-"skeptic" fringe has the most to lose under such terms, since they are the ones who are the most hell-bent on maintaining our jaded status quo. If it was Shermer who tried to play the bigot card - and I wouldn't be surprised - then it's likely he did so because he knows that he's already lost this battle. For each tech item we attribute to pre-agricultural man, so does the need for agriculture, in order to obtain these things, diminish. Slippery slope there, I would think.
And so, if you're a pseudo skeptic, why not try to get in front of this and try to divert matters, away from the position that you have held for so long, by trying to portray a researcher who has always questioned the status quo as a bigot?
Yes, now I see it was Shermer:
Hancock concludes, “at the very least it would mean that some as yet unknown and unidentified people somewhere in the world, had already mastered all the arts and attributes of a high civilization more than twelve thousand years ago in the depths of the last Ice Age and had sent out emissaries around the world to spread the benefits of their knowledge.” This sounds romantic, but it is the bigotry of low expectations. Who is to say what hunter-gatherers are or are not capable of doing?
Actually, conventional historians are the ones who have been telling the rest of us what pre-agricultural Man was capable of. We have been told that these discoveries were ONLY possible after settlement, by them.
Talk about taking the low road. For Shermer to accuse Graham of this is pure BS, and really an attempt to muddle this issue with his Lost Civilization thesis. Why muddle? Probably because he knows that the orthos are well into the process of having to concede that much of their assumptions about the Agricultural transition were fiction.
--Just to be clear, I don't mean to dump on all orthodox historians. I do believe that many orthos will acknowledge that GT calls for a major reconsideration of some very long standing well reasoned theories based on Ag's role in building tech, etc. Nonetheless, it remains true that throughout this time many orthos have shunned ideas which challenge that theory.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 14-Aug-19 16:30 by Poster Boy.