> I find it funny that you think you can insist that
> it is a feline.
You know what I find funny? A headless ibex with a big square butt.
I have had other people tell me
> it's obviously a charging ibex.
Oddly enough, I've had other people tell me it's obviously a feline: excavators at Gobekli Tepe, who have studied it at close range, and have a good grasp of the iconography and the overall artistic corpus.
Just goes to show
> that we should rely on the statistical
> (scientific) method rather and absolute subjective
Martin, you seem to regard iconography as random, subjective guesswork. It's not. It seeks to eliminate subjectivity by rigorously identifying diagnostic forms and attributes, and grouping the images that share them. The image in question is anatomically impossible as an ibex. It displays the diagnostic attributes of GT felines. Here it is again, in case you missed it the first time.
Remember the "aurochs" on Pillar 38? A cornerstone of your assertion that GT was especially concerned with the Taurids, and in identifying several constellations in your zodiac. When the excavators objected that it was a fox, you rather loftily informed them that the strength of your statistical case gave you confidence that it was, in fact, an aurochs. Here we go:
I think these two examples will suffice, though there are more. If your statistical results give you confidence in identifications that are objectively wrong, and are foundational to the statistics, then you should perhaps give some thought to the possibility that your method has been falsified. That's science.