Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Edmond

I would also thank you for your contribution and insights and opinion. The added controversy encouraged me to look at a subject that I know little about nor was previously particularly interested in.

It was forthright, if not somewhat brave, (or perhaps to some might suggest foolhardy) to post such on GHMB at a time M Sweatman was invited by our host as AoM.

It is likely a difficult task to be AoM as often such are subjected to much criticism and scrutiny. (I will try hard to stay away from that forum section this month)

However, the following made me pay some attention. The bolded part is so true of many a thread here.

Quote
Edmond
But your theory is not scholarly (it does not find any support in archaeo astronomy); not scientific (it does not find any support in astronomy, anthropology, archaeology or statistics); and misleading, which is worse than wrong. You claim that your paper was 'peer reviewed', but no archaeo astronomer has give you support

However, I got genuine belly laugh trying to track the basis of one of Mr Sweatman's statement you quote:

"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.”

Surely, such an outrageous claim was not made in any work, which is claimed to be "peer reviewed"????????

Particularly, given statements in Article posted on this site:

"Although I could entertain his, and Burley’s, view that the circle symbol on this pillar hovering above the vulture/eagle’s wing might represent the sun and therefore encode a date using precession of the equinoxes,... "


a bit further on ,

"with help from a few friends and to my complete astonishment, I had decoded Pillar 43. It almost certainly does represent a date using precession of the equinoxes and the constellations we are familiar with. But the date represented by the circle-sun on the eagle/vulture’s wing likely corresponds with the Summer Solstice at around 10,800 to 10,900 BC. Crucially, this date is very close to the date of the Younger Dryas Impact Event (YDIE).

… and you know the rest!!!! That is, that THEN apparently corresponds to the probability of being wrong of 1 in 100 million!

ROFL!

Cheers


Edit to add:

Those seeking a "lost advanced civilization" or remnant of it, surely are stretching the bow of reality WAY TOO FAR, to suggest the chosen method of recording a catastrophic comet strike for posterity would be to carve some ambiguous animals/creatures on a stone, with no direct link to stars or constellation patterns?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08-Aug-19 09:33 by Corpuscles.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 7666 Edmond 06-Aug-19 19:36
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 166 jazzmumbles 07-Aug-19 00:41
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 154 Edmond 07-Aug-19 07:58
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 80 jazzmumbles 19-Aug-19 02:18
Re: Gobekli dates, and archetypes in different art styles 84 Edmond 19-Aug-19 10:33
Re: Gobekli dates, and archetypes in different art styles 363 Poster Boy 21-Aug-19 04:49
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 137 Susan Doris 07-Aug-19 05:21
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 79 greengirl5 09-Aug-19 23:11
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 79 Eddie Larry 09-Aug-19 23:25
summary? 132 drrayeye 08-Aug-19 05:27
Re: summary? 141 Edmond 08-Aug-19 07:25
Re: summary? 125 drrayeye 08-Aug-19 23:13
Re: summary? 120 Corpuscles 09-Aug-19 02:22
Re: summary? 107 drrayeye 09-Aug-19 02:55
Re: summary? 119 Corpuscles 09-Aug-19 03:25
Re: summary? 112 drrayeye 09-Aug-19 05:45
Re: summary? 81 greengirl5 09-Aug-19 23:23
Only one scientist 91 drrayeye 09-Aug-19 23:58
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 137 Corpuscles 08-Aug-19 09:18
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 129 engbren 08-Aug-19 11:53
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 108 Edmond 11-Aug-19 15:09
Re: Sweatman's Decoding prehistory and Gobekli 'zodiac' criticised 77 engbren 12-Aug-19 13:42
Mod Note > Topic Moved 93 Dr. Troglodyte 09-Aug-19 18:44


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.