Martin, I have some sympathy with your position here. I also believe that the accepted view of history has some holes in it that will probably never be filled by academia. It will take outsiders to look at things with fresh eyes in order to see the truth, sometimes. But academia does some great work too, it's mostly in interpretation where things go wrong in my opinion, and you seem to be going down that road as well.
I've had a look at the evidence and you seem to have based your statistical analysis on your interpretation of the various carvings, ignoring the views of experts in the field. This would suggest that your interpretation is the real subject of your study as opposed to a study of the accepted evidence. This is a bit circular and not at all proven. If the accepted interpretation is wrong you should prove why first, not ignore it in your analysis and replace it with something that fits your theory. To do so is not just cherry picking the evidence it's making the evidence. This isn't acceptable in my view and its the sort of tactic that gives alternative views a bad name.


I don't think I'll be buying your book Martin. I think I will leave it at that, but I wish you well and I hope this all leads to something worthwhile in the future.


cloister


cloister