Hi again Rebecca. Can't help yourself? But you've socked me a good one there. That paper is a load of nonsense and I'm disappointed in MAA. I won't be publishing there again. Maybe they'll accept your 'Bugs' article?

Look, my work is perfectly good science, and you know it. To summarize, this is what we have done. We deduce an ancient zodiac using statistical methods from GT, CH and the Lascaux shaft scene. The statistics of Pillar 43 are sound, although subjective based on my ranking table. You've never had the guts to publish your alternative ranking table. Until you do, you are being hypocritical. Our interpretation is perfectly consistent with the latest science of the YD impact, coherent catastrophism and archaeological/anthropological research, as described in detail in my book. Did you read it yet?

We then apply this zodiacal hypothesis to Palaeolithic art, finding an extraordinary level of agreement. This is a completely objective statistical test. Our hypothesis is testable. Any new data can be added to the database and the statistics updated. This is how science works. Don't like the outcome? Not my problem. End of.