Martinsw1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?

I suspect they might. After all, they accepted your article and Jaye’s.
>
> 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.

No, Martin, your paper is classic GIGO pseudoscience; the sad thing is that you don’t know it. You cobbled together an ancient zodiac using naïve, inconsistent and self-serving interpretations of the GT iconography, and compared them with stick-figure visualizations of the constellations that did not come into use until the late 19th century. Then you carried over your errors into the CH/UP paper, doubled down on them, and piled on more. The details of my critique are in the blog post that you never bothered addressing – apparently because it was not peer-reviewed.

> 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.

Junk statistics, divorced from the archaeological data. Why on Earth would I want to construct a ranking table? And Martin, I have to say, yours is kind of a joke. Example: you admit your “ibex/Gemini” looks more like a feline, and yet you carry it forward to the next paper as an ibex. It is, in fact, a feline. No amount of statistical magic will turn it into an ibex. However, in the next paper, you define the feline as Cancer. How can the same icon be both Cancer and Gemini?

Another example: You seem unaware that the duck/goose/Libra continues further into the matrix, with neck-rings and the edge of a lifted wing visible at the break; the most likely ID is vulture, your Sagittarius. Which messes up your ranking table AND your star map. Your dog/Lupus is the same icon as the fox/Northern Aquarius. I could go on, but why bother?

> 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?

I have no particular opinion about the YDI, though I’m watching the controversy play out with great interest. But I can speak to the arky/anth issue, and your ideas are the sort that were abandoned over a century ago because the expanding archaeological database soundly falsified them. And no, I will not be buying your book; I got enough of the flavour from the free samples and your blog posts to know I’d be wasting my meagre pension. If you wish to send me a review copy, however, I will cheerfully accept.

>
> 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

I commented at length on the fatal flaws in your “completely objective” statistical test on my blog. Not going to repeat myself here. End of.