Martin

I thank you for the reply

Martinsw1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with the Collins/Hale interpretation
> is that no statistical confidence estimate can be
> attached to it. You will always be able to match a
> given shape to some stars in the sky - which is
> what thy do. It is the same as looking for shapes
> in the clouds. It is scientifically meaningless,
> i.e. nonsense.

I was not promoting Collins/Hale as being correct.
However you jump immediately from the postulate that all GT animal figures are representative of constellations, so that you can conjure up some mad method to prove they are constellations.
Circular reasoning. Dare I say (use your word) i.e. "nonsense"


There is a HUGE difference with my
> work. My work uses a scientific method, and is
> sufficiently constrained that a statistical
> estimate of confidence can be derived. Although
> there is some subjectivity in the pattern
> matching, this is contained entirely within the
> ranking table. By examining the ranking table, you
> can see the level of subjectivity for yourself and
> decide whether it plausible. You would have to see
> things very differently to me to reduce the
> statistics to a meaningless level.

Again your ranking table is merely what constellation matches, most closely, each animal.
It does not prove the animals are to represent constellations.

In addition to
> that, my zodiacal hypothesis has been validated by
> comparison with radiocarbon dates of Paleolithic
> cave art. It shows the same system had likely been
> in existence for tens of thousands of years. So
> there is a MASSIVE difference. Essentially, my
> work is almost certainly correct (to an
> extraordinary level of confidence), which means
> all other contradictory interpretations must be
> almost certainly wrong.

You survey Palaeolithic art. So obsessed with your narrow view of the world, and your statistics, that you seem to overlook that your claims mean cave men in Europe only ever painted animals on cave walls to record the spring equinox constellation or other cosmological astronomical reason.

Nothing to do with hunting? or their difficult livelihood.
Then same for people in ancient Anatolia

They could not write or DID not write but their whole reason was to record the position of the sun in the sky?
Really? Just a bunch of obsessed nerdy astronomers?

>
> Yes, GT is the first instance we currently know
> where the precise position of the sun relative to
> the constellations was used to record a date with
> even greater accuracy that simply recording the
> four solstices/equinoxes. I have a blogpost about
> this - essentially we can use Pillar 43 to date
> the Younger Dryas event with about the same level
> of accuracy as all the radiocarbon studies of the
> YD 'black mat' combined. It's pretty clear what GT
> is all about.

Having gone to so much trouble to construct a huge museum. They did not even bother to bore a few holes in each animal to depict the position of each of the stars? Because everybody they knew, and could even contemplate, ever wanting to know about long gone history were nerdy astronomers and would know what animals meant !!! i.e. STARS! Because that is the only reason they depicted animals?

Unbelievable but very interesting.