Poster Boy Wrote:
> Roughriders were playing, I get it!
RB Heh, not a fan.
You likely wouldn't become one, were you to move to British Columbia.
> Actually, Martin does explicitly interpret all
> ancient art as astronomical, going right back to
> the Upper Paleolithic. I am not the only
> archaeologist to object to this, for numerous
> solid reasons;
I will have to take your word for this, because I haven't drilled down nearly enough to comment otherwise. What I do know, is that Martin readily agreed that his starting premise was subjective. He repeated it, in my opinion. I wrote that I thought that his number-crunching seemed sound, within the context of the premise that he was exploring. That was subjective. Martin seemed to firmly agree, which is why your statement here sounds difficult to accept.
Nonetheless, I would still consider it a legitimate exercise, to explore the possibility - however remote - that "all" paleolithic art is celestial, so long as one acknowledges that this is one's (subjective) starting point and that there are other lines of interpretation.
> Nobody except Martin is claiming to know what the
> ancients were thinking.
Okay, I'll leave that to Martin to address, as you keep coming back to that. As for your part, thank you for clarifying your position.
> > > Rebecca: Actually, I think it's highly,
> > unlikely. >
> > PB: THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDOR! I find
> that things move
> > along much more fluidly when we discuss
> > presuppositions.
> Why are you presupposing it's a presupposition?
When you say "highly, highly unlikely," I presume this to be your conclusion, based on an exceptionally well-considered opinion. Based on your knowledge, you seemed to have acquired a level of certainty which rules out celestial design in general. Now that I know you a little better, I see that this is not what you think. You acknowledge the possibility.
But presently you see that possibility so small, relative to other GT interpretations, that you are very comfortably certain that it is not celestial art. Is that your take? Nothing wrong with that at all. To your question, it's just that once an opinion becomes firmly settled, it does greatly resemble a presupposition.
> > Rebecca: I would be very interested in
> your response to the pictures I
> > > posted above, placing the disputed images side
> by side with comparative material. Cheers and
> > thanks!>
> > PB: I will pass, on the grounds that I
> knew what your
> > point was long before I saw the Disney image:
> > night skies are truly ambiguous.
> That wasn't actually my point.
My apologies for being presumptuous.
I'm not asking
> about ambiguous images in the night sky, nor about
> the Bugs Bunny images, but about an animal image
> which I (and the Gobekli Tepe archaeologists) find
> completely unambiguous, while Martin interprets
> it...differently. It's not a trivial point,
> because there are at least two ways it could
> falsify his entire synthesis.
Okay, since I was wrong I'll take a look. But would you kindly direct me to the part of your essay where this point is made. I'd like to zero right in on exactly what you're getting out, if you don't mind.
> > PB: "I'll be back when the ibex/feline
> That's a fabulous line. :)