> Actually MJ, you're beginning to sound reasonable . . . must be
> time to up my medication.
And still you ignore completely my point about it being necessary to demonstrate practically how these vast geometric patterns were surveyed with such (alleged) accuracy in order to rule out coincidence.
Now, is there any prospect of you answering my questions: 1)What is your stance on this?, and 2) do you believe it to be unnecessary to know how these patterns were laid out on the ground?
If a person is prepared to buy and read a copy of your and Scott's book, as I have done, then you should at least have the common decency to respond properly to any questions they put to you about it.
So few answers - and not one of them mine.