>> The "unusual series of solar eclipses" that is described in considerable detail in my
>> eclipse lore web site that shows how the Nazca Lines and geoglyphs were almost
>> certainly a religious response to the total solar eclipse "Eye of God"
>> and other eclipse phenomena.

>I read it.

Are you sure about that? There are some indications that you did not actually read it or only gave it a very cursory skim over.

>I still didn't see any "unusual set of eclipses." I see data for standard eclipses that >would have occured over the area since the moon first circled the Earth.

You are splitting hairs and arguing over semantics. The solar eclipses were "standard eclipses" I never said that the eclipses themselves were "unusual". That does not change the fact that it is quite "unusual" (for the region where it occurs) for a concentration of "standard eclipses" to occur over that area. You can be quite sure that the people of Angola and other southern African nations found it to be rather unusual to be subjected to two "standard" total solar eclipses within less than two years in 2001 and 2002. I almost mentioned that it is not "unusual" for concentrations of solar eclipses over various areas to occur, it is obvious from the maps of solar eclipse paths that concentrations of eclipses over different regions occur quite regularly, but it is still an "unusual" phenomenon for the region where these concentrations occur.

>> The "math" is very straightforward. It is a well known scientific "fact" (dare I
>> say "statistic"?) that "on average" or "usually" a total solar eclipse will only
>> occur once every 400 years or so over any particular location on our planet. This
>> highly misleading astronomical "statistic" makes it seem that it is "unusual" for
>> human beings to witness a total solar eclipse in any one place on Earth.

> "On average"?? You're talking about "unusual events." This implies you have a string of > dates available that show how the number of eclipses deviates from the expected and
> predicted (that's what unusual means -- deviates from expected and predicted.)

I am perfectly aware of what the word "unusual" means. The series of solar eclipses that occurred over southern Peru between 200 B.C. and 600 A.D. was quite "unusual" in that it "deviated" from the "average" or "usual" "expected" occurrence of total solar eclipses over any particular spot on the Earth.

>>Everyone accepts the general statistics.

Well that's part of the problem. . . The "general statistics", as I explained in previous posts, are highly misleading in that they make it seem that total solar eclipses occur very infrequently over any particular spot on the globe when in fact concentrations of total solar eclipses occur quite regulary over various spots on the globe when paths of totality of different total solar eclipse cross over each other or run very close to each other. As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. . ." This bon mot applies very well to the "general statistics" that cause the general public to believe that total solar eclipses occur infrequently over any given spot of the globe.

>What I'm asking for is dates and the evidence that the dates deviated from the predicted.

Well if you actually read my Nazca Lines web site you would have seen all the dates and maps of the paths of those eclipses. . . Didn't you say that you read it? And I never at any time suggested that "the dates deviated from the predicted" so I don't know why you seek such evidence. It is totally irrelevant to my Nazca Lines eclipse theory. As far as I am concerned your demand for such "evidence" is just more curious spurious argumentation that distracts from the real issues.

>> within a few years of each other. Indeed a civilization, such as the Nazca culture,
>> might witness an "unusual series" of a dozen or more total solar eclipses within a
>> millennia or two, with some of those total solar eclipses spaced very close together.

>You're using a lot of "might haves" and "possibles" and "mights" in this message. Heck, >they "might" have been hit by a meteorite or two. But theories don't deal in "mights" ?
>(they might have had a plague of flying llamas.)

Sarcasm will get you nowhere fast. . . I am using the words "might" and "possible" perfectly appropriately. I am speaking in broad hypothetical terms about what might happen with ANY civilization that lasted more than a millennia or two. If it will make you feel better the Nazca culture definitely did witness an unusually high number of solar eclipses between 200 BC and 600 AD. There is abundant archaeological evidence that the Nazca biomorph geoglyphs were a response to the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" and that at least two of the bird geoglyphs were inspired by the bird-like form that is manifested within the sun's corona during some total solar eclipses.

>What are the specific dates?

You would know what the specifuic dates are if you had actually read what I wrote as you have claimed to have done. Try again - [nazcalines.homestead.com]


>> present orbit at all. That is a misinformed assumption on your part. The fact of the
>> matter is that concentrations (in time) of solar eclipses occur over different regions >> of the Earth with the moon in its present (dare I say "usual"?) orbit around the Earth.

>But you were talking about "out of the ordinary"; the "unusual." Not "events that occur regularly in the region every xxx number of years."

Indeed I was but I in no way suggested that that the moon left it's present orbit as you so sarcastically and spuriously argued. . . It was, and still is, "out of the ordinarY" and "unusual" for any region on the face of this planet to witness as many solar eclipses as the Nazcas did in the commonly accepted time frame of their civilization.

>The site also makes some assumptions about "eye of god" and similar designs and never addresses the idea that most solar designs are of the solar cross type (eye in cross) and as such they don't actually represent an eclipse.

I don't make any "assumptions" about the total solar eclipse "Eye of God". I have thoroughly researched how the total solar eclipse's distinct similarity to a gigantic "radiant divine eye" staring down from the sky influenced ancient religious beliefs and practices.

See - [eyeofgod.homestead.com]

BTW a handy link to that web site which provides more detailed research on the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is on the home page of my Nazca Lines web site that you claim to have read.

You are in no position to dogmatically assert that solar cross symbols and eye in cross symbols "don't actually represent an eclipse". On the contrary there is plenty of evidence that the solar cross symbol was inspired by a cross-like pattern that is perceivable within the sun's corona during some total solar eclipses. If you had actually read my Nazca Lines theory that information would have been available to you.

See - [solarcrossxsymbol.homestead.com]

Likewise a handy link to that web site which shows how the solar cross symbol was almost certainly inspired by total solar eclipses was, and still is, provided on the home page of my Nazca Lines web site. . .

>Nor do I see any of your evidence that they responded to eclipses (solar and lunar or other celestial events) with geoglyphs.

Probably because you didn't actually read the web site I guess. . .

:The theory about water markers and clan totems has considerably more evidence.

That it is open to some debate but even if that were true it in no way means that my rick solid evidence that strongly suggests that the biomorph geoglyphs were a response to the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is not valid and valuable.

:You haven't provided much that would overturn it.

Here is where your quite narrow-minded fundamentalistic thinking really shines through. What makes you think I have any need or desire to "overturn" the theory that *some* of the Nazca Lines were aligned with sources of water or prominent features on the horizon such as mountain peaks etc.? The fact of the matter is that the water merkers theory and my total solar eclipse "Eye in the Sky" theory are not mutually exclusive. The Nazcas could have used some of the lines to mark astronomical alignments, indeed their is strong evidence that some of the Nazca Lines and geoglyphs were intended to be aligned to solstice sunrises and sunsets, and others for pointing to water sources etc. My total solar eclipse theory is not in direct competition with the water markers theory. It provides a very plausible answer as to why the Nazcas created gigantic biomorph geoglyphs that are best viewed by an "Eye in the Sky" and it also helps to explains some of the unusual iconography of some of the geoglyphs such as the "BirdMan" geoglyph and the "Albatross" geoglyph. It also explains some of the symbolism and iconography that appears on Nazca textiles and pottery.

>Naturally, I would be interested in seeing something other than a string of "supposes" and "might haves" and "probably"s.

Well my "might have"s and "probably"s are entirely appropriate when I use such terms and reflect the fact that I a presenting a "theory", albeit a highly plausible one that has a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting it, rather than quite dogmatically asserting spurious "facts" as you quite evidently prefer to do. . .