<HTML>Ishmael- What's all this talk about statistics? I do not understand your use of the word. Also the MT where different size and different distances away from the East side of the pyramids. Have you accounted for that.
----------
What I mean is that (I understand) a statistician can determine the probabilities of a chance relationship. Such an analysis is not limited to almost meaningless questions (in and of themselves) such as: "What are the odds that the mortuary temples would match Orion's belt?"
A statistical analysis begins with measuring the precision of the astronomical fit as we observe it (best done by astronomers working with Archeologists). It then computes the odds that <i>any three hypothetical monuments</i> would match any three apriori established points with <i>the same degree of precision.</i>
That gives us a raw basis for determining the probabiity that <i>any</i> such three point relationship could arrise by chance.
However, there are statistical rules by which these kinds of results are further qualified before a finding can be reached.
Ed Krupp is right in saying that three points "arn't much." They arn't. The probabilities of acheiving a match with three points purely by chance are much higher than that of matching four, or five or six (or more).
However, even three points, as the minimum required to establish a two dimensional shape, provide ever stronger evidence for a match as the degree of precision increases. A statistician can tell us how <i>much</i> more significant they become and whether or not these paticular points can provide us with "statistical proof."
This, at least, is my understanding.
ISHMAEL</HTML>
