<HTML>Derek,
The odds of finding a correlation with Draco in the city of New York are 100%. The odds of finding even a loose correlation with Draco within a small region among less than 200 structures is far less than 100%.
The Draco match is very conjectural. Even Hancock admits this. But it cannot be compared with a matchup where the odds of success are 100%(!). That's a blatant attempt to mislead the viewer.
I realize that arguing with you is a complete waste of time but, for the sake of those readers who still have working machinery between the ears, I suggest an experiment to prove my point.
Grab yourself a constellation, any constellation - say the Big Dipper - and try to match it with structures in New York City. I predict with assurance that you will succeed. Now try to do the same with Ankor Wot. Even if you are permitted to distort the structure to the same degree as Hancock's Draco, my guess is that you will not be able to find a match.
Repeat this experiment with random patterns of dots - use the same number of dots as stars that appear in Draco. If you repeat the experiment enough times, you will eventually find a random pattern with a loose match at Ankor. However, you will *always* find an *exact* match for each pattern in New York City.
That is why the comparison is complete JUNK.
And by the way, your double standard is showing.
ISHMAEL</HTML>