David Lubman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Yes, Catherine. David Lubman knows precisely what
> is causing the chirp. And has subjected his theory
> to review by his acoustical peers.

I'm just asking a question David, my name is unfortunately quite long, feel free to address me as Kat.

> But first, thanks for asking an acoustical
> question in this discussion. It did seem peculiar
> to dismiss archaeoacoustics as pseudoscience
> without considering the supporting acoustical
> evidence.

Again, let me repeat what I've said before (maybe just to WVK) I do NOT regard archaeoacoustics as pseudoscience. My ONLY problem with the Mayan archaeoacoustics claimed is INTENT.


> presented my analysis of the chirp mechanism in
> 2002 in an oral paper at the First
> Pan-American/Iberian Meeting on Acoustics in
> Cancun, Mexico:: "Acoustical features of two Mayan
> monuments at Chichen Itza: Accident or design?
> Abstract at:

Since it was an oral paper and not a published paper, can you make it available?


>
> A post-meeting excursion to Chichen Itza by about
> 200 acoustical scientists and their families
> allowed successful demonstrations of the chirped
> echo and two whispering gallery effects in the
> Great Ballcourt.

But how can you prove intent? Especially when Bernard is pointing out that this isn't culturally correct?


Most mesoamericanists on a certain
> newsgroup

<moderator hat>We don't allow discussions of other message boards or newsgroups on Ma'at, They are not here to defend themselves or say their side of the story, so it's unfair to them.</moderator hat>

> Details of the physics of my "quetzal hypothesis"
> are given in: "Convolution-scattering model for
> staircase echoes at the temple of Kukulkan".
> Acoustics ’08, Paris, France, June/July 2008. .

Isn't the cultural connection messed up when this isn't the "temple of Kukulkan" as Bernard points out here: [www.hallofmaat.com]


That's one reason I'm bewildered by your
> insistence that the quetzal hypothesis must first
> be proven as historical fact before reporting my
> hypothesis.

I don't think I ever said any such thing! Are you confusing me with someone else?


> This paper was favorably reviewed by Discovery
> News science writer Jennifer Viegas" who quotes
> British archaeologist Chris Scare (in part) as
> follows:

Scarre is not a Mayanist. [en.wikipedia.org]


> I think you'll agree that Chris Scarre, though not
> particularly a mesoamericanist (his specialty is
> early man), stands among the outstanding
> archaeologists of our times. Yet he too finds this
> research "convincing and exciting".

I'm not sure that someone who isn't a Mayanist should proclaim it convincing. It hasn't convinced many Mayanists from what I can tell.

> If you do denounce this hypothesis as
> pseudoscience, please copy me on your report to
> archaeologists Chris Scare, who finds much to like
> about it, and Brian Fagan, who treats it favorably
> in his forthcoming intro to archaeology text. They
> will surely want to know why you believe they have
> been taken in by charlatans.


Oh dear god.... David do you always misrepresent things like this? Again, I never ever EVER said it was PSEUDOSCIENCE and frankly I dislike having my words misrepresented! I'd also like you to point out WHEN I said you and WVK were charlatans. I don't say things like that and I never insinuated it either!

I have NO problem discussing things with you, none whatsoever, but I won't tolerate having my words or opinions misrepresented.


Kat

Ma'at Moderator

Founder and Director of The Hall of Ma'at

Contributing author to Archaeological Fantasies:
How pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public
"If you panic, you're lost" -- W. T. 'Watertight' Southard