<HTML>How can you statisically demonstrate that 3 points on the ground are not arranged by chance? It is an open not a closed question.
--------------
I am currently in discussion with a statistician about whether or not such a study is feasable with our data.
It is quite possible to "prove" statistically that a particular phenomena is not due to chance. Statisticians use the phrase "statistically proven" to describe a case where the chance factor has been reduced to a degree where it is statistically indistiguishable fom the zero-point. Exactly where that threshold might be in a phenomena such as what we have I am hoping to learn.
However, it is theoretically possible to achieve this level of certitude with three points. In such a case, it is actually only one of the points that is plotted statistically (because the other two are scaled to fit).
Imagine that this third point is an archery target, positioned at the pinnacle of Menkeare's pyramid. If we examine the target and find an arrow struck through the bulls-eye, we would be safe to assume that it was intentionally fired at that target by a marksman. This is because intuitively, we understand that the odds of an arrow striking our target, fired randomly, are so close to the zero point as to be discounted.
Now this analogy is not perfect, because when dealing with constelations, there are - theoretically, a lot of arrows to choose from (stars) - so in essence, in our picture world, the Giza plataue is strewn with *mis-fired* arrows - arrows that completely missed that target and do not even appear to have been aimed in its direction.
Nevertheless, there is a limited number of these arrows, and one of them is sticking out of the bullseye.
The task is to calculate the odds of one of these finite number of arrows striking our bullseye if fired randomy. *IF* the odds of a random strike are low enough, the phenomena can be said to be "statistically proven."
"But," you say, "there is always still some *chance* that it was random." This is true. Prababilities can never be reduced to zero. However, it is important to realize that this is true with *any* phenomna! Conclusions based upon Archeological evidence (such as our understanding of Egyptian culture) are no less subject to chance and this uncertainty factor is actually rather large. Statistical evidence is much more *solid* and reliable than such qualitative conclusions, if only for the fact that the uncertainty can be quantified.
Thus it is that, if the chance probability can be minimized to a large enough extent, the case for intent becomes irrefutable.
ISHMAEL</HTML>
