Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote:AS: Meaningless and potentially deceptive
> question.
>
> SC: I shall ignore your inference here, Anthony.
Ignoring the facts does not change them.
>
Quote:AS: Good history is based on probabilities,
> not possibilities.
>
> SC: Except the core of my question concerns itself
> with a question of geometry, not history.
What is possible at one site has no bearing on what is probable at another. You are making statements about historical sites that have geometry as their foundation (your statements, that is, and not the sites). You are still talking about historical sites. How geometry is applied differs based on context.
> Furthermore, my question is clearly qualified with
> an 'IF' statement i.e. hypothetical.
Irrelevant. The answer you were attempting to force is what matters.
>
Quote:AS: Secondly, finding geometric
> coincidences within geometric srructures only
> proves that you can see them...
>
> SC: I do not doubt this, Anthony. But I don't
> doubt either that the geometric circle of
> Stonehenge was absolutely intended - it is NO
> coincidence.
Of course not. The archaeology supports it. Further excavations have found the sites of missing stones, as well as (I think) 54 post holes in a circle around the site.
What you are suggesting is that we can take as few as four points and create a circle. That is incorrect.
> The point here is that geometric
> patterns can indeed be the result of simple
> coincidence but there are other geometric patterns
> that are clearly intentional.
In fact, the more complicated the pattern, the more likely it is to be coincidental. If you add in the fact that the culture in question has no evidence to suggest they are aware of the concepts that are supposedly "encoded" in the geometry, then you have a complete non-starter, from a theoretical standpoint.
>The trick is
> knowing the difference and only through an
> exhaustive analysis of the geometry of a
> particular site/monument(s) will we have a chance
> to determine this one way or another.
Untrue. The geometric analysis should be the last step. Start with the culture and what they were doing at the time they built the structure. Then, if there are any questions left, you look to other non-traditional methods (such as geometry, astronomy or geology) to explain the anomalies.
The structures at Giza you are attempting to analyze with geometry have no such anomalies. They don't need to be analyzed with a protractor, autocad program, or aerial photographs.
> So, in my
> book, the work of Legon, Taylor, Chase, Barone is
> to be applauded.
But for those who actually understand the culture in question, the works you cite don't have any real value.
> Far from being the much derided
> 'spiro-spaghetti', such analysis might just
> uncover something everyone else has overlooked.
Again, whatever the spaghetti shows is irrelevant. The "mysteries" the geometric analyses attempt to answer aren't really mysteries at all. They're only mysteries to people who haven't studied the subject long enough to know the real answers. If you find your work ignored, it's because it deserves it.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.