Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... it's not okay to begin a theory with the
> conclusion that it must have meant something. ...
>
>
> Why not ? If someone takes allegedly 20 years and
> uses thousands of men is it wrong to conclude that
> the original diagram had a purpose ?

No. It is wrong, however, to assert what that purpose WAS without evidence.



So it is just
> a fluke that The Great Pyramid aligns with the
> cardinal points ? Okay whatever.
>

I never said such a thing.



> So we are saying that Imhotep had no logical
> reason for laying it out on the angle it was ?


I gave you the logical reason: It was good enough. The level of accuracy increased over time. When you see this kind of evolution, in context, it completely debases the concept that each deviation had its own individual meaning.

For example, since the 1980s, automobiles have gotten consistently better gas mileage. That means that the city/highway mileage ratio of a 1994 Dodge Shadow was intended to represent something because it was different from the 1990 and the 1997. (Was there a 1997?) You take my meaning.



> Okay you know everything so obviously this must be
> true. Is it okay to start a theory with a stated
> conclusion of Anthony ?

I don't have a stated conclusion. "Coincidence" is the default, unless proven otherwise. It is not a conclusion, though. It is the natural state of things, as coincidences appear all throughout nature and manmade phenomena.

Therefore, in order for a phenomenon currently labeled as a coincidence to move out of that category, it has to have proof of intent. Finding a wider variety of coincidences is not that proof. It's just a bigger collection of coincidences. There must be a logical, coherent and testable pattern to the coincidences for them not to be coincidences.

Here's something for you to ponder. Here are the last ten weeks of results for the Florida Lottery:

Wed, May 26, 2010 02-03-25-30-35-40, Xtra: 4
Sat, May 22, 2010 04-09-22-29-45-52, Xtra: 2
Wed, May 19, 2010 05-26-38-43-50-53, Xtra: 5
Sat, May 15, 2010 08-13-17-25-27-37, Xtra: 4
Wed, May 12, 2010 04-11-22-31-34-37, Xtra: 4
Sat, May 8, 2010 01-15-18-21-22-51, Xtra: 4
Wed, May 5, 2010 05-07-24-27-29-31, Xtra: 5
Sat, May 1, 2010 01-10-22-26-29-32, Xtra: 4
Wed, Apr 28, 2010 05-15-29-37-39-52, Xtra: 3
Sat, Apr 24, 2010 12-21-25-34-47-53, Xtra: 2

Notice the "Xtra" numbers. This is a feature one can choose that will multiply one's winning by two, three, four or five times the value of a single dollar ticket. (You pay an extra dollar for this additional feature).

Notice something peculiar?

In the last ten drawings, there was a run where the number "4" was drawn three times in a row. Statistically significant. In fact, it is even more significant because of the ten drawings, the number "4" shows up HALF THE TIME! There are four possible options, but "4" shows up 50% of the time. At most it should, statistically, be 3 times (since it can't conceivably show up 2.5 times).

With this limited data set, I'll bet we can find all sorts of patterns, relationships, ratios and numerological coincidences to make Giza look like a mud pie.

But if we expand our data set, we'll find that it all washes out and is really just a coincidence. There's no great conspiracy at the Florida Lottery Commission to secretly encode the number 4 in to the Xtra drawings.

But... what if we do our analysis of the last several hundred and we see that four DOES come up significantly more than 25% of the time? Then, and only then, can we begin to look for mechanical factors that might be affecting the drawing. We have to look specifically at the Xtra drawing, though. We can't "add in" the numbers from the other lines of calcs, as those numbers come from a different machine with ALL the numbers in it.

This is like limiting your data set to just one specific set of design parameters from the various burial sites, and then recognizing only repetition of a value that goes beyond its statistical probability.

Until you engage in that kind of strict study, however, you can't move your findings outside of the realm of coincidence. There's no foundation for the claim.

I hope that makes sense.





Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.