Hans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> karenellen Wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The individual who wrote this book and
> drew
> > lines
> > > every which way doesn't seem to be aware
> of
> > the
> > > timelines of these locations
> construction -
> > there
> > > are thousands of years of difference
> between
> > many
> > > of them. Lots of dots and lines and no
> > apparently
> > > convincing reason for them.
> > >
> > Yes, that would be the first reaction,
> however, we
> > really don't know when any of these great
> > monuments were built.
>
> For some of them we do GT is 12k old and the Giza
> pyramids 4.5k and EI less than a 1k and MP .6, a
> bit odd to have one culture doing all this dot and
> line connecting? Or is the claim its not one
> culture?
>
> We keep moving the goal post
> > as new technology develops. The pyramids were
> for
> > a while considered to be the oldest at about
> 7
> > kYO, but didn't start there.
>
>
> I presume you mean the Giza pyramids and they were
> never considered that old by the mainstream AFAIK
>
> Now along comes
> > Gobekli Tepe and the number is ~12kYO. This
> author
> > is clear about the age issue: they are there
> and
> > they align: end of story.
>
> That's nice but can he prove it?
>
> In the book he does
> > explain how he came about this pragmatic
> approach.
> > Some folks, myself included have been testing
> his
> > data. As you say,off hand there is no
> apparent
> > reason, until you look closely and reproduce
> his
> > measurements, as one should to prove or
> disprove
> > the claims. He provides the data and the
> > methodology used, simple straightforward
> survey
> > geometry.
>
> There are several scores of other people who have
> come up with other lines and dots and they too
> think they are right you can find some of those
> fine folks here in the Alternative Geometry and
> Numerology subforum here, good luck trying to
> convince them that this new idea is better than
> their own
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 07/08/15 06:34AM by
> Hans.

I have no ax to grind. I'm not interested in convincing any one of anything. I really don't care how, if at all, other people evaluate this information. To me it is interesting from the cartographic point of view; pure geometry if you will. I don't think there is alternative solid geometry; either it is or isn't. I'm evaluating two ways; mathematically, get the two points coordinates' and find if they are on the same great circle, within reason since the earth is not spherical and graphically with GE. All I need from folks like you is historical perspective, as you have offered. Thanks