>
>
> You didn't reply to the following questions
> "You didn't say if the book actually mentions
> great circles . Does it ? Could you provide a page
> where the term is used ?
> and
> Where did I say the angle didn't change in a great
> circle ?
>
> The age is relevant , lots of post medieval
> examples can be shown to point to prehistoric
> sites whether nearby or hundreds or thousands of
> miles away ,we know that they are non intentional
> because we can ask the builders or have the plans
> .Think of the number of straight major roads and
> airport runways that can be shown to be "aligned
> " on prehsitoric sites using GE ,it's nonsense .
> And worse , the whole thing collapses because of
> the great circle , by maintaining the same bearing
> you will not arrive at the sites suggested in the
> book , to do so requires changing the bearing ,
> making a nonsense of the belief that the Cerne
> Abbas club points to Giza or it's penis Machu
> Pichu .
>
> You still haven't come up with a couple of sites
> where I will show you the same type of imaginary
> lines and examples as are found in the book .
Ok. We have been saying the same thing over and over past eachother: The angle of a great circle changes as it goes around the earth. We agree on that. I missread one of your examples, sorry.
Let's understand that the angle that sets the course for a great circle DOES NOT need to maintain the same angle value around the circle; that applies only in plain geometry. All points at or near the circle are in line (they are on the same intersecting plane).
Also let's make clear; we are not talking about distance therefore Rhombic or spherical distance is not an issue here.
The book is based on great circles. I stated that earlier. On Page 41 the author provides his working definition:
"DEFINITION
We defined geographical site alignments, as a locus of structures which are near to or at a point on a straight arc line that connects them, within a specified maximum distance to the arc; we chose one arc-degree, approximately 69 miles at 90⁰ from the starting point, at 45⁰ half that distance and so on. Every straight line drawn on the surface of the earth is a segment of a great circle-ellipse, 40,075km. (24,901 miles) in circumference at the Equator".
The medieval argument is irrelevant as would be one on the other side of the argument; such as, the fact that some straight highways connect two, three, etc. number of towns, is by chance alone NOT by design. It can be either, now or in Medieval times! i.e. hundreds of towns have flourished along railways and highways, straight or not. Somewhere in the beginning of the book the author warns about assuming every monument encountered was meant to align. There has to be some other design element that corroborates the alignment. The Abbas Giant's phallus lines up with a phallic menhir in SouthAmerica, NOT Machu Picchu. In this example, what are the chances two phallic symbols align? And to confirm this even further the phallic menhir in SA is exactly on the same meridian the Chinese phallic menhir is; a heck of a coincidence!
In this forum we are talking about pyramids, so let's take a pyramid example. We agree the pyramids align north and all agree is not by chance alone, correct? Well, I drew a line due North from the side of Chephren. Accross the Mediterranean it aligns with two Roman amphitheaters: Aspendos and Selge. The first is two miles from the line the second 0.33; another surprising coincidence? These two are about 500 miles away, according to the given definition they need to be within about 6 miles from the arcline to be considered aligned.