karenellen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geotio Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
> > The runway was created in the 1930's ,it is
> that
> > that is aligned wit hthe Cerne Abbas testes .
> Not
> > the the club aligned with the runway . The
> point
> > is that all the long distance joining up
> stuff is
> > everywhere ,if you look hard enough , but
> it's to
> > expected statistically and it is obvioulsy
> not
> > intentional .For the real long distance stuff
> it
> > doesn't even work due to the great circle
> problem
> > .
>
> Yes, there is a lot of useless stuff out there;
> the more reason one needs to understand the
> mathematics involved in the alignment of points on
> the surface of a sphere. Specifically, the sites'
> characteristics and their construction
> lines(geometry) must meet specific criteria that
> makes them relevant.
> There is no alignment problem with distant points
> on a great circle; the principle needs to be
> understood: The antipode to a point on earth is as
> far as one can go on a great circle and this point
> IS aligned with the starting point by definition.
> Any other points along the circle between them are
> also aligned; a dear few are relevant to the study
> others -most of them- are NOT! The parameters that
> make a data point relevant or not, needs to be
> well defined in the study's methodology. If no
> methodology is provided, most likely you are
> looking rubbish. The scientific method requires
> that those discenting on the given results prove
> that the data does not bare out the conclussion.
> The rejection must be based on a proposed new data
> set, which must reproduce the measurements
> repeatedly to establish their own error
> constraints. The above is the criteria I am
> using; I'm reproducing measurements as I've
> discussed.

It has always been rubbish .
There is no problem with aligning two sites across the globe but you cannot maintain the same bearing to get from A to B oevr long distances ,you have to change the bearing , this makes a mockery of the whole point about bearings pointing to anything over great distance . The antipode is not going around the great circle but through the earth and is therefore not on the bearing that applies on GE .
You don't find that problem with the runway and the Cerne Giant .
If only you would sttik to certain characteristics , but you don't , Avebury has nothing to do with Phoenicians , it is much earlier and is henge with stone circles .Compare this with Michigan which is not not a henge or stone circle and has nothing to do with Phoenicians Mi , that is what links them ,historically inaccurate stories that have long been disposed of .
If you want " alignments" from Avebury do ask and I'll provide accurate ones to similar monumnets fromthe same period that include stone to stone precison , of course it's all nonsense but it's better nonsense .
Still no mention of the sites or an explanation for the "declination of the earth's axis " which appears all over the web site ,and makes no sense astronomically ,mathematically or logically . Could you have a word with the author and ask him what he was trying to say ?