WHAT NO ONE WHO SELF-PROCLAIMS THEMSELVES "ARCHAEO ASTRONOMERS" CAN EXPLAIN IS WHY ANCIENT CULTURES INVESTED SO MUCH EFFORT IN BOTH CONSTRUCTING STRUCTURES AND IN MAINTAINING A CLASS OF ASTRONOMER
I think the reason this problem is not examined is a form of projection, by which the "archaeol-astronomers" proclaim their own importance, and use it to justify their own importance and the "prudence" of supporting them financially.
Personally, I am interest in the NEO detection funding specifically and do not give a s**t about the observing budgets of the cosmologist observers. I am in favor of transferring money from them to the NEO search.
Another problem is the psychological problem of denial, and this can be done even if you have explicit declarations in contemporary texts, which we don't have at GT. People who were born and raised in a Newtonian perfect world which G*d set up to benefit themselves have a rough time with "chaotic" physical behaviors, and random populations.
As it appears that you believe in a magic comet fairy who comes along and spreads out comet debris so we can all enjoy meteor showers, I don't know how far this discussion of alignments in the ancient night sky can proceed.
While due to my stroke I now have to leave the detailed computation of Gausian fits to Newtonian conic sections, precession of the night sky, and orbital perturbations over time to others, the alignments of interest are so obvious that even the most challenged should be able to figure them out.
PS - We have craters. We win.
Tiompan wrote: You have avoided all the problems and again provided no data, which says it all.
You haven't pointed out any significant features that are not known about, why do keep wittering on about that ?
Cometary experts are as likely to be as useful as yourself or Collins when it comes to the putative "alignments ".
For start of the inventory look back over the detail about KT (That's the one you confused with the GT.) ,then maybe you might actually be able to respond with something concrete .
Here's a start on GT. No reasonable response expected.
The first problem is that there is an assumption that there is an alignment ,that is by no means certain.
Assuming that there was some possibility of an intentional astronomical alignment then there is a huge choice of possibilities. Standing between the pillars is hardly providing a degree of accuracy, where does the observer stand? Behind them? Between them ? Which way does she look, north or south ?
In archaeoastronomical terms there is no indication , why not across the tops of the pillars , or along the actual orientation of an individual pillar? All will provide “alignments but how can we know that there was any intention?
The alignments that are accepted in archaeoastronomy are obvious with clear indications , in one of the rare cases where the alignment is between the pillars e.g. Stonehenge there are multiple pillars that are aligned creating a narrow tunnel/sighting line effect (unlike the single widely spaced pairs at GT ), the observing point is obvious (the centre of the monument), and there is a linear monument connected to the monument on the same alignment (the Avenue )
Further ,the alignment is to an astronomical event that is found in various /cosmologies throughout the world i.e a solstice . Despite what Collins claims, alignments in prehistoric monuments certainly facing north i.e not part of orientation that could also be described as southerly and facing a part of the sky where the sun or moon doesn’t rise or set , are eschewed in the vast majority of alignments and monuments, and those that do face north are rarely facing Deneb, if there is an astronomical alignment due to the date of build and precession, it would be Thuban .
Plenty more, but judging by your previous replies, which actually avoid the salient points , you are unlikely to understand .
I missed this "As far as Stonehenge goes, may I suggest to you that you examine the dates of the major construction phases? " I am well aware of the dating of the major phases . I wonder if you are are. The miserable attempt at dating the monument using archaeoastronomy by Lockyer was the point , another one that was avoided .