Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:07 am
Anyone who purports to have a knowledge of comets then suggests that an alignmnet to a comet which was only discovered in 1900 and would have been invisible to the naked eye in prehistory is nuts . More to the point , to support the views of the nutty alt crowd like Collins is nuts by association . You now admit that you can't " do " alignments , then why still attempt to so ? that's pretty nutty , it only gets you stuck ever deeper in the BS .
You asked for a list , You got one . Then you claimed one didn't exist , then later quoted some problems but still evaded answering the problems .
Here is a list of the problems specifically about the subject of the thread i.e. KT and the nonsense propogated by Collins and Hale about Cygnus .There are plenty more from Collins or yourself ,but that would take forever ever to list and longer to be addressed .
1) there are three apparent alignments / “avenues” that have their orientation on to the knoll . Accepting the accuracy of the measurement and their presence , their azimuths are 15º, 115º and 140º ,none of which are oriented towards Deneb or Cygnus and are apparently to , or less likely ,away from the knoll .
2) What we have as seen from the knoll i.e. the backsight is a flat horizon to the north towards Keçili North Tepe .This is the foresight , except it is nothing like a foresight ,it’s a featureless flat summit a kilometre away but only 20 m higher than the knoll .The effect is seen in fig 12 . That is not an example of a foresight , it’s a featureless horizon. An example of a foresight could be a standing stone ,like the Heel Stone , or even a prominent notch in a hillside ,something that provides a element of accuracy when lined up from the backsight , not a flat hillside occupying over 20 degrees of the horizon .It’s potentially worse than that , the knoll is merely the high point ,and not where the pillars are and it looks likely that Keçili North Tepe is unsighted from the majority of the pillars/avenues .
3) when we look at what actually happens with the Deneb in the period we discover that half the year Deneb would not be seen to set over the hill at all as it would take place in daylight .
4) The altitude of 2 degrees for the extinction height means that when in view it is still over half an hour before setting on the actual horizon and has also moved over four degrees towards the centre of the “hill” (actually a flat horizon ).
In addition to that we have the problems with GT also ignored.
5) There are other holed stones at Gobekli , due to these holes being low lying they are hardly likely to be useful for observation ,they have been conveniently ignored .
6)Why should we even consider the hole as being used for observation ?
You keep waffling about other stuff attempting to evade the issue . e.g. Where did "lie" about an excavation report . The lie is you making up stuff like that .
Look at the start of this thread , read what it is about ,answer the problems about that , don't attempt to introduce to bring in other stuff as a side issue , you only get that wriong too .
Yes data wins in the end ,I have provided plenty to show that Collins is wrong and you too . Why don't you provide a single quote ? ,rather than make stuff up , then refute that . Breath will not be held .
You asked for a list , You got one . Then you claimed one didn't exist , then later quoted some problems but still evaded answering the problems .
Here is a list of the problems specifically about the subject of the thread i.e. KT and the nonsense propogated by Collins and Hale about Cygnus .There are plenty more from Collins or yourself ,but that would take forever ever to list and longer to be addressed .
1) there are three apparent alignments / “avenues” that have their orientation on to the knoll . Accepting the accuracy of the measurement and their presence , their azimuths are 15º, 115º and 140º ,none of which are oriented towards Deneb or Cygnus and are apparently to , or less likely ,away from the knoll .
2) What we have as seen from the knoll i.e. the backsight is a flat horizon to the north towards Keçili North Tepe .This is the foresight , except it is nothing like a foresight ,it’s a featureless flat summit a kilometre away but only 20 m higher than the knoll .The effect is seen in fig 12 . That is not an example of a foresight , it’s a featureless horizon. An example of a foresight could be a standing stone ,like the Heel Stone , or even a prominent notch in a hillside ,something that provides a element of accuracy when lined up from the backsight , not a flat hillside occupying over 20 degrees of the horizon .It’s potentially worse than that , the knoll is merely the high point ,and not where the pillars are and it looks likely that Keçili North Tepe is unsighted from the majority of the pillars/avenues .
3) when we look at what actually happens with the Deneb in the period we discover that half the year Deneb would not be seen to set over the hill at all as it would take place in daylight .
4) The altitude of 2 degrees for the extinction height means that when in view it is still over half an hour before setting on the actual horizon and has also moved over four degrees towards the centre of the “hill” (actually a flat horizon ).
In addition to that we have the problems with GT also ignored.
5) There are other holed stones at Gobekli , due to these holes being low lying they are hardly likely to be useful for observation ,they have been conveniently ignored .
6)Why should we even consider the hole as being used for observation ?
You keep waffling about other stuff attempting to evade the issue . e.g. Where did "lie" about an excavation report . The lie is you making up stuff like that .
Look at the start of this thread , read what it is about ,answer the problems about that , don't attempt to introduce to bring in other stuff as a side issue , you only get that wriong too .
Yes data wins in the end ,I have provided plenty to show that Collins is wrong and you too . Why don't you provide a single quote ? ,rather than make stuff up , then refute that . Breath will not be held .