Andrew Collins on Gobekli Tepe sister site

The Old World is a reference to those parts of Earth known to Europeans before the voyages of Christopher Columbus; it includes Europe, Asia and Africa.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby E.P. Grondine » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:30 am

Good morning, Tiompan -

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 .
Last edited by E.P. Grondine on Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby Tiompan » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:15 am

As expected and true to form a complete evasion of all the points , just more wittering on about impacts .
The level of ignorance was tellingly exposed in confusing KT not only with a site with totally differing features i.e GT ,which is bad enough , but also confusing it with an extinction event .
It was clear from the start that you were all at sea ,as could be expected from someone who reads Collions uncritically .
Listing further problems with the Collins ,is clearly a waste of my time as you haven't dealt with or understood the earliest problems .
We have data and evidence , you lose .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby E.P. Grondine » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:04 am

I read nothing uncritically. That include Collins.

But in particular in this case, I don't read analysis that use European constellations or any analysis that uses a constellation system other than one as close as possible to the one used by any sites constructors.

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.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby Tiompan » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:29 am

[quote="E.P.]I read nothing uncritically. That include Collins.

Your obvious lack of knowledge about the subject evidenced by the content of this thread would preclude any critical reading .

[quote EP]
But in particular in this case, I don't read analysis that use European constellations or any analysis that uses a constellation system other than one as close as possible to the one used by any sites constructors.

Nobody know the cosmology or "constellation system " of the builders and even if they did it does not mean that there was necessarilly any "alignment" within the monument that might be directed towards one of the constellations .

[quote EP]
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.
[/quote]

The only person who appears to believe in any type of magic is yourself . The discussion never began ,as is obvious to anyone who looks at the content .You don't know anything about the subject and avoided all the points highlighting the multiple problems with Collins and his astronomical fantasies (the rest of his fantasies would take up too much room and you would be as unlikely to respond to them as on this one ) . The thread was about Karahan Tepe and nonsense propogated by Collins about putative alignmnets to Deneb , not impact events . If you are really interested in the site then read Bahattin Çelik not writers who write fiction in the guise of "alt archaeology " .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:19 am

Tiompan wrote:
Your obvious lack of knowledge about the subject evidenced by the content of this thread would preclude any critical reading .

Nobody know the cosmology or "constellation system " of the builders and even if they did it does not mean that there was necessarily any "alignment" within the monument that might be directed towards one of the constellations .


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.

Tiompan wrote:The only person who appears to believe in any type of magic is yourself . The discussion never began, as is obvious to anyone who looks at the content.


Your rather completely conceited ignorance of modern cometary astronomy and the ancient night sky is evident.

Tiompan wrote:You don't know anything about the subject and avoided all the points highlighting the multiple problems with Collins and his astronomical fantasies (the rest of his fantasies would take up too much room and you would be as unlikely to respond to them as on this one ) . The thread was about Karahan Tepe and nonsense propogated by Collins about putative alignments to Deneb , not impact events . If you are really interested in the site then read Bahattin Çelik not writers who write fiction in the guise of "alt archaeology " .


If you bothers to notice, the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer. I don't think that anyone, including Collins, has noted this yet.

How this integrated with any constellation systems and to the magical world views (gestalt) of the ancients is a different problem.

We have craters now, Timopan, and thus the data wins.

How you react to that news and your previous mistakes is what will determine your character.

If you want to continue slinging poo like some chimp, that is your problem, not mine.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby Tiompan » Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:32 am

Yet another example of a total failure to address any of the points raised .

[quote="E.P.]
If you bothers to notice, the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer. I don't think that anyone, including Collins, has noted this yet.[/quote]

Note what was written posts ago . It is debateable whether there are any "alignments " . If there are we wouldn't expect them to be aligned towards an object like a comet . You have already been asked to provide examples of "alignments " to anything similar that would be accepted by anyone who knows about the subject . You didn't . Not only can the suggestion be wrong headed but the detail often is too ,so let's see your data .It won't fit what we know about the comet and the putataive Collin's "alignment " . Zimmer eh ? I thinkthat's a Freudian slip .Give us another laugh and an example of actual data .
Note what the content of this thread is about , Collins and his nonsense , somethimg you support yet can't seem to find any argument to back it up against a slew of problems .We are not discussing what he doesn't know ,that fills volumes on the subjects he writes about , but where he gets it wrong in what he does write about ,even then it is only a samall percentaeg of the BS , to cover it all would take for ever .
The person who doesn't know about the ancient sky and the sky in general is yourself . I you spot any mistakes on this subject please quote them .
You fell into a pile of poo of your own making , there's no need for anyone to sling any .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:55 am

You seem to be unable to understand that both you and Collins have made severe mistakes.

If Collins' alignments, or your own, to roughly celestial north are accurate then they were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer.

It is not my job to teach you modern cometary astronomy.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby Tiompan » Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:13 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:You seem to be unable to understand that both you and Collins have made severe mistakes.

If Collins' alignments, or your own, to roughly celestial north are accurate then they were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer.



What alignments that are my own ? When did I mention "my" alignments ? You have been unable to understand anything . I have been pointing out that the whole basis about "alignments " is probelmatic , can't you read or understand very simple english ?

Yet again another example of being unable to respond to a long list of problems ,provide data or mention the putative mistakes . I keep pointing out where you are and Collins are wromg why can't you do the same , simple answer to that ,isn't there ?
One attempt at avoiding the issues was introduce comets and we got the ignorant and hilarious "the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer. "
It’s actaully Giacobini Zinner .The builders of GT couldn't possibly haver aligned anything to it , as they would never have seen it . It was only discovered in 1900 , at magnitude 10 i.e it would have needed binoculars or a telescope to have been seen .Which ever way you consider an alignment towards Comet Giacobini Zinner is extreme fantasy that even the nuttiest of the alt crowd might see as being unlikely .
Next up is the Draconids . You'll egt that wrong too .
What alignments that are my own ? When did I mention "my" alignments ? You have been unable to understand anything . I have been pointing out that the whole basis about "alignments " is probelmatic , can't you read or understand very simple english . You are hopelessly out of your depth and clearly don't understand anything about archaeoastronomy or modern discoveries of comets for that matter , which have nothing to with the subject of this thread .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby E.P. Grondine » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:45 am

Tiompan wrote:What alignments that are my own ? When did I mention "my" alignments ? You have been unable to understand anything . I have been pointing out that the whole basis about "alignments " is problematic , can't you read or understand very simple english ?


You're the one going on about modern European constellations while arguing ex cathedra from some field you claim is "archaeo atronomy".

Tiompan wrote: Yet again another example of being unable to respond to a long list of problems, provide data or mention the putative mistakes . I keep pointing out where you are and Collins are wrong why can't you do the same , simple answer to that ,isn't there ?


When I do publish you will be able to buy a copy, just like anyone else in the general public.

Tiompan wrote:One attempt at avoiding the issues was introduce comets and we got the ignorant and hilarious "the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer. "
It’s actaully Giacobini Zinner .The builders of GT couldn't possibly haver aligned anything to it, as they would never have seen it .


Thanks for catching that. I am pretty tired right now.

It was only discovered in 1900 , at magnitude 10 i.e it would have needed binoculars or a telescope to have been seen .Which ever way you consider an alignment towards Comet Giacobini Zinner is extreme fantasy that even the nuttiest of the alt crowd might see as being unlikely .
Next up is the Draconids . You'll egt that wrong too .
What alignments that are my own ? When did I mention "my" alignments ? You have been unable to understand anything . I have been pointing out that the whole basis about "alignments " is probelmatic , can't you read or understand very simple english . You are hopelessly out of your depth and clearly don't understand anything about archaeoastronomy or modern discoveries of comets for that matter , which have nothing to with the subject of this thread .[/quote]
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby Tiompan » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:07 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:
Tiompan wrote:What alignments that are my own ? When did I mention "my" alignments ? You have been unable to understand anything . I have been pointing out that the whole basis about "alignments " is problematic , can't you read or understand very simple english ?


You're the one going on about modern European constellations while arguing ex cathedra from some field you claim is "archaeo atronomy".

Tiompan wrote: Yet again another example of being unable to respond to a long list of problems, provide data or mention the putative mistakes . I keep pointing out where you are and Collins are wrong why can't you do the same , simple answer to that ,isn't there ?


When I do publish you will be able to buy a copy, just like anyone else in the general public.

Tiompan wrote:One attempt at avoiding the issues was introduce comets and we got the ignorant and hilarious "the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer. "
It’s actaully Giacobini Zinner .The builders of GT couldn't possibly haver aligned anything to it, as they would never have seen it .


Thanks for catching that. I am pretty tired right now.

It was only discovered in 1900 , at magnitude 10 i.e it would have needed binoculars or a telescope to have been seen .Which ever way you consider an alignment towards Comet Giacobini Zinner is extreme fantasy that even the nuttiest of the alt crowd might see as being unlikely .
Next up is the Draconids . You'll egt that wrong too .
What alignments that are my own ? When did I mention "my" alignments ? You have been unable to understand anything . I have been pointing out that the whole basis about "alignments " is probelmatic , can't you read or understand very simple english . You are hopelessly out of your depth and clearly don't understand anything about archaeoastronomy or modern discoveries of comets for that matter , which have nothing to with the subject of this thread .
[/quote]


Judging by all of your comments you didn't read or understand any of the previous posts .
I Have not been talking about " modern European constellations " ,where did you dream that one up from .
Re-read the posts and attempt to address the multiple points that highlight the problems with Collins and his fantasies , there are quite a few ,and you have avoided them all , to be fair I doubt you understand them .

"Catching that " lol , "that " was another piece of nosense , a daft attempt at avoiding the problems and the subject by introducing something that you are supposed to know about .yet you managed to get that wrong too .How could you have thought that a comet, invisible to the naked eye was part of a prehistoric "alignment " ?
You have a book coming out , great but I prefer my comedy to be the conscious type .
Maybe you should rest first ,then think a bit before before commenting , it is less embarrassing .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby E.P. Grondine » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:00 am

HI Tiompan -

Why you are asserting that the remainders of Comet Giacobiinni Zinner that we see today are what was visible in the ancient sky is beyond my understanding, as it flies in the face of what little we do know from modern cometary astronomy.

I won't answer for anything Collins writes, just as I won't answer for anything you write.

II write what I write, and will only answer for it.

I will rigorously footnote any data I use, or any earlier analysis that I refer to.

Period.

PS - We now have craters. We win.
E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby Tiompan » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:17 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:HI Tiompan -

Why you are asserting that the remainders of Comet Giacobiinni Zinner that we see today are what was visible in the ancient sky is beyond my understanding, as it flies in the face of what little we do know from modern cometary astronomy.

I won't answer for anything Collins writes, just as I won't answer for anything you write.

II write what I write, and will only answer for it.

I will rigorously footnote any data I use, or any earlier analysis that I refer to.

Period.

PS - We now have craters. We win.


You wrote "If you bothers to notice, the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer"
That is nonsense . The comet was only discovered in 1900 , it is invisible to the naked eye . people in prehistory wouldn't have seen it .
Even if they did there is no reason to suggest that would have built an alignment towards it ot pairs of apillars would have provided an indication towards it . I have already asked for examples of "alignmnets " to comets , you have failed to provide any .

This thread started with you highlighting Ccollins and his fantasies , I responded by pointing out the the problems . You failed to respond to any of them , because you don't understand the subject or the problems .
That is why you can't answer for him .You have wasted a lot of time waffling about in an attempt to support the the fantasies and it has finally sunk in that can't .
Changing the subject to your comfort zone was also a disaster , see above about the comet .
To maintain the childish posture .
You have multiple problems that remain unaddressed , you lose .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby E.P. Grondine » Sat Jul 18, 2015 6:50 pm

E.P. Grondine
 

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby Tiompan » Sun Jul 19, 2015 2:21 am

Vulture bones have been found at GT , there was a fine figurine of vulture found some years ago and Schmidt had mentioned a sculpture (not a T pillar ) that had been destroyed and the remains showed a headless bird “probably a vulture “ clasping two human heads in it’s claws . Vultures were recorded on pictographs at nearby Nevali Kori too . At the earlier Catal Hoyuk they are depicted encircling headless human bodies .
The likelihood of vultures being associated with excarnation at the site has been a theme for some time .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Gobekli Tepe sister site

Postby E.P. Grondine » Sun Jul 19, 2015 11:26 am

Hi Tiompan -

Yes, excarnation.
Didn't Collins call attention to it in "From the Ashes of Angels"?
E.P. Grondine
 

PreviousNext

Return to Old World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron