The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

[dad]

Thank you for refuting yourself even more thoroughly.

So do you have a date for Karnak or not? Thank you for not responding intelligently.

The data points diverge from the old age curve. Karnac isn't needed. You sure haven't said anything one way or the other that is clear on Karnak.


Casting vague aspersions on one of 66 data points is hardly impressive.

We could date Karnak 2700, 2800, 2900..whatever. It still is in a pattern diverging from the old age dream line.

 

[CTD]

Glad to catch this. It's rather sad to see wordplay employed on such a scale against solid data. Words of men have no impact on reality; only on the men themselves.

 

[SignOfGod]

against solid data.

Thanks for coming in CTD, perhaps you can help dad to find this "solid data" you and he are talking about,
because no one else can.

You must both live in a dream world.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So do you have a date for Karnak or not? Thank you for not responding intelligently.

The data points diverge from the old age curve. Karnac isn't needed. You sure haven't said anything one way or the other that is clear on Karnak.


Casting vague aspersions on one of 66 data points is hardly impressive.



We could date Karnak 2700, 2800, 2900..whatever. It still is in a pattern diverging from the old age dream line.

No, if the correct solstice is used for Karnac as taken from your links and the correct date as taken from your links it falls exactly on the Newcombe curve. With that point on the curve it looks quite different and the other points are not significantly outside of measurement error. You have refuted yourself. Thanks. End of story.

 

[CTD]

Thanks for coming in CTD, perhaps you can help dad to find this "solid data" you and he are talking about,
because no one else can.

You must both live in a dream world.

Looks like we need a new term. How does one refer to sub-trash talk?

If you want to challenge me to force confessions of truth, it appears cowardly to do it by long distance. In order for the challenge(s) to have even superficial merit, they'd have to be made in person, wouldn't they?

 

[dad]

No, if the correct solstice is used for Karnac as taken from your links and the correct date as taken from your links it falls exactly on the Newcombe curve.

?? I used a lot of links, sometimes for a specific quote. Sounds like you think that means I stand behind whole silly articles?? No. So tell us what date do you claim? I can tell you where I would date it personally. I would think it was close to the time of Babel (nature change). Either a little before of after. From the sounds of the confusion over summer or winter or star or moon alignments etc, it could be pre split. If so, some differences would be expected.

So, that would be say somewhere about within 1 to 3 hundred years after the flood as I guess so far. That means Dodwell's curve is lookin good!

So, what date would you give it?? Stop dancing. I can't see how any date anywhere near the time of Karnak would make anything anywhere near the old age dream curve, let alone as you claim here, fall 'exactly on the Newcombe curve'!!????

With that point on the curve it looks quite different and the other points are not significantly outside of measurement error. You have refuted yourself. Thanks. End of story.

Oh come on now. The curve of the data from Dodwell looks great, and if we move it over a quarter inch or whatever, I think it would look better! A more perfect patterned curve.

We don't need it (or even want it) to be the exact time Dodwell assumed! It fits my ideas better (different state past) if it was a little off.

So, out with your claimed date man.

He he. Glad I came back to have a second look at this issue, it felt a little as if we had left it less than clear before.

 

[dad]

Looks like we need a new term. How does one refer to sub-trash talk?

If you want to challenge me to force confessions of truth, it appears cowardly to do it by long distance. In order for the challenge(s) to have even superficial merit, they'd have to be made in person, wouldn't they?

I think the poster meant intellectually. In other words, explain to them why you think their objections are weak. It's all about ideas, not personal.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

?? I used a lot of links, sometimes for a specific quote. Sounds like you think that means I stand behind whole silly articles?? No. So tell us what date do you claim? I can tell you where I would date it personally. I would think it was close to the time of Babel (nature change). Either a little before of after. From the sounds of the confusion over summer or winter or star or moon alignments etc, it could be pre split. If so, some differences would be expected.

So, that would be say somewhere about within 1 to 3 hundred years after the flood as I guess so far. That means Dodwell's curve is lookin good!

So, what date would you give it?? Stop dancing. I can't see how any date anywhere near the time of Karnak would make anything anywhere near the old age dream curve, let alone as you claim here, fall 'exactly on the Newcombe curve'!!????
Oh come on now. The curve of the data from Dodwell looks great, and if we move it over a quarter inch or whatever, I think it would look better! A more perfect patterned curve.

We don't need it (or even want it) to be the exact time Dodwell assumed! It fits my ideas better (different state past) if it was a little off.

So, out with your claimed date man.



He he. Glad I came back to have a second look at this issue, it felt a little as if we had left it less than clear before.

You were clear. You clearly refuted yourself.

 

[AirPo]

You were clear. You clearly refuted yourself.

Bare with me a moment, I need to work something out. I need to check for internal consistency of the HI theory

The third law states refutation is futile.
dad refuted himself.
dad's post is futile.

Nope. No problem there!

 

[dad]

You were clear. You clearly refuted yourself.

You are dreaming. Wishful thinking. Nothing has refuted the pattern of the Dodwell data yet. You fail to even post intelligently. You avoid direct questions. You allude to vague nonsense.

So, what date would you give it?? Stop dancing. I can't see how any date anywhere near the time of Karnak would make anything anywhere near the old age dream curve, let alone as you claim here, fall 'exactly on the Newcombe curve'!!????

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You are dreaming. Wishful thinking. Nothing has refuted the pattern of the Dodwell data yet. You fail to even post intelligently. You avoid direct questions. You allude to vague nonsense.

So, what date would you give it?? Stop dancing. I can't see how any date anywhere near the time of Karnak would make anything anywhere near the old age dream curve, let alone as you claim here, fall 'exactly on the Newcombe curve'!!????

It is not a different date. It is a different solstice which the site you linked to pointed out.

 

[dad]

It is not a different date. It is a different solstice which the site you linked to pointed out.

Since I said that Karnak doesn't matter, what would an opinion on what solstice it can be dated with matter? You clearly refuted yourself. The Dodwell data goes in a pattern...away from your Newcombe curve. No matter what date we give Karnak, that doesn't change.

Explain what precisely you think does?

What, you think the line from the last Chinese data point would suddenly head up to harmonize with the Newcombe curve??

 

[Davian]

You are dreaming. Wishful thinking....

...You fail to even post intelligently. You avoid direct questions. You allude to vague nonsense.

Could you be more clear here? Are you objecting to this posting style or praising it?

 

[CTD]

Could you be more clear here? Are you objecting to this posting style or praising it?

False dichotomy: it would depend on one's perspective. We've seen what passes for praiseworthy among scoffers.

 

[Davian]

False dichotomy: it would depend on one's perspective. We've seen what passes for praiseworthy among scoffers.

lol you missed the point entirely.

Carry on.

 

[dad]

lol you missed the point entirely.

Carry on.

By the way, what was the point this poster missed in your opinion?

 

[dad]

Could you be more clear here? Are you objecting to this posting style or praising it?

If you asked me what I thought the age of the old site was, I'd say. I did in fact. If you asked me why I claimed (if I had of done so, as Fumy did) that Karnak fell into line with the Newcombe curve, I would say.

Why play games?

 

[CTD]

By the way, what was the point this poster missed in your opinion?

He's confused. Everyone knows who uses the tactic of missing the point in this neighborhood. Really, what are the odds someone'll stumble in for the first time and encounter that post ...and just believe it?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Since I said that Karnak doesn't matter, what would an opinion on what solstice it can be dated with matter? You clearly refuted yourself. The Dodwell data goes in a pattern...away from your Newcombe curve. No matter what date we give Karnak, that doesn't change.

Explain what precisely you think does?


What, you think the line from the last Chinese data point would suddenly head up to harmonize with the Newcombe curve??

The reason that Karnac does matter so much is that when the wrong solstice is used it is far the largest deviation and most significant point on the curve. However when the correct solstice is used as I pointed out before.
#256
"G.S. Hawkins surved the complex and determined that its main axis was southeast, toward sunrise on the day of winter solstice, and northwest, toward sunset on the day of summer solstice. According to Hawkins the winter solstice sunrise was the primary alignment because the view of the summer solstice is blocked. Hawkins calculated when the complex was started, the Earth's axial tilt was 23 degrees, 87 minutes which would put it right on the Newcombe line.

I have attached the curve with X marking the spot for the correct Karnac solstice and orientation. You can see that that whole argument now falls apart completely. This information came from a site you originally linked so you have refuted yourself.

 

[dad]

He's confused. Everyone knows who uses the tactic of missing the point in this neighborhood. Really, what are the odds someone'll stumble in for the first time and encounter that post ...and just believe it?

So can you figure out why they allude to the Dodwell's clearly diverging data line of observed actual sites, and suggest it is somehow falling into line with the silly imaginary old age curve of Newcombe?

They seem afraid to out and say it!