GLADMAN wrote:
tiompan wrote:
That two monumnets should be equidistant is to be expected given the number monuments to choose from ,that applies to both micro and macro scales
That's the point I can't appreciate without an understanding of how such a likelihood would be determined. Why is it to be expected, bearing in mind the small number of sites? What would be the calculation to conclude that the chances of two (out of a mere handful of) sites being the same distance from a third due to random placement was high?
Probability produces a lot of stuff that might seem counter intuitive , ,same numbers winning the lottery, 50% chance of to people sharing the same birthday in a group of 23 and 99.9% with 70 etc. It's like the ley line findings ,there are such a huge number of potential examples , on both scales . Nobody looks for that type of stuff , except metrologists . They are three different types of site all undated and the equidistance does have a fair margin of error . Two of the sites are unsighted from each other and their distance bears no relation to the equidistance . But that is only one of the objections .
