The problem with being "spot on" is that it's highly unlikely that anyone making a representation of Orion with something as crude as holes would be able to achieve "spot on" accuracy intentionally. You would expect a moderate degree of error from any culture that didn't have telescopes. Therefore being "spot on" would be a fluke that could happen even if there was no intention to represent *anything*.
Two objects can be scaled and orientated to match any other two objects. It's only when a third object is introduced that there can even be a suggestion of correlation.
Since the belt stars of Orion are more or less equidistant and equal spacing is a typical method that humans use to arrange things, then only the angle remains as the correlating factor. Humans generally like things to be in straight lines, so a slight, but otherwise avoidable deviation from a straight line *might* be significant, but is not sufficient in itself to be totally compelling. We would need supporting evidence, for example other alignments to Orion's rising and setting points.
It's a pity Orion's belt has only three stars. If it had been four, then a reasonable correlation would have much more significance.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by Steve Gray
15th May 2004ce
12:45 |
Orion? (juamei, May 13, 2004, 12:37)- Re: Orion? (Kozmik_Ken, May 13, 2004, 12:43)
- Re: Orion? (Steve Gray, May 13, 2004, 12:54)
- Re: Orion? (nigelswift, May 13, 2004, 13:10)
- Re: Orion? (baza, May 15, 2004, 05:54)
- Re: Orion? (nigelswift, May 15, 2004, 08:00)
- Re: Orion? (BrigantesNation, May 15, 2004, 10:03)
- Re: Orion? (nigelswift, May 15, 2004, 11:05)
- Re: Orion? (Steve Gray, May 15, 2004, 12:45)
- orion dinosaur (PMM, May 15, 2004, 13:56)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: Orion? (nigelswift)