signals all the time, rather than once in 1977 and once in 2017.
Then there’s the choice of journal — in his words, “it’s not somewhere astronomers publish.” Lintott has another problem with Paris’ research: He crowdfunded it.
A purely substitutional interpretation ignores these subtler but significant details.
Details like the headless man on the shaft of Pillar 43, interpreted as a symbol of death, catastrophe and extinction by Sweatman and Tsikritsis, silently omits the clearly emphasised phallus which must contradict the lifeless notion; rather, this image implies a more versatile narrative behind these depictions.
thus no previous data was available.” Chris Lintott, a professor of astrophysics at Oxford University, isn’t buying any of the explanation.
It is highly unlikely that early Neolithic hunters in Upper Mesopotamia recognized the exact same celestial constellations as described by ancient Egyptian, Arabian, and Greek scholars, which still populate our imagination today. Sweatman and Tsikritsis’ contribution appears incredibly arbitrary, considering images adorning just a few selected pillars.“The only response from the peer review that we were concerned about was that no one, including Ohio State University, had previous research on detecting a signal from a comet,” Paris says.“We had to explain to the peer reviewers that we were the first to do so … The original layout of Göbekli Tepe’s monumental round-oval buildings is still subject of ongoing research (none of these structures are completely excavated as of yet). Our reservations, which are not meant to silence any further archaeoastronomic discussion for Göbekli Tepe at all but rather comment on a number of discrepances we see in the interpretation, are summed up here: 1.