Sure, never mind the fact that the article specifies nonexistent flaws in the Grail Star theory and upholds a very much less viable alternative figure. Aside from being dead wrong on all counts, it's a fine article.
No it specifies that the Grail Star
‘geometry’ is imaginary, and upholds an alternative geometric solution as being more viable. When both were subject to the same objective statistical test, it was found that the latter geometric construct (the Rigby
pentagon) was far more likely to be intended by Poussin.
Lodge, for instance, concentrates on the fact that the star figure doesn't conform to the lower part of the left staff. What he ignores is the fact that I never stated that it DOES match the vague lower part, I stated that it matches the clearly painted upper part and Lodge has no defense against that, other than to tell us that our eyes are all defective.
Actually, what you conveniently ignore is that my analysis was also based on further geometry found on an old website of yours (which you had asked to be considered when I undertook the review). On the website you inferred that the positioning of the Grail Star ‘geometry’ was determined from other more elaborate geometric constructions. In the image below, it can clearly be seen that a line (in yellow) ‘DOES match the vague lower part’ as you call it. You then proceed to misalign the central axis of the left ‘star’ with the same staff!
I don't have to match the figure to both parts of the staff. There is no such rule in Poussin painting solving.
My theory is that the upper parts of the three staffs provide all the information necessary to position the star figure and the STRAIGHT middle and right staffs are certainly matched to the star.
NO! The three staffs provide information necessary for the position of three lines
- that is all! Not only do you fail to do this precisely (as demonstrated by the left staff misalignment), but you provide no evidence (in the form of alignments/intersections with features in the painting) why rest of your irregular ‘geometry’ was intended by Poussin.
Lodge simply made up a nonexistent flaw because he wasn't capable of understanding the fact that the left staff is angled three degrees differently above and below the hand, which is extremely obvious. Since he missed such a grossly obvious fact, how competent can he be to critique something as complex as the Poussin star geometry? Not at all.
Your three degree angle is pure guesswork since it relies on ‘geometry’ that is entirely subjective. This is further supported by the absence of a black line demarcating its position, unlike the line clearly seen below the shepherd’s hand.
And, no, it's not an ankh. There is no circle on top, just two vertical lines. Zoom in on the linked image of the unframed painting (the long URL) and you will see what I mean.
Surely someone would have noticed that on the actual painting, where you could see such an item very clearly. Much more likely that it is simply an illusion created by the conversion to a computer image. You can see the two vertical cracks in the cut-out below and even in the Grail Star image I posted earlier, though it is a copy it was clearly a very accurate copy and the artist did not copy a circle so he must not have seen a circle on the original.
As I have already pointed out, the long URL was posted so as to show what the official version of the painting looks like. Obviously if you enlarge such a small image you are bound to lose resolution markedly.
However, the painting is ten times the size of the image shown on the website.
Here is a photo of the same region taken from a half-scale version of the official painting:
Clearly, the marking is more of a loop or circle than the ‘two vertical lines’ you suggest.
If anything, it would be a Tau cross.
Correct there is no Ankh. It is a Tau cross.
Here is a Tau Cross:
and here is an ankh:
Clearly it is not a Tau Cross on the tomb! It is far more likely to be an ankh!