Different approaches to Ceremonial Stone Landscape Study

I make out three basic approaches to studying stone structures:

 - Astronomy: Study the connections between stone structures and alignments to various celestial events

 - Paredolia: Study how the shapes of familiar objects (faces, turtles, snakes) occur in stone structures

 - Statistical Patterns: Detect and study repeated patterns over multiple sites

I will tell you that I prefer the method of Statistical Patterns; Mavor and Dix promoted and demonstrated the value of the Astronomical approach; and Tim MacSweeney and the author "Mark" of the following post (Rock Piles: A fine rock pile and snake effigy) follow the Pareidolia approach.

I will also say, that although I am happy other approaches appeal to other people, that both the Astronomy and Pareidolia approaches leave me wanting. In the case of Astronomy, the question is always: why care about a particular celestial event? In the case of Pareidolia, aside from its subjectivity: my question is always: what is the significance of a turtle shape or a snake shape? Also, I ask: how are different shapes related to the landscape where they are found? EG do you find turtle shapes at the tops of mountains?

I don't hear any answers to those questions. Some argue that astronomical details are crucial for dating and - when pressed - say the time of year is important for planting and other agricultural activities. I think that is baloney. For example, they plant corn when the oak leaves are the size of squirrel feet. The soil knows when it is time to plant and harvest -and it is not by  calendar date.

Aside from these unanswered questions I have a different concern, which is that Astronomy and Pareidolia become ends in themselves. They are self fulfilling and sort of distracting from further observation. For example, how many times was I out in the woods looking at things and their relation to each other and the environment; while some colleague had their nose buried in a compass reading? Also, if a specific celestial date is important then: why? What was its significance? In the case of Pareidolia you can see a problem in the snake effigy photograph:

Certainly this looks like a snake. But notice how the picture is cut off at the lower right? I am thinking there could be more wall over in that direction, and that the photo is edited to ignore that. It leaves me wondering if this is not actually a gateway, at the corner of a wall, and that the wiggles in the wall might have a purpose - we ignore in favor of seeing a snake in the structure. In other words, the obvious resemblance to a snake is distracting us from further understanding the structure and biasing the data collection. There are other things to look at in the picture.

So I have no problem with seeing snakes, turtles, or faces, in the structures. My problem is that the observation ends there - a subjective experience that impedes further study. Largely the same can be said about astronomy. It is less subjective (done accurately) but it should not be considered an end in itself. In fact some practitioners, like Timrek and Kreisberg, take alignments as a starting point, into which they insert data points that fit the alignment - without much curiosity about the risks of cherry picking and ignoring sites that are not on the alignment. 

So that is it. I am happy the community includes different approaches. I await questions and criticisms of the Statistical Patterns approach. I am too close to it to see its flaws. But I will say that approaches that limit observation are problematic.