Musings and bookmarks about Stonehenge and related stuff.
Its an interesting article.The paragraph titled 'Watery Worlds' is a particular interest to me as it talks about how water was very important to this society. But the aspect that brought a smile to my face was this throwaway line at the end of the paragraph "The Avenue as a ceremonial way leading to whatever watercourse lay in Stonehenge bottom at the time (Neolithic)"Was this the first academic admission of the Post Glacial Flooding hypothesis?I half expected them to publish my famous picture with the article:http://www.badwitch.co.uk/2011/06/stonehenge-enigma-new-look-at-stones.htmlIt seems 'fantasy' has now turned mainstream, hey Neil?RJL
Hey Robert stop with the sophomoric aspersions already I like being included with the heavy hitters, I will take all the compliments I can get! (Attempt at desperate wit)I haven’t read this article yet but have just looked at your picture and I am trying to be helpful when I say that your famous picture has the avenue in the wrong direction. From recent posts you will have gathered I am keen on trying to get correct information and then translate that into interpretations of monuments, so looking at your mock up of a watercourse in Stonehenge Bottom the avenue should go NE on the alignment you agreed with in the previous post, that is to the top left of your picture, lining up approx with the E end of the cursus, you have it going almost East and lining up with Beacon Hill which is on the horizon in your picture, look for reference at any plan or photo including the stones and avenue or Google Earth as I think you have used as the landscape is flattened out a lot. Where is the rest of the avenue in your picture? I do wonder as perhaps in this case how often you take some information, do not understand it properly or passionately try to fit it to your theory misinterpret it and miss out bits of it out that inconveniently do not fit in to the theory.Best Peter
PeterI think you find the picture is correct and is aligned to the NE!Its from Google earth at 'Ground Level View' and I've incorporated the 3D model of Stonehenge from Google's library for clarity the stones and then highlighted the Avenues ditches in blue which show on their ground view. I have added the water at Stonehenge Bottom to the Google view and a star map to the background sky area only using skymap pro 11 for the date 4200BC where I have calculated the Avenue was constructed due to the TRUE central alignment of the Sunrise.This is why the rest of the avenue is not present as it (and most archaeologists now agree) was added at a later date once the waters from Stonehenge Bottom (see article and my comment above) had dried up.If you have a problem in identifying the landscape - I suggest you take it up with the Google earth developers, if you think the stars are in the wrong place you need to contact Skymap Pro developers.RJL
Many apologies Robert having looked again my observations were completely wrong. Peter
"4200BC where I have calculated the Avenue was constructed due to the TRUE central alignment of the Sunrise."For obvious reasons , It makes no sense to date monuments from their alignments . In this case these problems would be exacerbated by the calculation ,the mention of "true " (in caps ) central alignment gives even greater cause for concern .
"For obvious reasons , It makes no sense to date monuments from their alignments"The only 'obvious reason' I can imagine Sherlock is the embarrassment of the so called 'professionals' and 'heavy hitters' who quite frankly do not have a clue about who built the prehistoric monuments and for what purpose.Sadly, its not the first time that 'obvious' reasoning overshadowed scientific calculations - Galileo immediately springs to mind when his scientific observations were dismissed for 'obvious' theologian reasons - like yours.RJL
The obvious resons have been pointed out to you at least twice , if you don't understand them they can be expalined in simpler terms .Sadly for your tortured analogy Hudson (do you have to continue with this playground stuff ,what's next reciting Monty Python sketches) my point is not theological and you are not a scientist . You mention a "calculation" in relation to the "true " alignment .If you provide the data , we'll show where you have gone wrong .
Sadly, at best you're just a series of contradictions depending on the subject - here you claim you can't expect to date the site by accuracy of alignments and in other posts:"Needless to say the Old Sarum direction is wrong too .From the centre of Stonehenge Old Sarum occupies a target three degrees wide i.e. 169 -172 but the bearing from the centre of the monument over the southern barrow is 162"http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/stone-circle-secrets-revealed.html?showComment=1337281172896You claim these same people were 'so accurate' in their measurement that they were indicating a different direction than the one I was stating.Make your mind up Sherlock! Was this civilisation accurate or not - which one of these statements are wrong??RJL
This comment has been removed by the author.
You can't compare the genuine alignmment at Stonehenge with your fantasy one over the south barrow .That is your supposed "contradiction ". It's a good example for the use of genuine deduction which would have made that clear to anyone capable of using simple logic The solstice alignnment is sufficiently accurate ,whilst yours is not only a result of your fantasy it is also inaccurate . Your getting desperate Davis .When do we get to see the data for your "calculation" to point out your errors .?
Total academic nonsense.Yet another example of your inconsistent and flawed logic - at least Peter had the dignity to admit when he was wrong unlike you, Sherlock!!RJL
Don't just say it ,simply point out where I was wrong .Your errors get outlined . In return it is all wind and no content ,or in the this case an illogical conflation ,that is easily seen through . You attempted to associate the genuine alignment ,which is accurate , with your fantasy alignment which is not accurate . If you need the detail repeated it is easily provided .When I say total pseudo nonsense I can support it with data that you fail to to respond to . If you do manage to respond it lacks any supporting detail . Similarly still waiting for the "calculation " or anything concrete .
I did admit that I was wrong in my observations on your "famous" image that in no way implies that there is any credibility in your theories.
That's OK Peter - I'm sure Darvill and Wainright had the same attitude four years ago when my research was first published.The academic way is to steal other people's ideas and claim to be 'well known' in their future publications and TV programmes such as time-team.RJL
No academic has stolen your "ideas" . Still waiting on the detail where you suggest I was wrong and still waiting for the detail on the "calculation " . Note detail , not bluster .