tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post3359062090978388181..comments2024-01-30T06:35:10.103+00:00Comments on www.Sarsen.org: Darvill and Wainwright on Carn MenynTim Dawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10667360714222841797noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-40183855820357851002014-12-16T07:06:25.926+00:002014-12-16T07:06:25.926+00:00If you want to do something ,I don't see what ...<i>If you want to do something ,I don't see what your colleagues might think or whether any benefits accrue to society as being relevant . </i><br /><br />Now I get where you're coming from George: My apologies; I thought we'd gone through how this all came about before. I can't say that I particularly want to write up much more.<br /><br />I originally thought the coincidences and correlations might be something that might help the archaeological community. I couldn't see what I could do with them other than write a novel (always wanted to do that so I did it). After that, I thought that a non-fiction book version might help to cover costs (it didn't). For a bit of a laugh I also took out two patent applications on Stonehenge: For this sort of thing it's the only form of peer review available to someone who isn't an archaeologist.<br /><br />Meanwhile, all the patent applications for the useful 'modern' stuff, related to renewable energy and which might be of benefit in the future, were withdrawn (effectively on hold awaiting the possibility of funding and resolution of the 'Stonehenge issue'). All the applications are easily searchable on the IP databases, but most were unpublished. <br /><br />The only real commonality between the potentially useful new stuff and the possible explanations for the monuments is that they all were (or could be) derived from the same initial consideration. However, if overall expert archaeological opinion were that there is no definite connection to the Neolithic, there is absolutely no reason to share either the method or too many of its derivations (explanations for monuments). Establishing that expert opinion was the starting point for this enjoyable, occasionally frustrating, but very long winded exercise. <br /><br />Cheers<br /><br /><br />JonJon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-34341024057221028782014-12-15T09:53:58.195+00:002014-12-15T09:53:58.195+00:00Jon ,
I still don't understand the benefits a...Jon ,<br /> I still don't understand the benefits angle . If you want to do something ,I don't see what your colleagues might think or whether any benefits accrue to society as being relevant .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-17087191257856778332014-12-14T20:29:09.944+00:002014-12-14T20:29:09.944+00:00What about yourself ?
Can take it or leave it G...<i>What about yourself ? </i><br /><br />Can take it or leave it George. I don't really get where you're coming from on the benefits thing. Writing it up is the difficult bit: There's only a need to do that if there might be a benefit to others in knowing how this type of analysis is applied and what result it gives. <br /><br />I've done enough so happy to leave it (apart from the one for Avebury.. will write that one up as it's only partially done and not well explained on the Portal... don't like leaving it unfinished)<br />Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-71842552746718833542014-12-14T18:21:45.568+00:002014-12-14T18:21:45.568+00:00I have noticed elsewhere a commnet suggesting that...I have noticed elsewhere a commnet suggesting that the loony stuff written about Stonehenge should just be ignored . Responding to it only gives them oxygen .<br />It's a fair comment and one I have never really considered , as I have always taken the attitude that they should not get away with it and should be confronted with their errors .<br />I realise that they never learn but would it be best just to ignore them ?Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-87961012570340790442014-12-14T18:05:30.234+00:002014-12-14T18:05:30.234+00:00You have as usual been presented with further exam... You have as usual been presented with further examples of your errors and as ever can't make a sensible response .<br />After "Quoting jargon and extracts of books will not help " I don't suppose there is anywhere to go except away . <br />It is never a waste of time putting you right .<br />The errors are now up to eight in this thread .<br />8 ")I'm quite aware of what loess, head, alluvium, aeolian and all the other technical jargon for sandy soil is " None are terms or ajrgon for snady soil . <br />It's astonishing , you start off with one error and then they self replicate as you attempt to evade the original error . <br />Your production rate is on a par with fellow Daisy's production of methane .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-65150809794650171802014-12-14T17:40:38.496+00:002014-12-14T17:40:38.496+00:00So 'without a clue' yet again Sherlock - y...So 'without a clue' yet again Sherlock - you're a waste of my time!<br /><br />RJLBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-50591384529998137792014-12-14T16:40:23.370+00:002014-12-14T16:40:23.370+00:00"I'm quite aware of what loess, head, all..."I'm quite aware of what loess, head, alluvium, aeolian and all the other technical jargon for sandy soil is,"<br /><br /> Brilliant . We might expect anyone writing a "book" might understand the teminolgy used , but seeing as it you , and therefore unconscious humour , we get something quite different .<br /> Head , aeolian and alluvium and Loess are not terms or technical jargon for sandy soil . In the case of Loess the definition is immediately above your post . Then again with your logic maybe definitions don't count either .<br /><br />"Quoting jargon and extracts of books will not help "<br />Wonderful . The usual response when faced with damning evidence and facts ,is caps ,exclamation marks , childish humour and bile .This is a novel approach , facts don't count only your " logic " .<br />We have seen your logic , it's clear that you don't understand the meaning of deduction .(your'e still getting the Sherlock =deductive thinking wrong ) and are certainly incapable of putting it into practice .<br /><br /> No response to the other errors , not even "forget quotes and facts leave it to Daisy logic "? <br /> <br /><br /> Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-17652574126478653292014-12-14T15:22:39.884+00:002014-12-14T15:22:39.884+00:00I'm quite aware of what loess, head, alluvium,...I'm quite aware of what loess, head, alluvium, aeolian and all the other technical jargon for sandy soil is, thank you, as it's in a book 'wot I wrote'.<br /><br />Quoting jargon and extracts of books will not help you on this one Sherlock - you need to engage your brain (god help us!). How did nine inches of flat layered silt get down hole 9580 if its nothing to do with the river that used to be there?<br /><br />I'll help you as your a bit... slow!<br /><br />Richards would tell you that the silt is from an ancient riverbed blown there in ancient times (unproven geological nonsense) - as shown in the BGS map viewer I sent you - did you look or was it too complicated? <br /><br />Problem is if its an ancient riverbed - how did it get down hole 9580?<br /><br />You say windblown - I say laughable nonsense as the four questions you avoided answering proves. For if it was true we would find 9" of Silt in every excavation undertaken at Stonehenge, which obviously is not the case!!<br /><br />Deduction and logic is needed for this one Sherlock.... over to you your fan club is waiting..lol!<br /><br />RJLBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-36868141719799248642014-12-14T13:30:01.247+00:002014-12-14T13:30:01.247+00:00What about yourself ?
I really don't see why... What about yourself ? <br />I really don't see why benefits to anyone else should necessarily be a consideration in any endeavour , from whistling -climbing a mountain -writing a sonnet -solving a non applicable math problem etc .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-38551877420328068782014-12-14T12:27:24.849+00:002014-12-14T12:27:24.849+00:00Fair enough George. It takes a lot of work to comp...Fair enough George. It takes a lot of work to compile this type of explanation. There's not much point unless there's the potential for some sort of benefit to someone.<br /><br />Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-58679277113500808492014-12-14T10:15:06.109+00:002014-12-14T10:15:06.109+00:00I thought the comments that elicited them were odd... I thought the comments that elicited them were odd .That's why I asked .<br />" It would not be seen as a sensible option by my colleagues." Why care , what are they to do with your interests ?<br />"If there is no benefit to anyone, publishing more is pointless. "<br />Why are benefits to others even a consideration ?Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-53687684986897202192014-12-14T07:30:08.581+00:002014-12-14T07:30:08.581+00:00what do your colleagues have to do with something ...<i>what do your colleagues have to do with something that you are interested in ?<br />Why should benefits be a consideration ? </i><br /><br />That's a very odd couple of questions George. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.<br /><br />The Stonehenge stuff was an offshoot of an engineering exercise. Enough has been done to be able to tell if there is any immediate benefit to others in knowing the links and coincidences which relate to the past. If there is any non-immediate benefit to society, enough has been done to allow it to be picked up in time.<br /><br /><br />Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-42817130969407739772014-12-13T23:19:03.936+00:002014-12-13T23:19:03.936+00:00Quoting Canti et al 2013 and Richards 1990 . “Unve...Quoting Canti et al 2013 and Richards 1990 . “Unveiling the prehistoric landscape at Stonehenge through multi-receiver EMI . 2014 :” The geology of the Stonehenge landscape consists of upper chalk covered with calcareous drift deposits, loess and occasional clay with flint patches .<br /> Now look up the definition of Loess .<br />Here's one :Loess is difficult to define, but it is generally considered to be wind-blown (aeolian) silt.<br />her's Wiki .Loess ;Loess is an aeolian sediment formed by the accumulation of wind-blown silt.<br /><br />As usual still no response to the 6 errors and a pathetic attempt at the 7 th . <br /><br /> <br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-44776738153551618882014-12-13T23:11:35.678+00:002014-12-13T23:11:35.678+00:00So where is this wind borne silt now, top soil has...So where is this wind borne silt now, top soil has no silt in it?<br /><br />If we leave Stonehenge abandoned will it be covered in silt eventually?<br /><br />How did silt get down a hole evenly - if its wind borne would it not bank against one wall?<br /><br />Why did the silt change colour and context - does it depend on which way the wind is blowing?<br /><br />The only error around here is the gap between your ears Sherlock!<br /><br />RJL<br /><br /><br />Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-80717709789777056582014-12-13T19:39:17.902+00:002014-12-13T19:39:17.902+00:00what do your colleagues have to do with something...what do your colleagues have to do with something that you are interested in ?<br />Why should benefits be a consideration ?Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-37513519484890617992014-12-13T19:34:19.217+00:002014-12-13T19:34:19.217+00:00commercial interest harmed by an archaeo or astro ...<i>commercial interest harmed by an archaeo or astro hypothesis that they don't take seriously ?</i><br /><br />Absolutely George. It would not be seen as a sensible option by my colleagues. If there is no benefit to anyone, publishing more is pointless. <br />Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-34981102542353544132014-12-13T18:16:42.761+00:002014-12-13T18:16:42.761+00:00Jon ,
commercial interest harmed by an archaeo or...Jon , <br />commercial interest harmed by an archaeo or astro hypothesis that they don't take seriously ?<br />Are you keeping the name of the ruinous site under your hat ?Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-26212938096027523682014-12-13T15:12:58.793+00:002014-12-13T15:12:58.793+00:00Hi George
It is very time consuming to compile ev...Hi George<br /><br />It is very time consuming to compile evidence for a site: In the absence of expert interest, a hypothesis unaccompanied by evidence could cause harm to other types of commercial interest at a later date. As you probably know, this sort of thing is not taken particularly seriously in engineering and the sciences. I'll get Avebury out though: That one is quite substantial and the write up is already partly complete.<br /><br />JonJon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-39312808930269505372014-12-13T15:00:37.885+00:002014-12-13T15:00:37.885+00:00The presence of silt , in pits in the Stonehenge a... The presence of silt , in pits in the Stonehenge area has nothing to do with any river . Most commonly it is wind borne . This is understood and hardly needs to be mentioned . If you had read and understood the quote in the Cleal book you would have noticed that the comment is in relation to the silt (not even calcareous silty clay ) in Y 16 , which is at Stonehenge .<br />Yes lots of articles get things wrong that get through peer review ,but we are not discussing them .We are discussing what you get wrong .<br />I have listed your errors in the most recent thread ,do attempt to respond to them .<br />It takes long enough pointing out the problems here without having to look at an even greater amount of nonsense in your " books " wot you wrote .<br />We have first hand knowledge of your " analytical skills and knowledge "<br />, and are still laughing . Sandwiches and ruminating ,maybe that is an area that you might have some skill and knowledge Daisy , but I wouldn't be too sure .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-9656494430319585232014-12-13T13:45:19.488+00:002014-12-13T13:45:19.488+00:00An example from Cleal p260 "it has subsequent...An example from Cleal p260 "it has subsequently become clear that these silts represent a wind blown deposit" - taking about Stanton Harcourt - Oxon not Stonehenge and certainly not pit 9850!!<br /><br />I have written a book called Raised Beaches (available on Kindle) that shows this geological myth to be the result of 'Post Glacial Flooding' not wind (although I recognise your full of it ) ;-)<br /><br />You should read the article I linked in my post to Jon about peer review and allowing the public to see raw data as academic analysis is often WRONG!! You quoting wrong information by some deluded archaeologist who is incapable of analysing data DOES NOT MAKE IT CORRECT its just an opinion.<br /><br />As for my so called errors - well you should talk to Harvard & MIT who now support my 'revolutionary theory' about human migration as shown on my web site and subsequent books.<br /><br />http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/<br /><br />my video for my book written four years ago:<br /><br />http://youtu.be/_CxX6xec0pE<br /><br />Seems my analytical skills and knowledge are somewhat better than your own Sherlock?<br /><br />RJL<br /><br /><br /> Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-4182941442467734012014-12-13T13:09:35.081+00:002014-12-13T13:09:35.081+00:00You are such an empty drum Daisy .
I realise th...You are such an empty drum Daisy . <br /><br /> I realise that as soon as you attempt to introduce a new point you make errors so it is safer to resort to blethers .<br />And yet again have avoided the seven points that you got wrong .<br /> How do you think silt gets into the pits in the area if it is not wind blown ? Fantasy river is not an answer any more than the sand storms .<br />An example from Cleal p260 "it has subsequently become clear that these silts represent a wind blown deposit"<br />Continual failure to read ,understand and fail to address the points is bad enough but you just make yourself look even more stupid with the childish meaningless comments .<br />And still no "complex calculation" ,maybe it doesn't exist .<br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-86150128544458281502014-12-13T12:46:41.844+00:002014-12-13T12:46:41.844+00:00I thought Harry great fun on Nobel but felt it ta...I thought Harry great fun on Nobel but felt it tailed off . <br />I was barred for continually upsetting the spirits of woo , pics were not though , which says a lot . Caveat , if you are going to post pics, do so on a site like TMA where you can remove them at will and where dissent is encouraged within the bounds of politeness .<br />It’s not only the assumption that bothers me , it is the process , whereby a monument is either chosen because of it’s geodetic location then an argument is proposed to explain that location whilst similar monuments or controls are ignored , or data is cherry picked from the huge potential from any monument and used to support a theory , again ignoring similar monuments , controls ,context and conflicting data .<br />If you were interested in the siting of a ruinous monument in Scotland , say at a latitude where the sun can set and rise at the solstices with a difference of 90 degrees then a visit could be enlightening , if similar monuments are compared and contrasted away from the favoured latitude you might find that there is a common feature that explains the siting and alignment that is far removed from anything to do with latitude or astronomy . I’m intrigued to know the name of the site , parallax suggests a possible lunar association discounting the 90 degree stuff above . <br />Parallax ? Don’t remember and can’t think why . It’s useful for a precise figure from our perspective but the difference it’s makes would never be enough to convince me either way about a putative alignment .<br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-45957012705700017902014-12-13T12:41:56.285+00:002014-12-13T12:41:56.285+00:00"The silt in the area is aeolian i.e. wind bl..."The silt in the area is aeolian i.e. wind blown what is typically found in the area ." LOL!<br /><br />At last the comedy continues!!<br /><br />So the nine inches of silt is wind blown sand? Sandstorms over Stonehenge (sounds like a new book?) - when Stonehenge turned into a desert. Guaranteed best seller!<br /><br />Better than burning fossilised wood - you should take this on stage, its brilliant. You are the epitome of arcaheology Sherlock!<br /><br />RJL<br /><br /> Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-92203515433944987002014-12-13T07:53:57.418+00:002014-12-13T07:53:57.418+00:00Cue Harry Karlinski
Indeed. If only that sort of...<i>Cue Harry Karlinski </i><br /><br />Indeed. If only that sort of interest existed. Miss your contributions on the Portal but don't post much on archaeo sites myself these days (apart from when waiting for a plane.. right mess-up in London yesterday). <br /><br />I recently found an incredibly disappointing thing concerning the possible Geocentric theory of Stonehenge (and others): Was planning to go to the place in Scotland which presents itself as the only likely trigger for early people to want to understand those aspects of the Cosmos which seem to be echoed in the later constructions, just to see it working for myself (before you say it, I know it's a big assumption that geocentrism was the reason behind the subsequent monuments) <br /><br />Finally got round to running all the calculations (and particularly some of the more detailed aspects of parallax; which you mentioned in one of our chats and which I originally missed): The effect at that place would have been gradually less and less regular until about 3000BC. At this point it stopped, so would have come as a bit of a shock to anyone relying on it. <br /><br />So the result is I'm never going to see it working, there's no monument to see anyway and the only thing left is the potential for pre-neolithic remains/detritis on the site (wouldn't know what I was looking at). After that, I lost interest and decided not to visit the bloody place.<br /><br />I never got round to sending you Newgrange, but it's up on the portal if you're still interested. Unlikely that I'll get round to doing the geocentric interpretations of Knowth etc or the expanded version of SH-I/II/cursi, but planning to do Avebury as a last hurrah: The existing explanation up on the Portal isn't at all easy to understand.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br /><br />JonJon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-50343944071812123642014-12-12T15:50:14.875+00:002014-12-12T15:50:14.875+00:00There was another problem you had evaded I had for...There was another problem you had evaded I had forgotten about (there are so many ) .<br />7) The Rhyolite fragment (62g) found in post hole (9580) in the Stonehenge Car Park between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE fits the archaeological evidence from 'Carn Goedog' "<br />Wrong . There is no archaeological evidence that connects the fragment with Carn Goedog .<br />The geochemical evidence doesn’t suggest a connection either ,Carn Goedog is the “major likely source of doleritic bluestone “ not rhyolitic .<br /><br /><br />Still evading all the others too . Apart from another laughable effort re. silt .<br />The original comment you made about silt was "If you look at the description of (9581 &2) they are both silty soils (that was produced by the nearby river) " <br />This is wrong ,the description is calcareous silty clay . Silt is derived from rock and may end up in a river but there was no river in the area , this is yet another of your fantasies .The silt in the area is aeolian i.e. wind blown what is typically found in the area . <br /><br />Anyone with any intelligence reading your comments would have seen through them a long time ago and realise that you are out of your depth in every area you attempt to comment on . Is there nothing that you can comment on without getting it wrong ? That is why there is no one who agrees with them .Wake up Daisy , have you never noticed that it is only you in the darkened room/byre .<br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.com