tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post8026884000926836045..comments2018-05-19T21:05:23.477+01:00Comments on www.Sarsen.org: The Welsh origins of Stonehenge - Excavation Update - Michael Parker PearsonTimothy Dawhttps://plus.google.com/109470597609098897839noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-6872631611917332762018-05-15T11:44:51.809+01:002018-05-15T11:44:51.809+01:00Robert,
Interesting use of language, "...ave...Robert,<br /><br />Interesting use of language, "...average pace length." is of course a result of statistical analysis! More important therefore is the question, "What is the variation?", because this leads to how the "pace" was applied to usage both between and within cultures. The Roman pace length varied until it was inadvertently "standardised" by Agrippa in around 29 BC. Even more important is the fact that distances, such as the Roman Mile were measured by counting paces, in this instance in 10's, i.e. "metric". Which is why analyses return significant relationships when using both "yards" and "metre" (and respective related smaller and larger units) calculations.<br /><br />It is of course a long story, beyond the scope of dialogue here, but the key "metric" to be looking for is therefore the relationship of the 2.72 MY to the design of key monuments, such as Stonehenge. You'll find that 52 "paces" of 2.72 feet results in a radius of 141.44ft - close the radius of the Aubrey circle as found by Thom, but not quite. So one then has to look for other parameters which might have been employed, in terms of "sacred" proportions. Now, "proportions" can consist of elements such as astronomical, geometrical and time functions, not just architecture related to standard distance measures.<br /><br />We find that if one multiplies the above radius by the time ratio of 86400(solar day)/86162(sidereal day)one gets a diameter result of 283.66ft for the Aubrey circle. Alexancder Thom's survey - still the most accurate assessment because it involved the marking out of many of the Aubrey Holes via excavation, etcetera, by Richard Atkinson - found the mean diameter to be 283.6ft.<br /><br />I could go on - there is considerably more "parameter" evidence - but I think the point is made, statistics is best at posing questions, not necessarily providing answers. The issue of the "pace" has been misused, if not abused, for decades by both academics and serious researchers wishing to promote their own "theories", leaving people like Bill in an almost impossible catagory of "pseudoscience".<br /><br />My on going research points to the MY as being one of a handful of "sacred" measures used for specific purposes, but because of its inter-relationship with astronomical cycles, geometry and counting methods, it appears to have a 2.72 mathematical outcome. Unfortunately this was interpreted as the "standard" measure used, which more recent research suggests otherwise. The result is that Thom has been "maligned" in various ways by academia to its own disadvantage and questionable scientific integrity. As so many archaeologists heve now commented to me over many years, "...archaeology has thrown out the baby with the bath water..."!<br /><br />I'm not, of course, saying Robert, that you are one of these people - indeed, you are asking the right questions but the importnat thing is to remember that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". There remain many researching in lonely isolation, but paradigms can change even if it takes generations to happen! Richard Bartoszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367500849154120275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-12906678223915670072018-05-11T13:09:50.127+01:002018-05-11T13:09:50.127+01:00In the paper below one can read about and see, Fig...In the paper below one can read about and see, Fig.17, a reconstruction of the enclosed building in T14 (Trench 14) at Durrington Walls. <br />https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228804259_The_Stonehenge_Riverside_Project_exploring_the_Neolithic_landscape_of_Stonehenge<br /><br />The video again showing the 2.72 ft x 272,000 from the centre of the proposed circle at Waun Mawn to T14 at the centre of Durrington Walls.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhNGdG8ImTc<br />Bill Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14289316826393856575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-15688456096989594552018-05-08T15:56:03.212+01:002018-05-08T15:56:03.212+01:00The measurements of 2.72 (Megalithic Yard) ft x 27...The measurements of 2.72 (Megalithic Yard) ft x 272,000 from the centre of the proposed Waun Mawn Bluestone circle to the centre of Durrington Walls and the 2.722 (Thom’s more accurate Megalithic Yard) ft x 272200 from Waun Mawn Bluestone circle to Bluestone Henge, I would suggest is not some freakish coincidence.<br /><br />Other examples between major monuments can be noted.<br /><br />The Sanctuary to Woodhenge, centre to centre, is 27200 yards or 30,000 MY.<br />Stanton Drew centre to Stonehenge centre is 2.72 ft x 68,000 ft (Thom’s Megalithic Rod is 6.8 ft).<br />Thornborough (central) Henge to the Rollrights at 180 degrees is 272,000 yards.<br />Callanish 1 centre to Stonehenge centre is 2764800 ft. This divided by 2.88 ft ( 3 x 0.96 the Short Foot) = 960,000.<br />Conybury Henge to Sutton Common Henge at 90 degrees =30,000 MY.<br />Woodhenge centre to Stonehenge centre 10036.224 ft or 3.168 ft (3 x 1.056 the Long Foot) x 3168.<br /><br />These measurements, and more, are shown in the videos below.<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwFaLzby18k<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gGnDiY839E<br />Bill Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14289316826393856575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-49720751909773457762018-05-08T07:14:21.024+01:002018-05-08T07:14:21.024+01:00I take your point re collection of data. My reacti...I take your point re collection of data. My reaction was regarding the 'megalithic yard'. Collecting data ad infinitum on a measure for which the evidence has been at best flimsy since Thom advocated it, would only be worthwhile if it could be shown that it was not simply the average pace length.Robert Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023855776123812050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-20878095681145352322018-05-08T00:21:24.373+01:002018-05-08T00:21:24.373+01:00Robert,
Bill Wilkinson's research investigate...Robert,<br /><br />Bill Wilkinson's research investigates recurrence of metrological connections. The recurrence of speculated root measures, such as the MY, whether it is believed they exist or not, results from a process of collecting data. Statistics can help answer the question of whether the data is significant. The question "How...?", is irrelevant - it is not a statistical question!<br /><br />It's akin to the many super detailed gold and other artefacts found as grave goods - e.g. Pylos Combat Agate. The answer to "How on Earth did they do it?" may never be found, but the artefacts exist globally - full stop!<br /><br />The same applies to the question "Why?". It may be that the "length" 2.722(or close, i.e. +/- a quantity as found via statistical analysis) as compared to our modern system of 'ft'(ignoring metrication) may not even have been a standard measure used in the epochs concerned. Nonetheless, it is translated, by many researchers, as being a distance which clearly has significance - probably significant in terms of "sacredness" of some kind allied to whatever system of counting of observed phenomena and/or measuring that was used at that time to help them (not us!) make sense of the world they lived in (not ours!).<br /><br /> Richard Bartoszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367500849154120275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-59871276385812197662018-05-07T17:00:23.072+01:002018-05-07T17:00:23.072+01:00And how could they possibly have measured that dis...And how could they possibly have measured that distance, assuming they intended to?<br />Robert Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023855776123812050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-85064173558683508362018-05-07T11:09:50.525+01:002018-05-07T11:09:50.525+01:00From the centre of the proposed Waun Mawn circle t...From the centre of the proposed Waun Mawn circle to the centre of Durrington Walls there is Megalithic Yard connection, the 739840 Feet = 2.72 ft (MY) x 272,000. See Video.<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhNGdG8ImTc<br />Measuring from within the Waun Mawn circle to Bluestone Henge 740928.4 Feet can be seen. This is 2.722 ft (MY) x 272200.Bill Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14289316826393856575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-55617576648130501692018-05-07T10:04:13.178+01:002018-05-07T10:04:13.178+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bill Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14289316826393856575noreply@blogger.com