Pleased to see a reconstruction of the missing stones 17, 18, and 19 and 20 will be featuring in a new film about Stonehenge.
Stonehenge Empire
Stonehenge revealed
October Films has gained exclusive access to the international team of scientists conducting the most exciting and far reaching archaeological project at Stonehenge since the 1960’s.
The series will combine new archaeological evidence from the international survey, drama reconstructions and state-of-the art CGI to produce the most complete and interconnected picture of the how the whole site looked in its heyday; revealing Stonehenge to be a Neolithic Valley of the Kings.
Planned transmission is for Autumn 2014
Broadcaster
BBC Two, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Smithsonian Channel, France 5, ORF Austria and ZDF Germany
Good going Tim
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to see how stone 11 is transformed?
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the opening line to the letter (that was published in BA) to Mike Pitts about this same subject, which (for some reason) he edited out of the final correspondence "let it not be said that Mike Pitts allowed the truth to get in the way of a good story".
http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/stonehenge-dispute-solved-after-260.html
RJl
RJL
Lol , that’s up there with the best , and you wonder why letters don’t get published .
ReplyDelete‘Patch marks ‘?
What is a “monument to the dead “ ? the question is centred on the preposition . Dedicated to the moon ? Why suggest such a fantasy with absolutely no evidence ?
“hence the Aubrey holes “ Why “hence “ ? what fantasy associates the Aubreys with a dedication to the moon ? also note that the Aubreys describe a circle not a crescent ,would that be a full moon ?
Have you ever seen a crescent moon ? If so compare it with the sarsen monument as it is stands today , there are too many stones .Stonehenge doesn’t even look like a crescent moon .
Ever seen a temple dedicated to the moon ? Not a fantasy one but one where we know the intention of the builders , was it crescent shaped ?
"What is a “monument to the dead “ ?"
DeleteNever heard of the cenotaph??
It's a stone memorial/monument to the dead, is it not Sherlock? Wonder where that concept originated??
"Have you ever seen a crescent moon ? If so compare it with the sarsen monument as it is stands today , there are too many stones "
Yet another valuable insight to your 'original' perception - but more passive rather than selective reading shows that 'todays' monument is NOT the original as seen on my blog site.
If you suggesting (you do ramble somewhat!) then look at:
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/islam/islam_lunvis_method.htm
Notice the moon and then the symbol that represents it - then contact the prophet Mohammed and tell him that he's got the symbol wrong on his mosque - because you know best - lol.
RJL
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStonehenge has burial deposits ,cenotaphs don’t .
ReplyDeleteYou have evaded the following questions
Patch marks ?
“Dedicated to the moon ?
Why suggest such a fantasy with absolutely no evidence ?
“hence the Aubrey holes “ Why “hence “ ?
what fantasy associates the Aubreys with a dedication to the moon ? also note that the Aubreys describe a circle not a crescent ,would that be a full moon ?
Ever seen a temple dedicated to the moon ? Not a fantasy one but one where we know the intention of the builders , was it crescent shaped ?
Have you ever seen a crescent moon ?
Your blog site is hardly likely to have anything reliable about anything to do with Stonehenge including the setting of the stones .More to the point .
The monument does not represent a crescent moon , the builders unlike you would have realised that .
Look at a crescent moon, the clue is that is never more than 50 % of a circle , then compare with the sarsen circle which is way past 50% , also consider stone 16 right in the middle of the gap .Not only is the basis for the fantasy wrong the reality isn’t even close . The crescent moon is not a symbol of the prophet , it , along with an accompanying star have associations with Islam .The symbol of the crescent moon predates Islam but this has nothing to do with Stonehenge which has at best , a gap in a circle .
Stonehenge is a monument to the dead like the cenotaph - there are no bodies at Stonehenge that date back to its original construction as it was used as a excarnation site and the bodies buried in the Long Barrows that surround the site. If someone at a later date wishes to bury a cremation on the site, that is their matter - but only a fool would imagine it has something to do with the original structures function, like the current pagan worshiping of the sun on Summer solstice day.
ReplyDelete"Look at a crescent moon, the clue is that is never more than 50 % of a circle ,"
It seems you lack of not only passive reading skills but is compounded by your lack of visual perception?
That's why I sent you a picture - go back and have another look at the representation of the crescent moon Sherlock - not quite the 50% you claim!!
RJL
Yet more evasions of the questions .
ReplyDeletePatch marks ?
“Dedicated to the moon ?
Why suggest such a fantasy with absolutely no evidence ?
“hence the Aubrey holes “ Why “hence “ ?
what fantasy associates the Aubreys with a dedication to the moon ? also note that the Aubreys describe a circle not a crescent ,would that be a full moon ?
Ever seen a temple dedicated to the moon ? Not a fantasy one but one where we know the intention of the builders , was it crescent shaped ?
Have you ever seen a crescent moon ?
The only similarity between the earliest part of the monument and a cenotaph is that neither had any burials , this applies to countless monuments and was soon to change at Stonehenge .
Introducing excarnation , which may or may not have taken place at the site, and there is certainly no evidence for it , along with the equally evidence free Long Barrow story and the error associating the crescent moon with the prophet are diversions to help evade the questions . The sarsen monument does not represent a crescent moon , it doesn’t even look like one .If the builders wished to represent a crescent moon they could easily have done so ,but they didn’t , they had far too many stones to represent something they would have seen and at the very least had one (stone 16 ) stuck in the middle of the small gap . A crescent moon never gets bigger than 50% of the sphere ,but you are unlikely to have noticed that , if the builders had wished to represent it they would have done so .
Could you possibly attempt to answer the real problems about your original nonsensical comments ?i.e. ““if it is a monument to the dead, which most archaeologist now believe, it would be dedicated to the moon (hence the Aubrey holes) and therefore NOT a round monument temple (as current perceived) to the sun. Consequently, it was originally constructed as a 'crescent moon' and therefore, all the holes necessary for a complete monument are, and always have been, in place. “ . That was rhetorical question ,we realise that it couldn't be answered except by non sequitors ,bluf , and primary school "humour " .
Repeating and not responding to photographic evidence - just shows the weakness in your argument - not for the first time!
ReplyDeleteIt would be easy to quote chapter and verse from my books, but as it has over 300,000 words and this is not my web site it would be like you inappropriate.
If you are happy to ask the question on my blog site then I can (in detail) show you how wrong you are again Sherlock - or is that why you now stay away ;-)
RJL
Yet again a failure to respond to questions about your comments .
ReplyDeleteThere is no photographic evidence to support any of your comments .
Look at a photograph of a crescent moon ,as you are unlikely to have paid attention to real one ,it never occupies more than 50% of the sphere , do you deny this ? Look at a plan of the sarsen circle it is far greater than 50% and has a stone in the middle of the gap and the possibility there had been more .
Regardless , none of this has anything to do with your unanswered claims .
You cram more demonstrable errors into a paragraph than most manage in book . If you were capable of demonstrating errors you would do so .But clearly ,as ever you can't ,at least you haven't resorted to the more usual tactic of schoolboy abuse and name calling .
If you can't support your wild claims here then don't make them here .They are only a cheap ad for your blog , but the failure to respond meaningfully here only hints at the level of sciolism we might expect in that blog and any associated "book" .
"There is no photographic evidence to support any of your comments "
Deletehttp://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/islam/islam_lunvis_method.htm
Try again Sherlock - open your eyes this time!
RJL
Have a look at the pic ,does it show that the moon is greater than than 50 % of the sphere ?
DeleteThere is no photographic evidence evidence to support any of your comments . Does it show that the sarsen circle is similar to a crescent moon ?
Look at a photograph of a crescent moon ,as you are unlikely to have paid attention to real one ,it never occupies more than 50% of the sphere , do you deny this ?
"Notice the moon and then the symbol that represents it - then contact the prophet Mohammed and tell him that he's got the symbol wrong on his mosque - because you know best - lol."
Deletehttp://youtu.be/c7LrViaPq7M
RJL
Bob,
ReplyDeleteThere are some pretty compelling arguments and even some indirect evidence that the Aubreys - and Stonehenge itself - was originally constructed as a fancy cemetery, with the Moon as the major motivation.
Because the Aubreys have little to do with the Sun, other than one or two compelling alignments - neither of which involve a Solstice - they were more or less abandoned when the Trilithons went up.
By the time the big Stones were erected, it was the Sun & Earth which were 'honored' and clearly represented. The Moon was still relevant, but took a backseat because the central focus was no longer on Death, but Life.
A waxing or waning crescent Moon's appearance is clearly a product of its relational position to the Sun. One need not be a modern person to witness the reflected earth-shine full orb in winter to recognize this, regardless of its phase. Therefore, it too falls under the aegis of the all-powerful Sun.
That being said, there is zip possibility that the outer Sarsens could have been anything other than a circle - one that did Not symbolize the Moon. In addition, all thirty Stones are represented, either by being right there on-site, or by the holes they once stood in. Only 5 are actually missing. That leaves 25, and 25 of 30 does not a crescent make.
Further, if any of those five were truly omitted, it would create an ugly, asymmetric, gap-toothed appearance and still Not be a crescent.
GeoCur cites extant S-16. I cite fallen -8, -9 -12, -14, -15, -19, -25 & -26. The holes for the missing others have been detected. It was a Circle.
Yet you talk about the outer stones as if they were a discrete feature, never taking into account their essential relationship to the Trilithons, Bluestones, or the Station Stones. They are all quite closely connected.
The back-engineered fantasy of crescents, gravity-defying moats, the arcana of wishful water tables and conveniently corrected timelines, is hardly relevant to a serious discussion concerning the site - particularly if the various components are examined discreetly.
While GeoCur and I will forever discuss different interpretations, and probably not agree on everything, at least we use actual facts to support our arguments - changing the view as necessary when new evidence presents itself. In person, with a host of others that appear on these and other pages, the friendly discussions would probably take place over a pint or two, with hearty handshakes all around in closing.
As a direct result of your caustic, compartmentalized, blindly uninformed approach, I have little doubt that you too will drink, but it'll be alone in a darkened room.
Neil
Well articulated Neil.
DeleteYes well 'articulated' - but not science unfortunately!
DeleteSorry to be the 'bad guy' who has to tell the children that Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and your invisible friend (God) - does not exist but that's real science and not this archaeological fantasy.
If Stonehenge was a circle 'science' demands that they must be a credible argument for Stone 11 and excavated stone hole 13. But as we have found, when challenged the protagonists come up with nothing tangible just rhetoric (which is not evidence in itself).
If Stonehenge was an astronomical observatory it would have been place 500m on top of the hill rather than halfway down a river valley - again scientific fact, unless you can give us a good reason without using the words 'ceremonial' or 'religious' which again are not scientific words as you need verifiable evidence.
Sorry to be a 'kill joy' but eventually archaeology needs to grow up and become a recognisable science, rather than a simplistic game of word play!
RJL.
What you attempted to articulate , among other hugely problematic points which you have avoided explaining , was that Stonehenge was a representation of the crescent moon when clearly it is not . A full circle or otherwise is a straw man and evasion , as is mention of an “observatory “ .You don’t need to be on a hilltop to record where the solstices are seen on the horizon or the much less likely lunar standstills . They can be observed today from the site ,it was no difficult in prehistory . No apologies for being the “bad guy” pointing out your continual errors .
DeleteThe crescent moon hypothesis is based on existing holes as shown here at the end of the blog:
Deletehttp://www.the-stonehenge-enigma.info/2014/06/quantum-of-solstice.html
Each holes exists (15 is accepted by most archaeologists) and the correct stone size is place on each hole - that's a scientific fact not patchmark/parchmark speculation.
If you think that a representation crescent moon is only 50% that's you judgement call, but existing historic representation as shown by the moon symbolism on mosques is well in excess of 50% and the one illustrated in the picture:
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/islam/islam_lunvis_method.htm
And is the EXACT same proportion to the Stonehenge reconstruction I have shown earlier - again scientific fact not your 50% guesstimation!
".You don’t need to be on a hilltop to record where the solstices are seen on the horizon"
That is nonsense and again poor science - the higher you are the better and more accurate view you will achieve (free from tree lines) of any Solstice or other Astronomical observation.
If that is incorrect then name be an observatory which has been placed halfway down a mountain/hill when they had free access to the top?
The only errors are your observations which are not based on scientific evidence but speculation. At best they are excuses in attempting to turn fantasies into an academic poorly researched reality and synonymous of archaeology today!
RJL
http://www.the-stonehenge-enigma.info/2014/06/quantum-of-solstice.html
DeleteHilarious nonsense in keeping with the madness the monument inspires with the “alt” crowd . “A complete explanation of the mathematics and symbolism within the Stonehenge Monument will be reviled “ you couldn’t make it up .
“The complex details of this calculation “
I have been asking for your “calculation “ for some time , lets see your data . Complex ? what’s complex about a solstice calc ?
The crescent moon is never greater than 50 % of the sphere anyone who knows anything the moon knows that ,it’s also obvious to anyone whoever has ever looked at crescent moon . Do you deny any that ?
The sarsen monument at Stonehenge looks nothing like a crescent moon , do you deny that ?
Your explanation for a lunar “dedication “ of the monument and associated problems has not been forthcoming either i.e. ““if it is a monument to the dead, which most archaeologist now believe, it would be dedicated to the moon (hence the Aubrey holes) and therefore NOT a round monument temple (as current perceived) to the sun. Consequently, it was originally constructed as a 'crescent moon' and therefore, all the holes necessary for a complete monument are, and always have been, in place. “
The observatory mention was yet another straw man , where have I ever described Stonehenge as an observatory . More to the point ".You don’t need to be on a hilltop to record where the solstices are seen on the horizon" . Is perfectly true .
“it would have been place 500m on top of the hill “ Look at the height of real observatories . The Royal at Greenwich is at under 50m OD and the Royal in Edinburgh is 146 m OD .
“The only errors are your observations which are not based on scientific evidence but speculation. At best they are excuses in attempting to turn fantasies into an academic poorly researched reality” . That sums up your input perfectly , fantasies and when you do say something that is falsifiable it gets falsified .
As always ,a paragraph can contain numerous errors ,a whole blog page would take weeks to go through . From http://www.the-stonehenge-enigma.info/2014/06/quantum-of-solstice.html
DeleteThis one is a beauty ,unintentional humour at it’s best .
“. For when a circle that has a diameter of 360 ft has a moated circumference (the area around the edge of the circle) of 1130 ft in length. So if we divide the length around the edge 1130 by the diameter 360, we get a very interesting number 3.14 - why is this absorbing, because it's what we know as PI or 3.14159!! “
Using a circle to describe circular thinking and being unaware of it ,is a joy to behold .Thanks .
You don’t realise what you have done here do you ?
Looking forward to the "complex calculation" .
"The crescent moon is never greater than 50 % of the sphere anyone who knows anything the moon knows that ,it’s also obvious to anyone whoever has ever looked at crescent moon . Do you deny any that ?"
DeleteYour passive reading skills are not helping you are they?
Do you understand the meaning of symbolism ??(silly question clearly!) As I said before if you think that 1.5 BILLION Muslims have got their symbolic moon proportion wrong - then go off and tell them (preferably one at a time away from me!) Lol!
Can this get any more pathetic?
YES IT CAN!!
" Look at the height of real observatories . The Royal at Greenwich is at under 50m OD and the Royal in Edinburgh is 146 m OD .".......????? (what about them?)
Were you completely engrossed in answering you own question, that you forgot to finish the sentence?? or Is English your second language?? or maybe the Alzheimer's kicked in again Sherlock??
Anyway (to cut your ramblings short) Greenwich is NOT halfway up a hill it's on top and nor is Edinburgh - you talking complete nonsense yet again!! If you can't understand basics of landscape topology - then I'm wasting my time with you.
"So if we divide the length around the edge 1130 by the diameter 360, we get a very interesting number 3.14 - why is this absorbing, because it's what we know as PI or 3.14159!! “"
DeleteWow!!
How would have thought that the Megalithic Builders only went down to two sig figs?? You right should have at least got down to at least 5 if not 10 sig figs as the error rate is catastrophic for any building works - those millimeters make such a difference!
What a revelation.... for an insane lunatic?
“it would have been place 500m on top of the hill “ The Royal observatory at under 50 m rising from 15m nearly a kilometre away is hardly a hill , a tenth of the height you suggest and half the height OD of Stonehenge ,it is also half the height of nearby Shooters Hill ,which ,if height was critical , would have been a more appropriate site . Even then the comment was an evasion of all the other questions .
DeleteAs has been pointed out numerous times there is a pattern ,when you get stuck in the mire and manage to evade the questions you get even more childish . You have also avoided showing where I described Stonehenge as an observatory ,yet another evasion within an evasion .
Initially you got the crescent moon symbol wrong by suggesting it was a symbol of the prophet ,that has been amended , but there is an obvious difference between an historic religious symbol and the shape of a prehistoric megalithic monument that doesn’t even look like a crescent moon and there is no reason to believe was even symbolic . Further have you ever seen a monument dedicated to the moon ?,did it look like a crescent moon ? You didn’t manage to answer that either . We are still waiting for explanations to the questions asked 23 posts ago in relation to your lunacy .i.e. “Dedicated to the moon ? Why suggest such a fantasy with absolutely no evidence ?
“hence the Aubrey holes “ Why “hence “ ? what fantasy associates the Aubreys with a dedication to the moon ? also note that the Aubreys describe a circle not a crescent ,would that be a full moon ?
"So if we divide the length around the edge 1130 by the diameter 360, we get a very interesting number 3.14 - why is this absorbing, because it's what we know as PI or 3.14159!! “"
DeleteWow!!
It gets worse .
You do realise that is a quote from you . The hilarious example of circular reasoning based on a circle .
"GeoCur cites extant S-16. I cite fallen -8, -9 -12, -14, -15, -19, -25 & -26. The holes for the missing others have been detected. It was a Circle."
ReplyDelete11 and 13 clearly shows that it was never the completed circle as illustrated above and in most publications and books - until someone can justify the real evidence of 11 and 13 as being either an optical illusion or inaccurate excavations - the circle idea is dead.
"While GeoCur and I will forever discuss different interpretations, and probably not agree on everything, at least we use actual facts to support our arguments -"
Great lets us have why stone 11 is too small and stone hole 13 never had a full sized stone - can't wait for this one!
Holmes and Watson working once more together to investigate an ancient mystery - how exciting... whats the chances it will turnout like the Ben Kinglsey's version "without a clue" lol!
RJL
"the circle idea is dead."
ReplyDeleteThe cresecent idea was never even born except in one fevered imagination .
"at least we use actual facts to support our arguments "
DeleteWell it's over to you Watson - Sherlock doesn't seem to support your hypothesis either!!
RJL
Where does this endlesss stream of nonesense and illogicality end ?
ReplyDeleteCan't you read and understand even the simplest comments ?
Rhetorical questions , no need to answer .