Using powerful ground-penetrating radar, which can ‘x-ray’ archaeological sites to a depth of up to four metres, investigators from Birmingham and Bradford universities and from the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute in Vienna have discovered a 330 metre long line of more than 50 massive stones, buried under part of the southern bank of Durrington Walls.
“Up till now, we had absolutely no idea that the stones were there,” said the co-director of the investigation Professor Vince Gaffney of Birmingham University.
The geophysical evidence suggests that each buried stone is roughly three metres long and 1.5 metres wide and is positioned horizontally, not vertically, in its earthen matrix.
However, it’s conceivable that they originally stood vertically in the ground like other standing stones in Britain. It is thought that they were probably brought to the site shortly before 2500BC.
They seem to have formed the southern arm of a c-shaped ritual ‘enclosure’, the rest of which was made up of an artificially scarped natural elevation in the ground.
The c-shaped enclosure – more than 330 metres wide and over 400 metres long – faced directly towards the River Avon. The monument was later converted from a c-shaped to a roughly circular enclosure. (source)
I have indicated the approximate position of these hidden dragon's teeth with a line - click to enlarge.
It must be emphasised that these are only geophysical echoes at the moment - we have no idea what is actually buried there. It echoes like stones and they seem to be below the ancient bank but without actually digging down we won't know if what they are or from when. I just hope they aren't something the Army dug in during the last European Unpleasantness .
It is also worth noting the emphasis given to the C shaped nature of Durrington Walls. This is based on the (enhanced?) scarp that surrounds the natural valley that runs up the middle of the henge, maybe to what was a winterbourne spring, The bank and ditch tend to be either side of this scarp to the north and west, and would seem to be later. As Vince Gaffney said Durrington Walls is a very three dimensional monument and flat maps deceive. The original map form the the 1960s excavations shows the scarp and contours well.
Click for huge version
It's all very nice finding lumps and bumps in the environment - but as Tim quite rightly points out, until they are dated these anomalies its pointless to speculate their function.ReplyDelete
What is interesting and beyond speculation is the excellent map posted here of the Durrington site. An objective observer would ask "why build a 'settlement' in a ditch of a valley, when there is perfectly good flat space no more than 300 yards to the SW?"
This is similar to the (unanswered) question asked about why Stonehenge is built halfway up a hill?
When archaeologists spend more time answering these fundamental questions rather than 'playing' with their 'toys' then we might find out the true history of these monuments.
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
Stonehenge is not half way up a hill . It’s sited on a relatively flat plain above some slightly lower ground to the east . Look at the contours , even in Holland it wouldn’t be described as a hill .The nearest high point is 1.75 km away , at 121 m OD it’s a grade of 0.8 % you couldn’t roll an ball down it , it’s so distinctive it isn’t named , it’s not a hill . From Stonehenge Bottom to the monument there is a grade of 3.6% you could roll a ball down that ,some might even describe the slope as a hill but once you are at the monument you are not half way up anything .ReplyDelete
That's strange I'm sure you look down upon it from the A303 from London - so why not put it up there, as it's a better clearer view?Delete
You can even roll your balls down the hill with ease!! Lol!!
It's the same reason that Durrington is a v-shaped site, when a perfectly flat surface is nearby.
When eventually you understand how to use Google Earth Sherlock (to look at the gradients) we might be spared these nonsense 'Flat Plain' observations and talk about real archaeology?
Stonehenge Cottages on the London side of the A303 provides a view of the monument and is higher than the monument by 8 metres , halfway up a 16m high hill ? . Try street view if it’s GE you are using .You might notice the plain that the monument sits ,it is obviously not half way up a hill . Have you ever heard of anyone who has seen the monument in it’s landscape setting describe as it such ? No matter the subject whether archaeology , topography ,astronomy or anything else you happened to have to have “studied “ the belters just keep coming . Again you have been provided with data ,if you disagree with the grades let's see your data , and while you are at it why not provide the data for the " complex calculation " too ,or will both be evaded and replaced with bluster and silly names , as always ?ReplyDelete
Here is a nice picture for those simple people who can't read a map!ReplyDelete
Now ask yourself a simple question - why not build it from the top of the hill? Its not rocket science (well for some of us Sherlock!).
We'll leave Durrington for a while as clearly it's far too complicated for you to comprehend.
Look at a map, look at GE , look at the data , even better go and look at the monument itself or ask anyone who has visited the site .Stonehenge is not sited half way up a hill .ReplyDelete
What is the name of the hill that is it is half way up ? Where is the top of this hill ? grid ref and co-ordinates will do , but like any real data , as opposed to fantasy , will not be forthcoming . Yes maybe best leave Duirrington , unless you want to provide further amusement .
Just had a look at this .
Using that pic as evidence is priceless and typical . How long did you spend looking for that ? “wanted distorted images of Stonehenge landscape , zoom shots with leaning photographer “
On the small scale ,did you do know that the lintels are level ? , have a look at them in the pic .
On the larger scale , at the monument the ground rises less than two metres from east to west over approx 130m ,look at the pic we could roll you down that slope .Look at the punters standing about 100m from Amesbury 11 , their feet are higher than top of the barrow , but the spot they are standing is the same height OD as the bottom of the barrow never mind it’s 3m high top . As ever further commentary gets you deeper into mire .
"Stonehenge is not sited half way up a hill ."Delete
Here is a web site for idiots that can't read maps - www.uk-archaeology.tv
The OS profiles are from a company called 'memory map' - if you don't like the profiles as they have failed to 'name the hill' then do give them a call - i'm sure the insane call them all the time?
Back to bed Sherlock!
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
As expected and predicted bluster schoolboy name calling and a failure to address the problems of the daft pic. the name of the hill ,grid refs or co-ordinates for the hill ,or data including the long requested "complex calculation " .ReplyDelete
I happen to have "memory map " it doesn't give a name for the high spot either .
Just had a look at this nonsense , http://www.uk-archaeology.tv/ , might have guessed ,another laugh though and it does explain the original daft comment . Warning take only in small doses ,injuries to ribs might ensue and of course it has nothing to do archaeology , you have probably guessed the content by now .ReplyDelete
Even within the farrago there seems to be confusion about exactly how far “up the hill “ the site sits . No mention of halfway up a hill quopted here but we do get “ halfway up a valley? “ “two-thirds of the way up the hill upon which it’s built “ then four sentences later it has magically ascended the “hill” to “Stonehenge was placed three-quarters of the way up a hill,”. The graphic is a joy , the altitude is marked in metres and the distances are shown in Kilometres but not mentioned until later ,this produces a grade making it appear a bit like a real hill ,pity about the ratio though . The bottom of the “hill “ is just 90m and the top just over 105m over approx 7,500 metres , summiteers are said to suffer from vertigo . You might imagine actually looking at the site in person or even using OS maps or GE would have clarified the mistake .
A quote from the same stuff .
“So why was Stonehenge built where it is, rather than at the top of the hill just 500 metres away that is 30 metres higher? “ Stonehenge stands at 101 m where is the “hill “that is 500 metres away and 30 metres higher “ ? The highest point 500 metres away is only a maximum of 7 metres higher . Let’s face it ,the only answer will be bluster and name calling . You have already been told the direction ,height and distance of the nearest high point from the monument and the grade it provides .
Apologies the 7,500 m in the above should be 750m .ReplyDelete
It's catching .
All this desktop technology is fine as far as it goes thanks, but you won't learn anything substantial until you dig, boys & girls - dig. So roll your sleeves up & get on with it please!ReplyDelete
But just one comment (again): You really do need to get an impartial civil engineer to evaluate whether or not your theory is plausible (river flow rates v storage capacity etc). You're spending a lot of time on this: If an engineer might, just for the sake of an example, tell you in five minutes that your theory has no chance (and be able to say why), then it will save you an awful lot of time in the future.
Thanks for you comments JonReplyDelete
But I have looked into this further since our last conversation on aquifers and found that they is no data for this resource in Britain. Although there are some american models available as they spend real money and understand hydrology better than us brits.
It's like asking the question "how long is a piece of string?" and if you ever had the fortune to see horizons excellent programme of the same name you find the answer is surprisingly 'infinite'!!
I would imagine the answer to how much water is underground to probably be the same answer as water will gather in every gap and crack between the rocks and when you study it at a micro level you come to the same conundrum as the piece of string theory.
This is why I suggested that you need to invent a new mathematics to calculate this type of resource as Fisher did with Darwinism - or you can more easily use a quantum axiom to find the answer : 'Believing is Seeing!'.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, a civil engineer will be able to do the calculation in five minutes using estimates. The river flow calcs are a bit complex, but there is no need for any new mathematics. You really need to get someone independent on board, who you trust and who give the answer in private, to tell you the answer to this calculation.ReplyDelete
can give the answer, not give. too much hasteReplyDelete
No civil engineer in this (or any other country) can do this calculation - perhaps i'm not being clear?ReplyDelete
You need to know the sources of the water i.e. the total number of aquifers and their max capacity - that information does not exist and is impossible to estimate accurately??
BGS does not know the number of aquifers and they also do not know the capacity let alone the total capacity of existing aquifers.
The river bit is simple schoolboy stuff - the other impossible at present!
If you google your request for known aquifers in Britain and their estimated capacity - you get nothing back as no-one has calculated such a feat. This is why current university hydrology courses (like archaeology) are inadequate and can not help without extensive and expensive research - american has attempted it on a very small scale but you looking at the total aquifer capacity of the whole of the UK landmass.
And even then is still not as it seems as new studies in America have shown that aquifers are constantly moving like tides rather than the stagnate lakes perceived by most hydrological British text books will tell you.
Believe me if it was that simple - I would have done it long ago!!
You need to know the sources of the water i.e. the total number of aquifers and their max capacity - that information does not exist and is impossible to estimate accurately??ReplyDelete
Aquifers largely exist at and below the water table. They can be used for extraction (as happened in London). Some aquifers contribute to river load: These only exist at locations which have a containment boundary. A friendly engineer could estimate the maximum surcharge capacity quite easily; at least, to a degree sufficient to know whether or not they would be capable of sustaining river flows of the type and over the period you have described.
"Aquifers largely exist at and below the water table" - Existing aquifers yes, but they are at a lower level than in the past, consequently some aquifers will be empty and some aquifers will have moved - as shown in America as the water levels and consequently water pressure reduces moving the table.ReplyDelete
It's not the simplistic model you imagined!
"A friendly engineer could estimate the maximum surcharge capacity quite easily"
Sorry Jon you're wrong! all you will get is a guestimation - not very scientific is it? And what is the guess based on - their is no data??
I would suggest (a second time) that you watch the horizon programme about the 'length of a piece of string' - in this analogy you are suggesting that all you need is a ruler - the reality is much more infinite that you imagine!
And in a sense you do not need to do this fundementally new mathematics as you have empirical evidence not only in the landscape of Britain but as far a field as Asia Minor - The Russian Archaeological Sciences have investigated both the Black and Caspian Seas and found that dirrectly after the ice age they doubled in size due to groundwater increase- these objects are over a thousand miles away from the ice cap!!
We now know the Thames was ten times bigger in the past (we do not need to know which aquifers feed this river) as we have archaeological evidence. Therefore the rivers 'feeding' and sharing the same aqifers of the Thames must also be ten times bigger including the Avon - this gives you the flood plans indicated on my prehistoric map series.
It's nice to do the maths and one day when BGS get there finger out who knows we might. Until then the existing evidence is compelling!
Sorry Jon you're wrong! all you will get is a guestimationReplyDelete
Interesting convo Robert. Maximum capacity is not an estimation (imagine all hills are empty of rock and instead carry water to desperately try to make something as big as possible). This is, of course, impossible, but it gives you the best possible case for your theory. If that yields a result which is orders of magnitude lower than that which would be required to make your theory work, then the theory is likely to be wrong.
In my opinion, it would be worthwhile you getting that estimate done. You've spent a lot of time on this. If you don't agree.. that's fair enough: everybody has different approaches to this sort of thing.
"Fifty-six pits called Aubrey Holes, placed in a circle around the insideReplyDelete
of the bank, are thought to have once held Welsh bluestones. Those
stones later became earmarked for a different purpose and were
eventually removed to be replaced by dedicatory cremations. - So said
Hawley and Newall, the guys who excavated 32 of them. Society of
Antiquaries, London 1926.
For now, though, let’s introduce just two – pit number 56 and pit
number 28. The bluestones placed standing upright in these two pits
helped retain the solstice sun clockwise and clear of the moon-arc as
All very nice Tim but why bother with the other 54 holes if only two were important - and if there so special why not place them on mounds like the South and North Barrows??
Stick four random posts in the ground and I will give you a dozen 'astronomical alignments' - As I have started before if the site was for 'Astronomical Observation' why is it halfway down a hill and not at the highest point? If Durrington Walls (Woodhenge) is 'little Stonehenge' why the henge and why is the 'southern circle again halfway down the hill towards the River Valley rather than the top near these alignments??
It just doesn't make any sense!
“As I have started before if the site was for 'Astronomical Observation' why is it halfway down a hill and not at the highest point? If Durrington Walls (Woodhenge) is 'little Stonehenge' why the henge and why is the 'southern circle again halfway down the hill towards the River Valley rather than the top near these alignments? “ReplyDelete
And has been stated countless times before a solstice alignment doesn’t need an “observatory “ . Stonehenge is not half way up a hill ,if it wasn’t already obvious it has been shown to be the case , and all you managed to provide to support the contention was a lop sided pic . As for the observatories at tops of hills . The Greenwich Royal observatory was moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herstmonceux_Castle height OD 45m . Immediately to the north the land is higher and 5km to the north it is nearly four times the height of the observatory .
After that it moved to Cambridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Observatory height OD 25m OD . Patrick Moore , probably the most famous contemporary British astronomer had four observatories in his garden at Selsey at a height of 7m OD
Add the four of the Royal observatory and Moore observatories together and it’s just over the height of Stonehenge OD and nearly a tenth of your suggested height of 500 m.
You're talking complete nonsense!!ReplyDelete
You have the Stonehenge profiles on my web site: http://www.uk-archaeology.tv/
- ARE THEY INCORRECT???
It's simple even for you Sherlock - I give you a clue it's either YES or NO!!
Or are you going to carry on ramble on about nothing yet again proving that you have no idea what you are talking about?
As ever no data and bluster .Mention of your website providing eveidence is a joke as it full of errors .ReplyDelete
The problems with the “half way up a hill “ suggestion have been covered .
You attempt at supporting the notion was a ridiculous zoomed pic that was obviously lop sided , the evidence showing just how lop sided has been noted , if necessary they can be repeated .
You also commented “So why was Stonehenge built where it is, rather than at the top of the hill just 500 metres away that is 30 metres higher? “ but failed to respond when asked to name the hill and provide the grid ref that fits that data . Hardly surprising as there is no such hill at that distance from the monument . You had been told from my first post related to this “The nearest high point is 1.75 km away , at 121 m “ and also “The highest point 500 metres away is only a maximum of 7 metres higher . “ These facts are demonstrable , if you need grid refs they can be provided .
The other two points have been ignoresd . You don't need an observatory to record solsticial rises and sets and observatories do not require to be at 500m OD as can be seen from the choice of sites of the Royal observatories and the observatories of the most famous British astronomer of his generation .
No data expected just more childish name calling .
"You have the Stonehenge profiles on my web site: http://www.uk-archaeology.tv/ - ARE THEY INCORRECT???"
Your Answer: Blah, blah blah blah blah!!
Sums up your total knowledge of the subject matter Sherlock - you're a total waste of space.
As expected no data .ReplyDelete
The web site is so full of errors it's difficult to know where to start .
As was pointed out earlier from the web site we find "No mention of halfway up a hill quoted here but we do get “ halfway up a valley? “ “two-thirds of the way up the hill upon which it’s built “ then four sentences later it has magically ascended the “hill” to “Stonehenge was placed three-quarters of the way up a hill,” ,also noted about the graphics "The bottom of the “hill “ is just 90m and the top just over 105m over approx 7,500 metres " which says enough about the the fact that the monument is clearly not "half way up a hill" .
You said ,
“So why was Stonehenge built where it is, rather than at the top of the hill just 500 metres away that is 30 metres higher? “ Yet failed to support this obvious error . There is no point that is 30 metres higher within 500 metres . You laughingly attempted to get away with the wonderful http://bicyclejoyride.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/this-green-and-pleasant-land/cc-1024x603/ as evidence , and evaded all the issues with that distortion .
Again no reference to the observatory nonsense in relation to marking solstices and also the height of the Royal and important observatories which makes a mockery of your 500m comment .
As has been said on this thread and all the others here many times , no data and an evasion of data provided , all there ever is in response is bluster. Back to your darkened room and stick to making sandwiches Hudson .
Oh and btw Of course the profile is wrong and totally misleading , this was mentioned earlier i.e. ‘The graphic is a joy , the altitude is marked in metres and the distances are shown in Kilometres but not mentioned until later ,this produces a grade making it appear a bit like a real hill ,pity about the ratio though .’ . It is not difficult to produce topographical profiles correctly ,you can even do it in GE , the results when done correctly or in GE are nothing like what you produced . When using Memory Map profiles you didn’t right click the profile to get “true scale “ which as the software describes ‘shows vertical and horizontal distances in the correct proportion, so the profile shows the actual gradients in the real world. ‘Apart from contrasting your fantasies with the real thing we don’t really need them as most of us can see the actual topography of the area for ourselves and realise how nonsensical the comment that ‘Stonehenge is half way up a hill ‘ , actually is .ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
At last after countless blah, blah, blah nonsense as usual we get a reply.ReplyDelete
"profile is wrong" AND THIS IS BECAUSE
"the altitude is marked in metres and the distances are shown in Kilometres"
So we know that the graphics are right but in your view the SCALE is wrong? LOL!!
You sum up the problems with archaeology - full of senile old idiots who can't even understand how a simple scale works.
You have again avoided what you call blah blah i.e. real data and problems you can't respond to .ReplyDelete
You ask one question and it gets answered . The profile is wrong and misleading ,just like the one daft pic you chose to represent a " hill " .
Read the instructions that go along with the profile feature on "memory map" it explains quite simply , even for the really thick that if you want a genuine profile you need to right click to get " "True scale" which "shows vertical and horizontal distances in the correct proportion, so the profile shows the actual gradients in the real world. " .Note "real world " and "correct proportion" not the misleading and inaccurate "auto scale " you fell for without understanding what anyone could tell you who had actually been to the monument , i.e. Stonehenge is not halfway up a hill .If you believe it is on the evidence of a daft pic and inaccurate profiles when all you have to do is go and see for yourself or check the correct profile it might go some way to explaining all the other nonsense you manage to believe .At least it keeps us amused .
Now lets see if you can actually respond to any of the other multiple problems you have avoided i.e explaining why you asked "“So why was Stonehenge built where it is, rather than at the top of the hill just 500 metres away that is 30 metres higher? “ yet can't name the hill or provide the grid ref or co-ordiinates for this hill which obvioulsy doesn't exist except in your fevered imagination .
What you have produced as evidence for Stonehenge being “halfway up a hill “ is as good as anything yet in the hilarity stakes . You began with the pic and the laughs about that have been covered but you seem to have forgotten so a reminder “On the small scale ,did you do know that the lintels are level ? , have a look at them in the pic .ReplyDelete
On the larger scale , at the monument the ground rises less than two metres from east to west over approx 130m ,look at the pic we could roll you down that slope .Look at the punters standing about 100m from Amesbury 11 , their feet are higher than top of the barrow , but the spot they are standing is the same height OD as the bottom of the barrow never mind it’s 3m high top . As ever further commentary gets you deeper into mire .” And as ever on cue you produced your profiles from “memory map” . Equally as funny and a another example of misuse and misunderstanding of simple functions in software . You though that the “auto scale “ in the profile feature of ‘memory map ‘ produced a realistic profile of a “ route “ , when it clearly doesn’t if you know the topography of the route or had read the instructions . If you want a more realistic view of the actual profile you have to right click and use the “True scale “ function which as it says in the supposedly idiot proof instructions “shows vertical and horizontal distances in the correct proportion, so the profile shows the actual gradients in the real world.” . Even worse than the pic , the profile provided by “auto scale “ and used by you on your web site is incredibly distorted and is obvious to anyone who knows the topography of the route being profiled .
Of course maybe you have never been to the site in which case there is a slight excuse but you also failed to take note of other pointers like gradients and maps and GE which are easily read .
If you have actually been to the site and then accepted the distortions in your “evidence “ then the level of cognitive dissonance is off the scale , much worse than the “auto route” profile ,but then again no worse than we have become accustomed to when you attempt to evade problems by side stepiing them and getting even deeper into the mire .
" yet can't name the hill or provide the grid ref or co-ordiinates for this hill which obvioulsy doesn't exist except in your fevered imagination"ReplyDelete
Oh dear if your right you need to contact Wikipedia (not for the first time!!) and tell them that they too have it all wrong!?
"Vespasian's Camp is an Iron Age Hillfort in the town of Amesbury, Wiltshire, England. It is located less than 2 miles from the Neolithic and Bronze Age site of Stonehenge and was built on a hill next to the Stonehenge Avenue."
Hill next to Stonehenge - surely not!! Sherlock tell them its not a hill as it has no name its just a tiny....... 'mound' ??! LOL!!!
And so as Vspasian Camp is 10m lower than the 'mound' that too can't be a HILLFORT oh no its a 'no-name mound' fort!! ;-)
I know it's sad to tease the mentally insane - but what the hell it's lots of fun and Sherlock desires it for being such a pompous ass!
Once again avoided all the problems concerning your distorted views in memory map “ etc ,and once again the evasion has got you deeper onto the mire . You have attempted to answer one question but again avoided data . The question was in relation to your comment “So why was Stonehenge built where it is, rather than at the top of the hill just 500 metres away that is 30 metres higher? “ .ReplyDelete
That is clearly the hill in question .Your answer ,Vespasians Camp is not really good enough . 1) Vespasians Camp is over 2 Km away and is at best 2 metres higher than the site at Stonehenge . The cognitive dissonance has just got worse . Maybe you can produce a profile or a pic showing Vespasian’s Camp towering over Stonehenge .
More evasions , bluster and more laughs expected as you attempt to squirm out of another hole only to find yourself even deeper if you attempt to argue yiour way out of it , best stick to the name calling ,you can't make mistakes with that .
And now we have established there is a hill - lets do the mathematics Sherlock!!ReplyDelete
Bottom of the Hill is Stonehenge Bottom (according to your beloved GE it's 84m OD (that means above sea level Sherlock!) high the top of the hill by the Kings Barrows is 110m OD!!
Now this is the tricky part Sherlock pay attention 110 - 84 = 26... i'll do it in words as I know you have trouble with simple maths - one hundred and ten minus eighty-four is twenty- six.(if your still stuck as one of the grandchildren to explain it to you!)
Now we add HALF the difference which is 13 to the lower figure 84 and this is the HALFWAY POINT of the hill - which is 97!!
Stonehenge is 98m above sea level which makes it....... HALFWAY UP THE HILL !!
Never mind Sherlock - you'll get something right one day!
Apart from the mistakes about the observatories you have Avoided 1) the error in the profile ,2) the lop sided pic 3)the nonsense about Vespasians Camp and 4) not being able to find a hill that is 500m from the site and 30 m higher . Now you are attempting simple math ,which we might imagine to be safer ground consiedering the other difficulties ,but sadly no .ReplyDelete
Bottom of the hill is Stonehenge Bottom ,fine we'll call Stonehenge Bottom to the site a hill (although even Dutch pensioners might refer to it as slope ) the grade as was pointed out to you was 3.6% ( a height differential of 17 m i.e. 85m OD -102m OD over 500m ) . From Stonehenge to the nearest high point 1.75 Km away the height differential of 19 gives a grade of 0.8% . Anyone who has visited the site , looked at the figures or seen a real profile would never describe the topography between Stonehenge and the un-nnamed higher point a hill ,it's hardly a slope ,even the Dutch would be ashamed to describe it as such .Even from Stonehenge Bottom to the highest point it is a total of 37m over 2.25 Km ,a hill ?have you ever seen a hill? Silbury Hill is higher over a distance 26 times times less than that from Stonehenge Bottom to the un-named high point .
Go and look at the site ,ask anyone who has ever visited , read descriptions ,look at real profiles in Memory Map or GE ,look at decent map etc ,nobody but yourself , nothing new there , would suggest that Stonehenge is half way up a hill . If you still believe that then it is no surprise that you believe all the other fantasy stuff you mention too .
So far in this thread these errors have been made and evaded when pointed out 1) the error in the profile ,2) the lop sided pic 3)the nonsense about Vespasians Camp and 4) not being able to find a hill that is 500m from the site and 30 m higher . Then there are the observatory problems also evaded i.e. 5) No need for an observatory to record solstice extreme positions 6) No need for siting an observatory 500 up a hill as can be seen by the choice of site for the Royal Observatories and the observatories of the most famous UK astronomer of the 20 th C .” Add the four of the Royal observatory and Moore observatories together and it’s just over the height of Stonehenge OD and nearly a tenth of your suggested height of 500 m . Now the latest “Bottom of the Hill is Stonehenge Bottom 84m OD , the top of the hill by the Kings Barrows is 110m OD (fine ,but not much of a hill more of a slope but it is you and you seem to consider the gentlest of slopes , hills , god help you if you ever had to walk up a real hill ) then we get “Now we add half the difference which is 13 to the lower figure 84 and this is the halfway point of the hill - which is 97 . “ yes true , simple maths ,but then the coup de grace “stonehenge is 98m above sea level which makes it....... halfway up the hill .” apart from the fact that Stonehenge is actually higher than 98m , with 101-103m OD being more accurate , the monument is not situated on the slope between Stonehenge Bottom and King’s Barrows but in the other direction between Stonehenge Bottom and the unnamed highest point at 410506 142108 which provides a grade of 0.8% and cannot be considered a hill even by the most geriatric of standards . Try the “true scale “ profile in memory Map “ and see what it looks for those who have actually seen it . This latest gaffe adds weight to to the belief that you have never visited the area , or if you have , you were blindfolded .ReplyDelete
6 errors in one thread is nowhere near your record . Have another go at evading the problems and introducing a new diversion and you may beat it yet .