|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Stonehenge Forum | Start a topic | Search |
51 messages | Select a forum: |
wychburyman wrote: baza wrote: tiompan wrote: I don't have a problem with the site of the pit , it's just not what they say it is astronomically .Having said that there were some odd comments like the pit being on the pathway of the Cursus then it turns out to be 150 metres to the south of the southern ditch of the Cursus . I find it unbelievable that the professors, doctors and lecturers in archaeology involved with this project could have made such a simple mistake. Professor Vince Gaffney, when talking about the pits, said that they investigated the cursus and found "two very large pits, one in the east end and one in the west end of the cursus." He reiterates "these pits were inside the cursus." Furthermore, if you stand at the Heelstone on Midsummers Day, then the sun rises over the eastern pit and sets over the western pit. I am wondering, have you taken your information from the aerial view accompanying your news link? The "New Discovery" on that image must be the "new mini-henge" which this team claimed to have discovered some time ago. Here's Vince Gaffney's podcast: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Au[...]ews/Vince-Gaffney-podflash.mp3 Very coincidentally, I spent a happy few hours last night chatting away over a few pints with Professor Gaffney. He sketched his theories out for me (i'll scan them if you like) and showed be the Hi-tech scans on his smart phone. It has nothing to do with aerial photography. He hates the media attention, as most academics do. The "lets get media headlines" is a red herring. However, he was accused of publishing too early. This is a common occuranance at the moment as academics try to get papers published ahead of the REF and published before others discover. I'm not saying I understood everything he said, but his theory is convincing. (And, as he said, everyone has a right to an opinion and to disagree). Vince Gaffney has nearly 30 years of working in and around Stonhenge. Maybe he has become too close perhaps. Thanks for the opinions here, but I'll stick to science and the professionals. What was being proffered was science , i.e. hard falsifiable data , not speculation , but you havn't bothered to even enquire or consider it and simply maintained a cultural rather than scientific attitude . Reply | with quote |  29th November 2011ce 09:40 In reply to: Re: More evidence on Stonehenge/Solar connections (wychburyman) |
Messages in this topic: |