bladup wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote:
Roy , I foresee problems if there is no proof and “obvious “ is only subjective .
I get the impression that you will suggest that one stone (I know you said earlier that four were moved but one is enough to illustrate the hypothetical problem ) was moved from it's original position to replace another dislodged ? stone and in turn be replaced by another . It cannot be obvious which of the original stones was moved as you don't know and cannot know without evidence that it was ever there .If it had a distinctive profile which matched an excavated socket you could then prove it but there is no basis for believing a particular stone was anywhere without proof you can only suggest it and from there continue on to the movement of the other , equally problematical three . The basic problem is that to produce what is obvious to you , you have to have an ideal model of the original that without proof derived from excavation only exists in your head and which you cannot prove ever existed .
I've already given you proof that the flankers are not below ground level George, here it is again...
https://picasaweb.google.com/1[...]j8r8ib6fDw#5853697744855595762
I know you are a perfectionist and rightly so in these matters, but speculation based on what you can see and provide evidence for is perfectly acceptable and how we progress. Much as I admire your knowledge I couldn't operate like that and keep finding ways to disprove other peoples work continually without even seeing it first hand and because it doesn't fit into a previous way of doing things. I've done some good work at Trethevy which I'm very pleased with.
I'm finished with this now and pleased that it was discussed fully in a civil manner. I'll give a link to the books website when ready.
I hope there's a picture of you and your dogs looking amazed at the site on your website page, how long do you think it'll ready in, and i know i say this every time Roy but you do have a nak of starting long threads, you much start interesting subjects because yours stay around and the rest fall away quickly, You and littlestone have started the top 7 biggest threads, you two are the clear kings of starting interesting threads.
It'll be ready as the book comes out Paul in I'm guessing a week. It's down to the printers really but they told me on Thursday if I gave them the go-ahead on the final draft they sent me they would print it this coming week. I did, so it should now be with me during the next few days.
I'm fitting Chief up with a pair of ski goggles and ski's like Peanuts wears and placing him on the top of the capstone. He'll be wearing a scarf that I will have starched so that it looks like its flowing behind him :-)
There'll be a post with a 'START' flag stuck in the famous hole in the capstone just to complete the picture!!
Reply | with quote | Posted by Sanctuary 10th March 2013ce 14:07 |
Trethevy Quoit in danger (Sanctuary, Feb 27, 2013, 18:29)- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (tjj, Feb 27, 2013, 19:01)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (Squid Tempest, Feb 27, 2013, 19:16)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (thesweetcheat, Feb 27, 2013, 19:33)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (Littlestone, Feb 28, 2013, 10:36)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger/Nigel (Sanctuary, Mar 05, 2013, 13:58)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger/Dymond Ground Plan (Sanctuary, Mar 06, 2013, 10:18)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (The Heritage Trust, Mar 08, 2013, 15:57)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (harestonesdown, Mar 08, 2013, 16:12)
- OT (juamei, Mar 08, 2013, 17:51)
- Re: OT (nigelswift, Mar 08, 2013, 17:58)
- Re: OT (juamei, Mar 08, 2013, 18:03)
- Re: OT (harestonesdown, Mar 08, 2013, 17:59)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (bladup, Mar 08, 2013, 16:29)
|
|