Stonehenge Pffft look at THIS!

close
more_vert
dee D
dee Jan 31, 2009 20:45:52
Replying to tiompan

Whats wrong with DISCUSS? Is it because it was written in capitals? Anyway, like I said before I havent got a clue, i havent read the book but i wouldnt mind reading it (prob wont though, too many other books piling up in my 'backlog'!!) But hey, some 'fringe' stuff can sometimes prove to be accurate......or he could be a nutter!

T tiompan
tiompan Jan 31, 2009 21:15:46
Replying to dee

dee wrote:
Whats wrong with DISCUSS? Is it because it was written in capitals? Anyway, like I said before I havent got a clue, i havent read the book but i wouldnt mind reading it (prob wont though, too many other books piling up in my 'backlog'!!) But hey, some 'fringe' stuff can sometimes prove to be accurate......or he could be a nutter!
The first reply was in relation to DISCUSS i.e. ouch . the follow up "MORE etc. was meant to be equally as strident as the initial command .

A further problem that ocurred is that the finder claims it is 5000 years old whilst you would be lucky to get a medicine wheel older than a millenium .

T tiompan
tiompan Jan 31, 2009 21:23:03
Replying to dee

dee wrote:
But hey, some 'fringe' stuff can sometimes prove to be accurate......or he could be a nutter!
That was why I said "probably bollocks " the percentage of fringe stuff that turns out to be bollocks is immense compared to mainstream archaeology although there is the odd success , same applies to most disciplines .