Stonehenge Pffft look at THIS!

close
more_vert
dee D
dee Jan 31, 2009 22:31:25
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
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 .

Can you prove that last point? Seems to me that dating these structures is quite difficult.

T tiompan
tiompan Jan 31, 2009 22:42:56
Replying to dee

dee wrote:
tiompan wrote:
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 .

Can you prove that last point? Seems to me that dating these structures is quite difficult.
I dunno if you would accept radio carbon dating of charcoal or dendrochronology but fwiw charcoal from the cairn at Big Horn was dated 18 the century, a piece of wood gave roughly the same date .

Why didn't you wonder about the date suggested for the site , 5,000 BP was blithely mentioned wiith no evidence .