close
more_vert

jonmor wrote:
I'll write it up if they show interest George. But to make it understandable, I will need to draw up images showing what the state of play is. Without understanding the perceived problem that might lead to a treat to the community, it would be really difficult to explain how the arrangement resolves the problem: It uses pretty elegant lateral thinking.

Evidence wise, it's a bit like Stonehenge in that it matches the requirements. But in addition, the philosophy, the issues and the method of resolving it seem to be represented. To explain it first requires some extra images which allow the reader to take on a view of the world that he/she isn't familiar with.

Re-reading that, it's as clear as mud. Needs a lot of work.

Hi Jon,
I can't claim to understand much of what you're saying/claiming, but admire you for sticking with it instead of drifting from one thing to another. Did your work at SH take you a long time to get to grips with and research?

Hi Sanctuary:

"Did your work at SH take you a long time to get to grips with and research? "

Not long to see if there was a fit after walking around it with the kids and thinking that it looked remarkably familiar (and then that the features described in the leaflet they hand you were the same as the system): The models of the various system configurations already existed, so it was just a case of producing a 3-D model of Stonehenge and introducing the one that was similar into to Stonehenge's configuration.

That model predicted that holes must exist in a vertical line on the edge of Stone 54, so about a month later I went back on a private access visit (the one where you go into the circle) to to see if any holes existed: They did exist in the location predicted, so I measured them as well as you can (given that you're not allowed to touch the stones) up and then constructed 3-D inverted models of the holes to double-check that they too had a fit.

That first stage was the easy bit if I'm honest.