close
more_vert

Cerrig said "The current models of history and mathematics don't account for Johns insights" and "thanks to his groundbreaking work another piece of the puzzle is much clearer than it would have been otherwise".

I was just wondering what Cerrig thinks these insights are and what has been made much clearer. I was hoping these would be something quite specific.

Perhaps I should have made myself much clearer also :)

Some might call it stirring but I thought it would be better to have some specific statements / concepts of his to discuss in 'lively debate', rather than what I see as the current more nebulous 'He was a visionary genius' vs 'He talked a load of rot'. But perhaps it's too much to hope for ie trying to mix visionary apple talk vs scientific evidence oranges. Unless of course he said particular testable things (rather like Lethbridge and his pendulum ideas).

[quote="Rhiannon"]Cerrig said "The current models of history and mathematics don't account for Johns insights"

Yes it is an hilarious claim . Maybe someone should have told the historians and mathematicians .


"Some might call it stirring ."

Not me .

"
No but I thought it would be better to have some specific statements / concepts of his to discuss in 'lively debate', rather than what I see as the current more nebulous 'He was a visionary genius' vs 'He talked a load of rot'. "

I didn't just say he talked rot , I have pointed out specific examples .
Much of the rot has been covered over the years .
I assume you haven't read Michell or the criticism .


"But perhaps it's too much to hope for ie trying to mix visionary apple talk vs scientific evidence oranges. Unless of course he said particular testable things (rather like Lethbridge and his pendulum ideas)."

How about “Bladud , father of King Lear who was killed in 852 BC when his airship crashed into the Temple of Apollo in London .”

“The position with artificial mounds and sacred hills is more certain .There can be little doubt that they were the scenes of sacrifice to and landings by beings from the sky “

It's not always so funny . Listen to the lecture as mentioned in the first post in this thread , it's hilarious .

Seeing as you have just posted notes about Tolven /Men an Tol . It might be worth looking at some of the problems associated with the monument and Michell that took about about 5 minutes to appreciate .
The monument is mentioned in TOSOLE .
The suggested Ley line is said to align with a boundary stone at 4475 3586 and this alignment is oriented to 66.5 degrees pointing to the spot where the May day sun will rise .
For starters the grid ref for men an Tol is wrong , being 29 yards from the monument .
There is no boundary stone at the suggested grid ref and neither the wrong grid ref or the correct one for Men an tol is aligned to the putative boundary stone at 66.5 degrees . Needless to say the spot given for the stone is not visible from the monument .There is a boundary stone 65 yards from the given grid ref , in fact there are plenty of boundary stones in the area but not at the given grid ref . This excess of possible markers is one of the problems first mentioned in the early seventies i.e. there were far more possible targets than suggested by Michell which changed the statistical likelihood . In fact if you want a ley line use the boundary stones ,as in many cases boundaries follow straight lines and that’s where you tend to get the set stones , in the vast majority of cases these groupings are not prehistoric .

Rhiannon, your will have to whistle for proper answers, this is a dance that has been going on for decades. Special insights are claimed, evidence in support is requested or evidence to the contrary is cited and the response is always anger. The only place where the dance isn't conducted that way are forums where people take the insights as fundamentally correct. You need to decide if you're content with no answers here or content with no answers elsewhere. ;)