I think I've been quite clear with my stance here, which is simply this; John Michell was visionary in his insights, and his work on the canon of number and ancient metrology was ground breaking. I never actually mentioned any of the other stuff that George has brought up, because I wasn't aware of it. I'm glad now, because I may have made the same mistake as George, and judge Johns true legacy by his earlier musings. That would have been a daft thing to do.
The reason I can say this is that in my wanderings in the hills of Wales something has turned up. While a lot of data had been gathered, it didn't really make an awful lot of sense, especially when compared to the presently accepted models of history, or mathematics. It was only through comparing what had turned up with the work of John Michell, and some others of his ilk, that the true nature of this "something" became apparent.
This is currently being put together in a form that can be published, and scrutinised, by anybody who cares to do so. This is not an overnight process, so may take a little while yet, but that's publishing for you.
When this comes out, and it is coming out, John Michells work will be evident all over it. Not as the original inspiration for it, but as an integral part of it, along with smatterings from some other new age writers.
Obviously, I could be making all this up, and the doubters and cynics might be right. As with most things, there is probably good reason for believing that, at least in some peoples viewpoints. But that is looking at all this from a limited viewpoint, without all the information. Certainties about current models will not be such a cosy option in the future when ludicrous statements turn out to be true.
I won't be expanding on any of this. Anyone who is interested will just have to wait. I realise this will give ammunition to those who want it. Go ahead, make the most of it if that's your thing. There are some uncomfortable truths coming, for some people at least.

Nigel Swift; if you choose to take offence where there is none, please yourself. If you choose to make an association where there was none, go ahead. Though why you would make a link that wasn't intended is a bit curious, unless you recognised that maybe it could have applied to you. But why would you do that?

[quote="Rhiannon"]
"Then there's the other type of thing, the 'this stone lines up with that one', which is demonstrably true or untrue. So should be put in a different, more scientific category. "

The problem is much bigger than that .
Some stones do align , nobody has a problem with that .
It's the interpretation ,that is the problem .

"And obviously, you're requiring proof that if he says X is Y degrees from Z, that that's correct. But, you're claiming that actually Michell didn't measure these things properly in the first place. "

There are errors in the accuracy , this is old hat ,and was shown by Bob Forrsest decades ago .

"So what happened there? Did he mismeasure? Did he just make it up to fit his theory that this stone and that one lined up because of earth energies or somesuch? "
Earth energies followed on from the original problems with ley lines , when they shown to be inaccurate and not in straight lines or associated with ufos ,the unmeasurable energies explained the presence of the stones .

So I'm intrigued to hear Cerrig's response to this.

"Are the measurements in fact correct (and so Michell's theories are supported)?"

The suggestions about the accuracy of leys was blown out of the water a long time ago ,with converging evidence . Michell's theories changed to adapt to the problems .

"Or does it not matter if the measurements are wrong and don't prove anything because the whole thing isn't supposed to be scientifically true, it's more about being "Visionary"?"

The latter .