John Michell lecture

close
more_vert
nigelswift N
nigelswift May 5, 2016 17:40:42
Replying to Andy Norfolk

Andy Norfolk wrote:
"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do, " Alice hastily replied; "at least I mean what I say, that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see!"
Alice in Wonderland.
See below. I think I've made myself very clear there. There is a fundamental difference between visible leys and invisible ones. I can't see much sense in accepting the latter without evidence. Can you? It really is no different from the status of goblins (which many people say they have seen).

A Andy Norfolk
Andy Norfolk May 5, 2016 20:13:20
Replying to nigelswift

I was always very amused by the huge crash of opposing opinions between some, who wanted leys to be taken very seriously by academia, and those who wanted to get and try and work out what they were all about, including by dowsing. Yes, of course you can dowse for straight alignments of ancient sites, by the way. I particularly liked the idea that e-leys couldn't be true, or probable, because you couldn't see them, or measure them, and yet shamans flying in straight lines, which nobody could see, or measure either, were supposed to be so much more credible. Then there were the death roads - neither straight, nor necessarily linking lots of ancient sites. I think I probably liked orthotenies best - not that I believed in them.

I have incidentally seen some of John Michell's OS maps covered in alignments. He saw lots of of them. I've seen a few too.