close
more_vert

Rhiannon wrote:
It's about measurements and angles? So (repeating myself) "in a small area crammed with ancient sites, wouldn't you expect a lot to line up by chance though? How are you deciding if those lines are meaningful and not coincidental?"
That is what led to the collapse of the old "ley line " thinking .The stats showed that finding lines on maps was what was to be expected by chance .The choice was immense and usually included churches ,(which were always built on ancient sites after all ,cough) ,the symbol of a church on the map also took up a fair amount of space much greaer than the actual church ,providing a graet target . Medieval Moats were a favourite ,there are so many in Norfolk and Suffolk you can't go wrong , hill forts ,cross roads , straight stretches of road ,the "round field" in TOSOLE takes a bit of beating .You didn't need ancient sites .
Try it , you'll find dozens with little effort .
The accuracy of the lines were often a joke too . Think of the St Michael line from "The View Over Atlantis "
Most "hunters " got the point and went off into other areas . Then it became "energies " .The yhad learnt the lesson , can't refute what you can't see or measure .

but will AN or Cerrig give me their thought on this? I'd genuinely like to know what they think.

tiompan wrote:
They had learnt the lesson , can't refute what you can't see or measure .
I'd see it as having been allowed to get away with saying that. Truth is, there are zillions of ways of verifying if they are seeing something not visible or if they aren't as you know George. They're called Tests. Unfortunately Tests are considered not cricket....