Re: John Michell lecture | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

John Michell lecture

more_vert

Andy Norfolk May 6, 2016 17:09:57

Replying to Rhiannon

I've said elsewhere here that John Michell's work in West Penwith was a lot more accurate than some her have claimed, because they have (possible willfully) misinterpreted how he did it. Sourly nitpicking for minor errors is not my way of doing things. Some his other work I regard as more inspirational than a statement of fact. Funnily enough the same goes for Julian Cope - though that may be regarded as heresy here.

Do have a look at Palden's work though

tiompan May 6, 2016 17:22:25

Replying to Andy Norfolk

Andy Norfolk wrote:

I've said elsewhere here that John Michell's work in West Penwith was a lot more accurate than some her have claimed, because they have (possible willfully) misinterpreted how he did it.

Not wilfully misrepresented at all .The data has been given ,if it is wrong it can be refuted .
To reiterate ,apart from the huge problems mentioned decades ago ,which have mostl ybeen ignore , a quick recent look showed that he regularly got grid refs wrong , in one case out by over a 1,000 yards . That in itself was not the point of the Men an tol "alignment" problem . His description , based on lockyers earlier cross quarter day observation , is wrong .Men an Tol is not aligned to the boundary stone at 66.5 degrees as he suggested.
Lockyer doidn't make that mistake .
The numerous problems about the TOSOLE in particualr or " Leys " in general can be covered if you wish .
I was simply mentioning something new .

thesweetcheat May 6, 2016 21:28:07

Replying to Andy Norfolk

JM is a jumping off point, as JC was years later for many who come here. Neither was the messiah, but both brought bags of enthusiasm and that counts for a great deal I reckon.