thesweetcheat wrote:
tiompan wrote:
... you don't date mouments from their distance to another monument, which is as bad as dating a monument from a possible astro event .
Yep. "Related" monuments might be 30m and 2,000 years apart.
tiompan wrote:
At ML it's over 300 m ,you can bet the bloke who first recognised the distances never traipsed a tape over the 300+m . The equidiatance was recognised on a map .
Which would suggest that for the equidistance to be significant, the people who laid the sites out would have to have understood the significance of correcting for slope in surveying (which they might have done).
The gist of the equidistance theory seems to be that the monuments are equidistant in real terms (i.e. as the crow hops, from above, measured on a map, etc) rather than what you would get from simply taking a length of twine to an uneven location and laying it out or holding it taut between the sites, as this would make them not equidistant when surveyed and measured on a map.
tiompan wrote:
People who are interested in monuments often notice similar features about the siting of moorland/upland monuments , not in the obvious spot but at a point where it might be visible from certain points lower down , relationships to water , direction of valleys etc , they crop up time and again and appear intentional as opposed to the pot luck of a siting imposed on it by the fiat of equidistance .
That's what I think, purely from site visits. But I've never measured anything to test it out!
"In the end, however - unless we are accusing Mr Leighton's measurements of being incorrect (which, having ratified many of his fieldnotes myself over the years, I certainly am not)"
The measurement wss done a map , not in the field , anyone who can use a ruler can do it and was first noted by Mr Griffithsin the 60's not Leighton .
"it surely again all comes down to what are the odds of this occuring without intent? "
That was the argument for ley lines ,until statisticians blew that one out the water .at least the believers had an explalnation , route markers , for wayfarers , or subtle energy , spirits , fairies , ufo's .
"Do we honestly believe BA engineers did not possess the skill required to accurately survey the landscape? "
Of course they could , but why would they and where are the other examples ? If believe they are intentional see my examples which would suggest that they were bieng done on more sophisticated level and much earlier on Arran . Looking forward to your fieldnotes with the tape measure .
"Furthermore it appears there is no well known standard for calculating such odds, " Ask a statistician first .
"so would not a 'probably.... possibly, even... although impossible to prove' caveat be more appropriate than 'nonsense?'
The "nonsense " context came from two comments “its geometric relationship with nearby Bronze Age monuments points to its prehistoric origins .” and “The site lies equidistant from Maen Llia and concentric 'hengiform' earthwork within the triangle and thus is probably related to them.”which are nonsense ,equidistance is not a measure of association or dating ,even the old chestnut of Glastonbury , Stonehenge and Llantwit Major never claimed that for dating .
"Unless a coherent explanation can be given as to why these monuments are arranged just so - but nevertheless do not form an associated grouping - other than through sheer random placement (in my view very unlikely) I would have to ask, well, prove they are not."
Prove that they weren't built by fairies ,god , Egyptians ,ancient astronauts ,are not part of an ancient energy grid .Proving negatives is very difficult and often impossible and anyone who believes in any of the above is not likely to be swayed by argument
