Horsedrawn wrote:
I have learnt to listen to all points of view and anyway arguing or simple gainsaying gets us nowhere. It is only now, as the evidence piles up, that I have had the courage to 'go public' with this. Over the years it has been the policy to stick to science but I become more and more interested in the 'fringe'; earth energies, ley lines etc. and keeping an open mind is greatly assisted by just listening and not being automatically dismissive. I would dearly love to see Trethevy Quoit assume its proper place in the history of science and in the art of building; that is, as architecture. To arrange stones together is one thing, but if they are worked it is another. These stones have been worked, and apart from the fallen Stone 7, remain in their original position. I state these things with a great deal of confidence, but always the words of Cryrus Redding stay with me:- "we become more anxious to acquire the knowledge respecting it which we are at the same time conscious we can never attain."
How do you know for sure that they are still in their original positions David? Is it because it suits your purpose to say so because it fits in with your theory (and please don't think I mean that cynically) or do you have absolute proof?David Kane
I was at the quoit this morning and was looking at the fallen stone. It is, as you will already know, 8' 3" long and not earth bound. If it was raised directly from its present position into the perpendicular it would only have to be 5' 4" high. If it was raised level with the two rear side stones it would gain a further 6" bringing it to 5' 10" in height, so neither is possible. It would be of course if it had originally been in the ground some 3' give or take and inch or two, but was it?
I have always thought that the individual far east (front') upright that supports nothing was a 'carved' stone with a face profile on it as it has clearly been knapped. The same, with a bit of licence could be said of the rear north western one which does support the capstone.
