I am indeed not talking complex rock art. The last thing I expected was to find 'carvings', and I am not by any means certain that they are really there. As to the rest I can only apologise for my own inadequacy in not describing things well enough to suit some. I would add that the photographer, a professional and a good friend, is not a scholar of the Neolithic, nor the Optical Dynamics of ancient sites, and he will forgive me for stating that his enthusiasm for the subject leads him to make comments of a sweeping nature. Disagreement and argument is inevitable with a subject such as this, but I have to say I'm not crazy about some of the debate so far. However I take full responsibility for any confusion or misunderstanding that has arisen. I have been sitting on this for 12 years and just recently begun to share it, so it could be said I know not what i'm doing.
I welcome this debate, and on a personal level have to say i'm chuffed to bits with the way its going, and that is the last message of a personal nature you will get from me. The 'carving' in the centre of the cut away 'quadrant' on the outside of Stone 5, (as no archeology has been done here I have taken the liberty of numbering them on my own plan) is barely visible, and no conclusion has been drawn, but it looks like a shield. I will post some photographs ASAP.
These 'carvings', I have to add, are recent discoveries and bear no relation (how could they?) to the astronomical study.

David Kane