Re: Who's going to be there this weekend? | Forum

stonefree May 2, 2011 08:47:14

Replying to Sanctuary

[/quote]

Stonefree, with respect, this is starting to look like you came into this to test the water knowing you had a book planned. You made claims, they were challenged and since then nothing has been forthcoming from you. You say, 'Such things are best presented altogether and in context,...', again this is suggesting that we are going to need to buy your book before we find out. Was this your plan all along, to draw people in but say little else?[/quote]

The only plan was to share some of our findings in a forum of like-minded people who already had an interest, and hopefully some experience, in the subject matter. We hoped to dispel the myth that this structure was intended as nothing more than a tomb by showing that there was a far greater intelligence behind both the positioning and the construction.

If we had just been using this as a marketing strategy 'to draw people in' so we could sell them an as-yet unpublished book, perhaps we would have chosen a slightly bigger target audience than the small handfull of people on here? Perhaps we were slightly naiive in thinking that people would be as amazed as we have been to discover the sublime nature of this 'Solar Observatory' and wish to support us in finding out more about it using a wide range of techniques, from simple test digging to using more advanced techniques such as ground penetrating radar etc.

To be fair, I think we expected a certain amount of healthy scepticism, but hoped that the questions we would inevitably be asked would help us to better formulate our answers and present our evidence. Unfortunately there have been too few questions asked, and some of those were so far removed from our course of enquiry that we were caught off balance, whereupon one or two seem to have jumped to the conclusion that we have nothing of interest to say and are fair game for a bit of derision.

I'll hold my hands up and admit that I am guilty of rising to the bait and allowing myself to get caught up in this silly game of overt posturing, but I've been trying ever since to find some common ground for this important subject to be discussed without the need for egos getting bruised!

So, gentlemen, what say we start again with a clean slate?

nigelswift May 2, 2011 09:01:13

Replying to stonefree

What a bosting idea! Must admit I've lost track.

BTW, I think you're in the right place and there ISN'T "a slightly bigger target audience than the small handfull of people on here" 8,000 archaeologists won't accept a word you say, trust me, and the general population won't have the background knowledge to judge.

So why don't you kick the discussion off again by listing your hypotheses with your reasons alongside them?

Sanctuary May 2, 2011 09:35:47

Replying to stonefree

stonefree wrote:

We hoped to dispel the myth that this structure was intended as nothing more than a tomb by showing that there was a far greater intelligence behind both the positioning and the construction.

To my mind it was built primarily as a tomb/burial chamber by people who were of normal intelligence for their time and built using the tools available in their time. It's positioning in the landscape was perfect for people who I believe had a belief in the Afterlife and respected their dead. The build (as it is now) is seriously open to question and that is something I am personally researching for my own purposes so make no definite claims yet just observations based on what I see. If in the fullness of time I feel what I am learning is worth publishing I will go ahead but in the meantime enjoying the research which is very enlightening. To base anything on what is there now could be a serious mistake!