Also, do you think all structures like this have got similar non-tomb intentions? So if you went to, say, St Lythans (only because that's somewhere I've been) that to me looks superficially similar, would you expect to find the same clues to support your Trevethy theories? That would help your argument would it not.

You'll have to excuse me for not knowing exactly what clues you're talking about because the other thread got a bit too muddy.

I think you mentioned some photos you'd taken of how the light fell on particular parts of the stone. And how the stones were aligned with..

Specifics, that's what'll convince people a bit more. And comparisons with other places?

[/quote]

Can I jump in again here and ask if you consider it a tomb at all.. or that a tomb is just part of it?

If just part of it, then what role do your findings play with regard to the remains that would have been in the chamber or intended to be in the chamber?

I think those are a couple of sensible questions that shouldn't create much of a problem answering.[/quote]

Whether or not the quoit was ever used as a tomb is not of any specific relevance to our research at this point. It may well become relevant at some later stage, when and if we are able to conduct archeological surveys underneath the fallen stone 7.

Our ongoing investigations and observations with regard to Solar, Lunar and Stellar alignments, and to the optical dynamics of light and shade on nearly all of the surfaces, both inner and outer, would almost certainly preclude the likelihood of the quoit having been constructed 'primarily' for funereal purposes. This would have necessitated open aspects of the structure being covered to prevent incursions and this would also have rendered the entire structure unuseable for the purposes we propose.