so, have you been to other similar-looking places and observed the same sorts of things? Because surely it could help your argument either way. If nowhere else shows these alignments and so on, then Trethevy seems special. And if other places do show the same sorts of things - surely that's even better. If there's that many clues pointing towards supporting your theory at Trethevy, wouldn't you in fact expect similar clues at other sites??

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.[/quote]

Does the 'fallen' sloping stone and the gap supposedly left by it not effect the light diffusion and 'patterns' observed? Would they be different if the gap was filled and the fallen stone not there?

From what you say, far from being of no relevance at this point, isn't whether or not it was built for funereal purposes an essential sine qua non to be considered before you propose anything that would be precluded if it was?