Silbury Hill 180
Image by photobabe

The author of this article.. http://www.archaeology.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1510&Itemid=84

seemed very concerned about the size of the voids and the falling chalk and the third picture down seems to show a significant recent collapse.
Jim.

Wow! That picture brings new meaning to the word 'stability'...

the third picture down seems to show a significant recent collapse.

For certain.
If you put your cursor on the picture it says "some chalk which tumbled down just as we walked past".

What a remarkable coincidence. Or not.

No mention of that in the Update covering that period.

I hope, once and for all, it is now accepted that the official account of what is happening is very different from what independent witnesses who've been in there have been reporting and that the independent witnesses aren't all unreliable or lying. Something is very wrong about the information flow from EH.

jimit wrote:
The author of this article.. http://www.archaeology.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1510&Itemid=84

seemed very concerned about the size of the voids and the falling chalk and the third picture down seems to show a significant recent collapse.
Jim.

My god! Just goes to show the difference in photographic evidence when it comes from an independent source!

Crikey!

So does that mean the "egomaniacs" and "scaremongerers" are actually right? ;o)

Who'd-a thought it?

No need for apologies... :D

G x