From my first post on the original thread I quoted from the article " the horse appears to be galloping along the ridge in a westerly direction, toward the sunset." and pointed out how ridiculous the comment was , it is not galloping in westerly direct at all .
My next post highlighted a quote from the paper “"When seen from the north, the views are straight along the back of the horse, from its tail to its head." No mention of appearances this time , and is suggesting the direction of travel is north- south not east west .
Another quote “gives the impression of the figure following a broadly east–west route. “ , back to impressions again sadly it's wrong . Then there was the mention of a sun roll complete with a diagram showing the sun rise against a relatively flat hill top certainly not a “sun roll “.
The title of the paper was “The Uffington White Horse geoglyph as sun-horse “ not only was there no sun symbol associated with the horse ,astonishingly it wasn't even aligned on any sunset ,
The designers could easily have pointed the horse at the very wide (approx 80 degrees ) western horizon where a sun set could be seen to set ,it's not much , but they didn't .What was more likely the reason for the siting was it's wide views from a distance , fitting in with the local topography , and possible association of nearby monuments . TSC first accepted that there was “nothing whatever to prove a link between the horse and the sun “ but then suggested that “for anyone viewing the horse from a position where its horsiness can actually be seen, the sunset will be to their right. “ that was also shown to be wrong .As is so often the case we find a splendid ancient monument tarted up to appear as something it isn't , however , it can be funny . Sometimes it is those who mess about with alignments , angles and measurements , finding relationships with the heavens , pyramids and other monuments .Both the metrology (which is nearly always circular reasoning) and astro stuff which involves relatively straightforward calc come up with stuff that it is to be expected or is simply wrong , in nearly in every case they are talking absolute bollocks .The only way to prove them wrong is to play their game . That was not the case with the article and paper ,there was no metrology or astro stuff.
I can't be arsed any more . Bye .
