Just caught up with this, this morning, PC problems have limited my access.

I like the idea of this, and am impressed by Gordon's research - get out and "do it" that's what I like to see.

A couple of points / queries though.

Maybe, I'm not reading it properly, but I don't really "get" the erecting the stone bit, I see the theory I think, but I'd like to see it work. I'm not sure about the 'crashing' the stone down, firstly it seems too imprecise (think I've just made that one up) too much margin for error especially whe you think that many stones are (or seem to be) very carefully angled towards points. Wouldn't there be a chance of major damage to the stone as it crashed down like that?

My main point though - and I am not trying to in any way to rubbish the theory, just need to clear things in my mind - is that Stonehenge apart, there are relatively few circles that are dressed stone. A rough faced, irregularly shaped stone would be much more difficult to control and navigate into the hole wouldn't it?

On the whole a good theory though, and best of luck with your continuing experiments (try an irregularly shaped one for me will you?)

moey