megadread wrote:
quote: The granary at stonehenge theory is vastly different from theories about aliens or giants.
isnt this said every time a new theory is put forward.
sorry but for me this theory just comes across as plain silly. yes you can back it up with your model but i reckon i could build a fancy model with supporting evidence for use as a landing site for spacecraft. you couldtnt prove it wasnt used for this purpose could you, same as i cant disprove your theory. doesnt stop them both being silly though does it.
the granary at stonehenge model works!..........i'd be the first in line to see your landing site for spacecraft model if it worked and a ufo landed on it as you predicted. the important words here are "working model" isnt this said every time a new theory is put forward.
sorry but for me this theory just comes across as plain silly. yes you can back it up with your model but i reckon i could build a fancy model with supporting evidence for use as a landing site for spacecraft. you couldtnt prove it wasnt used for this purpose could you, same as i cant disprove your theory. doesnt stop them both being silly though does it.
aren't all new theories also called "silly" untill they gain support and the necessary field work is undertaken to prove or disprove them.....i welcome those tests against my theory. unfortunately i cannot do them because of all the permits required. also i am a foreigner which makes it even harder.
perhaps one day, this theory can be laid to rest but, first tests for deep soil residue of grain amino acids will have to be done at stonehenge and compared to the background levels outside the monument. then we can safely call it "silly" silly to call it "silly" at this point.
with respect , silly clyde
