Re: More evidence on Stonehenge/Solar connections | Forum

N

nigelswift Nov 29, 2011 07:16:39

Replying to baza

Here's a ticklish question I can't get my head round: If 3 points in a straight line are insufficient to suggest intentionality then are two such instances which share a common point any more likely to do so?

And another question: are there any other cases where one of the points is below the horizon (as here) but where intentionality is nevertheless postulated (dowsing manuals excepted).

W

wychburyman Nov 29, 2011 08:48:46

Replying to baza

baza wrote:

tiompan wrote:

I don't have a problem with the site of the pit , it's just not what they say it is astronomically .Having said that there were some odd comments like the pit being on the pathway of the Cursus then it turns out to be 150 metres to the south of the southern ditch of the Cursus .

I find it unbelievable that the professors, doctors and lecturers in archaeology involved with this project could have made such a simple mistake.

Professor Vince Gaffney, when talking about the pits, said that they investigated the cursus and found "two very large pits, one in the east end and one in the west end of the cursus." He reiterates "these pits were inside the cursus." Furthermore, if you stand at the Heelstone on Midsummers Day, then the sun rises over the eastern pit and sets over the western pit.

I am wondering, have you taken your information from the aerial view accompanying your news link? The "New Discovery" on that image must be the "new mini-henge" which this team claimed to have discovered some time ago.

Here's Vince Gaffney's podcast:

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Audio/news/Vince-Gaffney-podflash.mp3

Very coincidentally, I spent a happy few hours last night chatting away over a few pints with Professor Gaffney. He sketched his theories out for me (i'll scan them if you like) and showed be the Hi-tech scans on his smart phone. It has nothing to do with aerial photography.

He hates the media attention, as most academics do. The "lets get media headlines" is a red herring. However, he was accused of publishing too early. This is a common occuranance at the moment as academics try to get papers published ahead of the REF and published before others discover.

I'm not saying I understood everything he said, but his theory is convincing. (And, as he said, everyone has a right to an opinion and to disagree). Vince Gaffney has nearly 30 years of working in and around Stonhenge. Maybe he has become too close perhaps. Thanks for the opinions here, but I'll stick to science and the professionals.

T

tiompan Nov 29, 2011 09:33:29

Replying to baza

baza wrote:

tiompan wrote:

I don't have a problem with the site of the pit , it's just not what they say it is astronomically .Having said that there were some odd comments like the pit being on the pathway of the Cursus then it turns out to be 150 metres to the south of the southern ditch of the Cursus .

I find it unbelievable that the professors, doctors and lecturers in archaeology involved with this project could have made such a simple mistake.

Professor Vince Gaffney, when talking about the pits, said that they investigated the cursus and found "two very large pits, one in the east end and one in the west end of the cursus." He reiterates "these pits were inside the cursus." Furthermore, if you stand at the Heelstone on Midsummers Day, then the sun rises over the eastern pit and sets over the western pit.

I am wondering, have you taken your information from the aerial view accompanying your news link? The "New Discovery" on that image must be the "new mini-henge" which this team claimed to have discovered some time ago.

Here's Vince Gaffney's podcast:

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Audio/news/Vince-Gaffney-podflash.mp3

The point was derived from here .
http://www.heritagedaily.com/2011/11/discoveries-provide-evidence-of-a-celestial-procession-at-stonehenge/ .

Prior to seeing that I expressed misgivings from the text , it now looks like the Heritage Daily spot is not correct , hardly my fault . However the problems remain with the detail ,when the mid point between the two solstices is halved it does not lead to a point that when produced due south leads to the centre of Stonehenge ,it actually tead to a point 180 metres to the east the cente of the prominent bell barrow .