80 replies to this topic

[Anew]

Nigel, on 27 November 2006, 4:22, said:

The current situation (as I recall) looks like this -
You have a cone built into and against a steep straight bank.
Its flat top is the same height as the modern verge and road (ergo, higher than the Roman road which presumably was lower than the modern one.
There is a level "causeway" linking the verge with the cone top. Its clear to me this is a modern artefact, maybe made up of initial fly tipping debris, and providing vehicular access,if you wanted it from the road to the top of the mound.
On the road face of the cone the land slopes down at much the same angle as it does everywhere else (except for where this has been hidden by the existence of the causeway) and the fact its truly a cone is clear to me as you can see the slope of it curving back on itself, again except where the causeway obscures it. I'd say you can discern maybe four fifths or more of a cone at the top and, save for the modern causeway, all of it.
I'd also guess the Roman road  cut into it virtually not at all and left it still looking as a cone.

Much guessing there, and its hard to express solid geometry.

Okay, it was not cut.  Arial photo from TMA

Nice comparitive photos, Nigel.  The 'platform' seems proportionally broader for Silbaby... How do the top diameters compare?

Height can be tricky to estimate without some benchmark.  The hill is certainly no shorter than this friendly utility pole..  If its height and distance from the hill can be provided, I might be able to arrive at something.  Alternatively: Pete G, would you be willing to post one of the photos taken with your son and the surveyor's rod?  The length of the rod, with the width of its bands, should be enough to go on.

[Nigel]

The 'platform' seems proportionally broader for Silbaby... How do the top diameters compare?


I'll leave Pete or kevin to answer that. Certainly the Silbaby platform is proportinately much larger - as is evident from photos.

Silbury's platform is large enough to accommodate Stonehenge and Silbaby's isn't much smaller
so I'll leave you to put that through the speculometer.....

[Anew]

Nigel, on 27 November 2006, 5:39, said:

so I'll leave you to put that through the speculometer.....

They had a similar number of paying customers.

[kevin.b]

Anew,
         Think out of the box,
"Pyramids were mortuaries" who says so?
Just because they put their bodies there doesn't mean thats why they built them.
They wanted their bodies there because they wanted to come back to the same spot ( hence all their goods etc )
Same in the UK, but forget the bodies.
Think out of the box, litterally.
The Egyptians considered they were immortal, they did all in their power to make sure they came back to the same spot, they may have done , but not known.
I consider that the breeding women, the goddesses will have been kept in precise positions, because everything aligns precisely, just that our eyes can't see this.
If the deceased spirit was assumed to go in a particuler direction and earth at a precise spot, it once a month will have been assumed it came back along exactly the same route, fertility will have been paramount.
Kevin

[Anew]

Quote

Anew,
         Think out of the box,
"Pyramids were mortuaries" who says so?
Just because they put their bodies there doesn't mean thats why they built them.
They wanted their bodies there because they wanted to come back to the same spot ( hence all their goods etc )
Same in the UK, but forget the bodies.
Think out of the box, litterally.
The Egyptians considered they were immortal, they did all in their power to make sure they came back to the same spot, they may have done , but not known.
I consider that the breeding women, the goddesses will have been kept in precise positions, because everything aligns precisely, just that our eyes can't see this.
If the deceased spirit was assumed to go in a particuler direction and earth at a precise spot, it once a month will have been assumed it came back along exactly the same route, fertility will have been paramount.
Kevin

Out of which box?  

I say the pyramids were mortuary structures.  That's what I've been saying for some time.  If I'm not beating the drum over it every time it comes up, that's being polite; also I don't want the audience to go deaf on that note.  Silbaby's position overlooking WKLB only adds to my belief.  Now, since mushrooms are associated with transcendental experience; and it is a common feature of religion that the dead should remain in some sense alive -- it is no contradiction to propose that their mortuary mounds resemble mushroom caps.  As mortuary structures, both Silbury and Silbaby are enough off the path that they shouldn't offend or frighten the locals too much...  especially as it's still unclear whether their tradition was to burn their dead or allow them to rot -- both options having seen some discussion.

I have to ask: What's this about "the breeding women, the goddesses will have been kept in precise positions"?  Kevin, if you could do that with her, she wouldn't be a goddess.

[Pete G]

Anew, on 27 November 2006, 10:19, said:

Alternatively: Pete G, would you be willing to post one of the photos taken with your son and the surveyor's rod?  The length of the rod, with the width of its bands, should be enough to go on.

No sorry, I don't publish photos that I am not happy with.
I will wait for a frost to cover the mound before trying again.
If I had my way I would have my Silbaby photos taken off TMA but I didn't post them so I can't get them removed.
Same with the Megalithic portal...
PeteG

[Nigel]

Pete G, on 27 November 2006, 13:00, said:

If I had my way I would have my Silbaby photos taken off TMA but I didn't post them so I can't get them removed.

Pete, as you know, I posted up a couple with your credit on them at your request as you had access difficulties at the time. In all fairness if you want them removed I've no right to stand in your way - though in the circs. I'd much rather you contacted the Eds to do it and tell them I've agreed.

I do think its a great shame and hope you'll repost them elsewhere and give a link to them.

[Anew]

Anew, on 27 November 2006, 5:19, said:

Okay, it was not cut.  Arial photo from TMA

Pete G, on 27 November 2006, 8:00, said:

No sorry, I don't publish photos that I am not happy with.
I will wait for a frost to cover the mound before trying again.
If I had my way I would have my Silbaby photos taken off TMA but I didn't post them so I can't get them removed.
Same with the Megalithic portal...
PeteG

Nigel, on 27 November 2006, 8:21, said:

I do think its a great shame and hope you'll repost them elsewhere and give a link to them.

The photo has educational value.  Please allow it to represent the site until you get something you're more happy with.  If Silbaby proves invaluable, these and other issues will pass under the bridge.

[kevin.b]

Anew,
       Again my lack of words betrays what I meant, sorry .
The pyramids are indeed mortuary, but not in the simple way they are widely portrayed.
I see those buried there as secondary, to what the pyramid design is capable of.
Imagine the whole of what this thread is about encased in one construction, a pyramid.
I will keep out of this thread, as my lack of talent with words will be miss-leading, if I feel I can adaquately explain anything I will.
I feel yourself , nigel and Pete g are totally the right people at the right time to crack this baby.
I wish that I could bring into the visual world that which I see so clearly, I must concentrate on doing this.
The underground water is the carrier, both ways, up and down, as a swallow with a forked tail would symbolise, they move swiftly.
Kevin

[Anew]

Quote

Anew,
       Again my lack of words betrays what I meant, sorry .
The pyramids are indeed mortuary, but not in the simple way they are widely portrayed.
I see those buried there as secondary, to what the pyramid design is capable of.
Imagine the whole of what this thread is about encased in one construction, a pyramid.
I will keep out of this thread, as my lack of talent with words will be miss-leading, if I feel I can adaquately explain anything I will.
I feel yourself , nigel and Pete g are totally the right people at the right time to crack this baby.
I wish that I could bring into the visual world that which I see so clearly, I must concentrate on doing this.
The underground water is the carrier, both ways, up and down, as a swallow with a forked tail would symbolise, they move swiftly.
Kevin

I accept your apology.  A lot of people believe that pyramids have mystical properties, and what's more; the Old Ones apparently did too -- to the extent that they surrounded them with spring-fed water, known for its coolness, its purity, and very likely held to have positive magic.  What you're saying isn't always far-fetched, its your belief in the magic, and determination to describe it that sometimes leaves me confounded.  If you think you have a hand for it, try art.  I've met a person who had difficulty keeping himself together, in fact he was in jail, but before a work in progress he became very calm.

Go easy on those goddesses.

[kevin.b]

Anew ,
        A quick word about goddesses;
I consider they will have been in charge ,as such.
So nobody as I clumsily put will have told them to be anywhere.
A matriarchial society, organised and held in place with great love and a deep understanding of all around them.
Lets hope it comes back full circle?
Kevin

[Nigel]

[quote name='Anew' post='4894' date='27 November 2006, 15:45'][quote]What you're saying isn't always far-fetched, its your belief in the magic[/quote]
I echo that. Studying/speculating about the ancients' belief in magic, by studying the landscape with a knowing eye is a fine thing to do. But if in the middle of a conversation about that it becomes clear that one of the participants actually believes that magic (defined as something beyond the current ability of science to confirm) actually exists then the conversation founders hopelesslyand becomes without any possibility of either side benefitting. Its a case of an unshakeable belief bumping up against an unmovable disbelief and without a means to bridge the gap there can't be real communication. And an assurance of "future proof" doesn't real provide the bridge.

Can't we talk about, for instance, why the ancients put Silbaby there (both practical and belief reasons) without always getting into the entirely extraneous issue of whether their beliefs were/were not true?
The first sort of conversation could be a profitable meeting of minds, the second will always remain an irresolvable set of separate dialogues.

[Anew]

Quote

to what the pyramid design is capable of.

Kevin, I don't ask that you call your beliefs academic, so long as you don't try to convert me to them.  You are welcome as a believer; and I would agree, the arrangement of grave items and icons is a logical place to look for the expression of religion.  (More on pyramids below.)

Nigel, on 28 November 2006, 7:42, said:

Can't we talk about, for instance, why the ancients put Silbaby there (both practical and belief reasons) without always getting into the entirely extraneous issue of whether their beliefs were/were not true?
The first sort of conversation could be a profitable meeting of minds, the second will always remain an irresolvable set of separate dialogues.

Nigel, greetings from the speculatron...... where one bombards facts with ideas, and ideas with facts.


A corpse is a scary and disorienting thing, particularly if one knew the person in life.  It is reasonable to consider that the Old Ones may have held strong superstitions about them -- that they might hold a deranged spirit, (particularly if their practice was to allow them to rot to bone) -- and that this spirit might, for example, travel about trying to bring its former loved ones to the underworld.  In times such as those, when death was close at hand, such superstitions would have been the much more powerful.  (There was an account of a Siberian culture, I don't know they ate the fly agaric, where a corpse would be ritually mutilated, apparently to wound evils within.)

Continuing with the idea that these hills were mortuary 'islands': Their conical, or pyramidic, shape could have been seen as diffusing any 'evils' on the platform as they traveled down into the underworld; and focusing any 'good' from the spring-water surrounding, as it radiated back upward.  In addition to having a soothing effect on the souls above, the moat could have been seen as a magically uncrossable barrier to those who would not be calmed.

One reason Silbury may have been built, or expanded, (other than as the further step of a prosperous culture), is that some pestilence may have afflicted the land and been blamed on the Corpses of Silbaby.  This could help explain the massive scale of S3.  Such a logic is also one route of explanation to the closure of West Kennett, in the manner it was closed, (a power-struggle within the church being another).  It is worth considering that the dirt filling the barrow may have been removed from Silbaby Hill.

[kevin.b]

Anew,
         This link is about crop circles, but watch silbury hill as the plane circles it, there are a couple of excellent alignments of the hill as well, watch it carefully.

fast forward it to 4.40, I know who filmed this, and he is well puzzled.
Perhaps one day you may become,

Kevin

[Anew]

Okay Kevin,

I've had a look at the first video:  Mysterious shadows, dancing lights, an unidentified object... cheesy moon shots.  (Skies like that are moody, but why accelerate?)
Also some fine views of the hill, (thank you), and the circle cutter's art.  I don't like they are farming the moat... but who am I?
What did you see?  Ah! perhaps you mean the alignment (at 8:30) taken from one crop circle, of Silbury with a distant dark object that looks like a copse of trees... (?)


Continuing the 'missing earth' line of thought:  Does anyone have an estimate for the volume of WKLB?
This could go some ways toward explaing both Silbaby's severe truncation, and apparently low height -- if a vertical alignment with The Sanctuary & S2 there once was.