134 replies to this topic

[tiompan]

harry sivertsen, on 9 January 2010 - 15:03, said:

George,

I was having a conversation earlier today with an astro physicist supporter of my endeavours who also happens to be a betting man.  He noted the correlation between the steeple chase events of four miles, 21120 feet and my findings between churches. The original steeple chase was in Ireland and as the name suggests, between churches.[History on Wikipedia]

Just wondering if Woolworths have any similar connections...

Harry

Harry ,
FWIW, if the original racers   were crows  it would a good
150 feet shorter  ( about 19410 feet )  and for a horse with rider an awful lot more  ,river to cross etc .

george

[harry sivertsen]

George

Just to confuse things a little more...From Wikipedia

H

History
"The lads from the village" - the first recorded steeplechase 1830
The steeplechase originated in Ireland in the 18th century as an analogue to cross-country thoroughbred horse
races which went from church steeple to church steeple, hence "steeplechase". The first steeplechase is said to
have been the result of a wager in 1752 between Mr. Cornelius O'Callaghan and Mr. Edmund Blake, racing four
miles (6 km) cross-country from Buttevant Church to St. Leger Church in Doneraile, in Cork, Ireland. An
account of the race was believed to have been in the library of the O'Brien's of Dromoland Castle. Most of the
earlier steeplechases were contested cross-country rather than on a track, and resembled English cross
country as it exists today. The first recorded steeplechase over a prepared track with fences was run in Bedlam,
North Yorkshire in 1810.The first recognised English National Steeplechase took place on Monday 8th March
1830. The 4 mile race, organised by Thomas Coleman of St Albans, was run from Bury Orchard,
Harlington in Bedfordshire to the Obelisk in Wrest Park, Bedfordshire. The winner was Captain Macdowall on
"The Wonder", owned by Lord Ranelagh, who won in a time of 16 mins 25 seconds. Reports of the event
appeared in the May and July editions of the Sporting Magazine in 1830.
[edit]Racing


Irish mile
The Irish mile was longer still.[9] In Elizabethan times, four Irish miles was often equated to five English, though
whether the statute mile or the "old English" mile is unclear.[9] By the seventeenth century, it was 2,240 yards
(6,720 feet, 1.27 statute miles). [14 ] [15 ] [16 ] Again, the difference arose from a different length of the rod in
Ireland (usually called the perch locally): 21 feet as opposed to 16½ feet in England. [15 ] [17 ]
From 1774, through the 1801 union with Britain, until the 1820s, the grand juries of 25 Irish counties
commissioned surveyed maps at scales of one or two inches per Irish mile. [18 ] [19 ] Scottish engineer William
Bald's County Mayo maps of 1809–30 were drawn in English miles and rescaled to Irish miles for printing.
[20] TheHowth–Dublin Post Office extension of the London–Holyhead turnpike engineered by Thomas
Telford had mileposts in English miles.[21] Although legally abolished by the Weights and Measures Act 1824,
the Irish mile was used till 1856 by the Irish Post Office.[22] The Ordnance Survey of Ireland, from its
establishment in 1824, used English miles.[23]
In 1894, Alfred Austin complained after visiting Ireland that "the Irish mile is a fine source of confusion when
distances are computed. In one county a mile means a statute mile, in another it means an Irish mile".
[24] When the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "mile" was published in 1906,[25] it described the Irish
mile as "still in rustic use".[14] A 1902 guide says regarding milestones,
"Counties Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Antrim, Down, and Armagh use English, but Donegal Irish Miles; the other
counties either have both, or only one or two roads have Irish".[26] Variation in signage persisted till the
publication of standardised road traffic regulations by the Irish Free State in 1926.[27] In 1937, a man
prosecuted for driving outside the 15-mile limit of his license offered the unsuccessful defense that, since the
state was independent, the limit ought to use Irish miles, "just as no one would ever think of selling land other
than as Irish acres".[28] A 1965 proposal by two TDs to replace statute miles with Irish miles in a clause of the
Road Transport Act was rejected.[29] The term is now obsolete as a specific measure,[30] though an "Irish
mile" colloquially is a long but vague distance akin to a "country mile".[31] Outside of its downtown core, but
within its newer subdivisions, Toronto' street grid is based on the Irish mile.[citation needed]

[davidjones]

Hello George, Hi Harry good to see you are both plying nicely . I thought at one stage one of you might have put a precisely placed menhir on the others cranium   .I hope to add comment  again when I can get away from the day job
Regards David

[harry sivertsen]

Hi David,

All the best for the New Year etc

I am sure that this idea flitted across the minds of both of us but there was a problem as the accuracy is not within the width of the average cranium...!!  

Incidentally, to any who are reading this and who may have been reading my books at Completely Novel [quite a few hits] sensible comment and constructive crits would be appreciated....as would a couple of sales...!!!! Orders to the local libraries would be a help...

There have been a couple of nitpicking criticisms that ultimately boil down to opinion as against disagreement after in depth study but prior to appearing on the web we have had no adverse criticism and quite a lot of praise.  

Cheers

H

[RobStanton]

tiompan, on 8 January 2010 - 20:14, said:

Maybe there is something in this equidistance stuff after all .

               http://standupmaths.com/woolworths/

  Who's gonna do the non -intervisible astro alignments then ?

George

Here is an exercise for George. From the 2 quotations below can you spot the difference in the evidential bases of my
theory and the woolworth theory?

Quote from the woolworth theory

'These patterns were found from the 800 random ex-Woolworths locations by simply skipping over the vast majority of the
sites and only choosing the few that happen to line-up.'

Quote from my first post at the top of page 1

I know ancient lines have something of a bad press but I have tried to look at all the megalithic sites in the UK to see if
lines exist. I was surprised to find that the more I looked the more I found. In fact 'there appear to be hardly any which
are not in a line of some sort'.


As someone who demonstrated in an earlier post that you cannot tell the difference between a 3:4:5 triangle and a
3:4.50:5.40 triangle I imagine it could take you some time.

[tiompan]

harry sivertsen, on 13 January 2010 - 20:34, said:

There have been a couple of nitpicking criticisms that ultimately boil down to opinion as against disagreement after in depth study but prior to appearing on the web we have had no adverse criticism and quite a lot of praise.  

Cheers

H

Harry I never noticed any nitpicking criticisms ,I did mention some factual mistakes taken from just 3 chapters  like the accuracy claims , references to Thom ,math mistakes .I steered clear of anything that could be construed of as opinion as that would take for ever and only leads to disagreement .

George

[tiompan]

RobStanton, on 13 January 2010 - 22:26, said:

tiompan, on 8 January 2010 - 20:14, said:

Maybe there is something in this equidistance stuff after all .

               http://standupmaths.com/woolworths/

  Who's gonna do the non -intervisible astro alignments then ?

George

As someone who demonstrated in an earlier post that you cannot tell the difference between a 3:4:5 triangle and a
3:4.50:5.40 triangle I imagine it could take you some time.

Rob , I remember your page of dots with no names of sites etc ,the accuracy was pretty low and i was trying to get you to get it a bit better ,check  Harry's it's much better plus he names them .Yes 3.2:4.7:5.4 triangles I wonder how they could be so inaccurate . Any named ones for us ?

    George

[tiompan]

Harry ,this is an example of opinion . You mention that the Stonehenge lintels and Silbury Hill were used as excarnation platforms , can't remember if you used the word possibly for either as both have no evidence for it  could mention some prehistoric sites in Britain that do .

[harry sivertsen]

Hi George,

Not a matter of opinion but a suggestion based upon evidence.

extracts from my text below...note the words 'may well have' and 'If, as suggested here,'  This is mere suggestion and not opinion.

MOTG p232-233 In relation to Stonehenge.

Stonehenge indeed appears to be a complex monument with more than a singular application. We may add that the lintels of Stonehenge may well have been utilised for the practise of excarnation where a body was left for the birds to pick at and the flesh, what the scavengers left of it, to decompose before the bones were buried elsewhere.


MOTG p 235 in relation to Silbury Hill

If, as suggested here, excarnation were practised at this location, it would be excarnation with a difference; the souls of the departed would be picked up by the 'Big Dipper' and transported to the northern heavens.


Actually one of the Riverside Project, Josh Pollard noted a four post structure overlooking the river, [only post holes remaining] and made this same suggestion in conjunction with that structure.  This was on the TV coverage but on which channel I do not remember. He repeated this at a Monmouthshire Antiquarian Society meeting I attended. The practice was widespread in many regions and as the British people of the time had contact with other areas there is no reason why it should not have caught on here.  It may well have been ongoing for millenia as tombs have been discovered that have more bones than individual bodies could have been crammed into the said tomb.  At least one such is in Anglesey.

The problem lies in the fact that the dried and naturally cleaned bones are picked up for deposition elsewhere and hence there would be little, if any, direct evidence of such a practice. Pity our early British forbears did not have writing...at least this helps in the Middle East. However, various aspects of culture spread and so we cannot discount the possibility because we have no direct evidence. It remains a very strong possibility and given this, Silbury Hill appears to be a very strong contender for such a practice.  No other such logical suggestion has to date surfaced while this gives a sound reason that astronomically complies with the accepted dating and the region of the skies that would be associated.

We cannot look at Britain in isolation from other cultures but must look for similarities; only when it is PROVEN that a commonality is NON EXISTENT can we discard such a possibility.  This place was deserted during the Ice Age when people who formerly lived here sat out the cold in the regions of the Black Sea and Spain. We should therefore look to practises and learning that may have been picked up or developed in those regions and areas adjacent and brought to Britain when folks returned here.

Taking this further, people were going from and coming to Britain millenia later...trading and bringing in customs from the areas through which they travelled etc, the beaker style of the fictional 'Beaker People' being a case in point.  While the pottery styles certainly were widespread, there was no influx of a different strain of Europeans accompanying the pots as genetic research has very clearly shown.

H

[Pete G]

I was at the Silbury dig thoughout and photographed the trench on top and there was no sign of excarnation on the summit.

I was also at Durrington with Josh and there were several post holes in arrangements of four and six that could have been platforms of some sort.

The problem with the Stonehenge lintels being used as a platform is access.
The inner trilathons don't have much space to get a body to the top using ladders etc,
PeteG

[harry sivertsen]

Hi Pete

That is the problem...physical evidence, it is non existent...but dont forget the old maxim of archaeology, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence...other criterion need to be taken into account.  I am merely repeating what Josh Pollard stated here...on TV and at a private lecture.  I was not on site and hence cannot comment from experience there.

Regarding access to lintels, ...lets be practical here, if the lintels were raised up to their evident height which of course they were, even if this was done with piles of stones, the minor task of raising a human body to the same height is not a problem.  

Returning to Silbury, what reasonable alternative suggestions for its construction have been suggested? I have seen nothing in the literature that would be worth the effort involved with its construction and hence as excarnation, while not proven, is  a methodology that probably did occur it would be worth the effort given the astronomical considerations.  We should not forget the spiritual elements here and the written material of the Middle East and India should be taken into account as here is revealed a great deal that showed astro influence over a wide area. [See Deluge for info not seen elsewhere but which can be verified by following the texts referenced.]

The first consideration in any investigation is what is likely or probable. The second is evidence for or against. Disprove the idea first and then any evidence, material or otherwise, will be seen to be misconstrued. Until such time any apparent concept remains a possibility and in this case a probability.

Take it up with Josh Pollard and get him to clarify his thoughts and statements on the matter at Durrington Walls, or at least their vicinity. While my idea at Silbury predates the Riverside Project it was Pollards statements that prompted me to include a section regarding the possibility and I added this to suit.

I note that there do not appear comments negating the concept of the stone circle of Stonehenge being associated with the dead, a concept derived from outside Britain, hence why should the idea of excarnation be queried?  It is equally as valid.

H

[Pete G]

Harry,
the problem as I see it is that the uprights at Stonehenge are not very deeply rooted in the ground.
some were only 2ft deep.
This makes for a very unstable trilathon on which to climb up and place and retrieve a body.

Josh and Mike PP change their ideas and theories with the wind as the latest research results come in.
I have been on site with both over a number of years and watched this happen often as they explain their findings to visitors.

As to the old maxim of archaeology, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence..
other sciences don't take this view.
If Silburys purpose was as an excarnation platform to be nearer to the gods in the sky then it is built in the wrong place.
On top Waden hill would have been much better as you can look down on Silbury from there as can be seen in this photo I took today
http://www.peteglast...ryMistySnow.jpg

If bodies were left on top Silbury then some remains would have been found in the last dig or in Atkinsons dig in the 1960's.

The Silbury excavation director Jim leary is presenting the results of the 2007/8 excavations at Devizes Museum on 23rd January.
I will video the lecture and try to make it available on YouTube, I hope this will help you.

Keep up the good work, its good to have new things to think about Silbury,
warm regards,
Pete

[harry sivertsen]

Hi Pete

Nice pic!

Silbury

The idea was not to be nearer the gods in the sky but would have been instigated by the view of the Great Bear or Big Dipper swooping down and sweeping the surface of the ground as would have been seen from other locations.  [See MOTG] This could have been the inspiration for a hill specially constructed for that purpose, an isolated location.  That location may well have been in conjunction with springs or water courses and visibility from far afield was not necessarily desirable. The whole point would be the swooping down action of the Big Dipper to pick up whatever was on top of the location. In this case that something is the ephemeral soul of the departed.

Regarding bodies, when these were stripped of flesh by predatory birds they would have been carted off for internment elsewhere and hence no sign should or would remain unless a small finger bones or similar and over a period even this would have been picked up, if not by humans then probably by an animal or bird.

That other sciences do not agree with the old maxim I am aware but that does not invalidate its value. In these matters we have to make assumptions and then attempt to fit what evidence there is to those assumptions. If nothing fits then the assumption is deemed incorrect. Ideas are needed to evaluate what may or may not be evidence for actions at a site, these ideas are the assumptions.

To place a body on the lintels of Stonehenge would merely requires a timber framework that did not lean against the uprights. Not a problem even given limitations of space...ask a carpenter...!!! ...not me I have retired!

The idea of excarnation at either site remains a probability but only further evidence, possibly from much further afield, will strengthen the arguments in favour. We should be looking to the sources of people and customs and assessing how many cultural traditions have followed people into Britain. For too long the British have in general been looking at their ancient forbears as if they have been isolated apart from a few invasions. Genetics shows that this is far from the case.

H

[Pete G]

Hi Harry,
if Silbury was used to deflesh bodies where were the bones buried?
The long barrows nearby such as West and East kennet were sealed up before Silbuy was started.
The other mounds in the area, mostly round barrows, had burnt bones intered in them in pots.

For the astronomy alignment to work with the big dipper it would need a specific sighting point.
Where is that spot?
(sorry I haven't read all of your book yet.)

I will happily go out and film a time lapse sequence to show this effect.
Pete

[harry sivertsen]

Hi Pete


Haven't a clue where the bones went, as I stated, this is a suggestion based upon what we know has happened elsewhere, a logical suggestion for the building of the edifice. Perhaps the bones were buried, ground up etc etc or perhaps it did not happen this way. But if not then we are back to square one with reasoning for the hill and a lot of people have looked at it with no reasonable answers yet.

Again if it was utilised in this fashion perhaps bones were burnt without flesh...we do not know. But even though a number of tombs were closed prior to this period this does not mean that the bones were not buried or treated in some other way.  What became of those who lived after the tombs were filled and closed? Many people... few bones...

Ref to excarnation :- Rawlinson G.1996 [Trans.]  Herodotus Histories book 1v140  Herodotus:Histories Wordsworth Classics. p.65

Silbury Hill observation regarding the Great Bear no longer applies. It would have been vaguely operable to circa 1500 but by the Christian era had moved westward and was too low, not skimming the hilltop. See pp233-238 of MOTG for illustrations of when operable.

One had to stand at its southern base and look up along its flank to see the action, or perhaps a few feet back from the base. Due to precession the vision is not available today as noted above but certainly applied to the time that Silbury was built. It seems probably rather more than coincidence that we have this enigmatic structure that has no apparent purpose and yet has a very unusual connection to the swooping action of the Big Dipper.  

The chances of finding any bones at its top etc are infinitely small as if the theory has any validity they would have been gathered up and any small bones missed probably picked up by wildlife of one sort or another. Then we have other people using the hill after the astro element became non functioning, such as Romans and Normans etc hence the chance of any physical evidence is remote in the extreme. But a great deal of effort was put into its building and it was not designed to be seen from afar...hence was a localised affair.

Apart from the astro connection I make the following suggestion in MOTG.

Extract from the conclusion to the section in MOTG


The site of any monument is obviously of importance.  Here it is relatively easy to understand and in fact has been noted by others.  If we examine the name of the hill, in reverse order of its component parts we see firstly ‘bury’ which in essence means no more than ‘hill’.  The second segment of the title is the all telling element because it seems to be a bastardised version of Sul, a British goddess who was worshipped from hills overlooking springs, where here at Silbury, we have springs adjacent to its base and a name of The Hill of the Goddess Sul.   Hence this appears to have been a localised effort; the constellation Ursa Major giving the spirits of the departed what we may nowadays term a ‘Fast Track to Heaven’ with the location’s associated goddess overseeing events.  It would appear likely that this goddess was previously worshipped from the high ground immediately South West of Silbury Hill, this being more favoured for the springs than Waden Hill which while close, is on the other side of the River Kennet.

Cheers

H