134 replies to this topic

[tiompan]

RobStanton, on 16 February 2009, 23:32, said:

Well I think for their time they are very accurate. In fact I don't know how they could have done it over terrain where they could not see some of the circles from the others in the line. If you want to give your opinion on the accuracy in general go ahead.

No need if you are happy with that level of accuracy . If these "alignments " were intentional do you have any suggestion as to why ?

George

[RobStanton]

tiompan, on 17 February 2009, 0:04, said:

No need if you are happy with that level of accuracy . If these "alignments " were intentional do you have any suggestion as to why ?

George

Suggestions as to why would just be speculation at this stage.

Using Barnatt's more precise grid references and my maps zoomed in to maximum I get the following deviations from perfect alignment of the middle circle in metres.

Ash Cabin Flat - Gibbet Moor  30m
BarBrook 2 - Smelting Hill  5m
Bull Ring - Offerton Moor  18m
Arbor Low - Broomhead   6m
Moscar Moor - Doll Tor   5m
Lawrence Field - Doll Tor 46m
Hob Hurst - Ninestone Close 8m
Broomhead - Ninestone Close 5m
Barbrook 1 - Nine Ladies 55m


Incredibly the 2 longest lines of over 20 miles are only 5m or 6m out.

Given that my GPS is only accurate to 30m I think they all qualify to be considered aligned.

[tiompan]

RobStanton, on 17 February 2009, 23:52, said:

tiompan, on 17 February 2009, 0:04, said:

No need if you are happy with that level of accuracy . If these "alignments " were intentional do you have any suggestion as to why ?

George

Suggestions as to why would just be speculation at this stage.

Using Barnatt's more precise grid references and my maps zoomed in to maximum I get the following deviations from perfect alignment of the middle circle in metres.

Ash Cabin Flat - Gibbet Moor  30m
BarBrook 2 - Smelting Hill  5m
Bull Ring - Offerton Moor  18m
Arbor Low - Broomhead   6m
Moscar Moor - Doll Tor   5m
Lawrence Field - Doll Tor 46m
Hob Hurst - Ninestone Close 8m
Broomhead - Ninestone Close 5m
Barbrook 1 - Nine Ladies 55m


Incredibly the 2 longest lines of over 20 miles are only 5m or 6m out.

Given that my GPS is only accurate to 30m I think they all qualify to be considered aligned.

Here are some 10 figure grid refs for some of the above
Arbor Low (center ) SK 16014 63582
9 Stone Close SK 22544 62646
Barbrook 1 SK 27850 75584

  I can;'t get a 10 figure ref for Barbrook 2 using the above ref means it is 290 metres from barbrook 1 but Burl describes it as being 600 meteres , he is likely to be approximating but something is wrong .


George

[tiompan]

tiompan, on 18 February 2009, 0:25, said:

RobStanton, on 17 February 2009, 23:52, said:

tiompan, on 17 February 2009, 0:04, said:

No need if you are happy with that level of accuracy . If these "alignments " were intentional do you have any suggestion as to why ?

George

Suggestions as to why would just be speculation at this stage.

Using Barnatt's more precise grid references and my maps zoomed in to maximum I get the following deviations from perfect alignment of the middle circle in metres.

Ash Cabin Flat - Gibbet Moor  30m
BarBrook 2 - Smelting Hill  5m
Bull Ring - Offerton Moor  18m
Arbor Low - Broomhead   6m
Moscar Moor - Doll Tor   5m
Lawrence Field - Doll Tor 46m
Hob Hurst - Ninestone Close 8m
Broomhead - Ninestone Close 5m
Barbrook 1 - Nine Ladies 55m


Incredibly the 2 longest lines of over 20 miles are only 5m or 6m out.

Given that my GPS is only accurate to 30m I think they all qualify to be considered aligned.

Here are some 10 figure grid refs for some of the above
Arbor Low (center ) SK 16014 63582
9 Stone Close SK 22544 62646
Barbrook 1 SK 27850 75584

  I can;'t get a 10 figure ref for Barbrook 2 using the above ref means it is 290 metres from barbrook 1 but Burl describes it as being 600 meteres , he is likely to be approximating but something is wrong .


George

         Forgot Moscar Moor  SK 22111 84533

  George

[tiompan]

tiompan, on 18 February 2009, 0:36, said:

tiompan, on 18 February 2009, 0:25, said:

RobStanton, on 17 February 2009, 23:52, said:

tiompan, on 17 February 2009, 0:04, said:

No need if you are happy with that level of accuracy . If these "alignments " were intentional do you have any suggestion as to why ?

George

Suggestions as to why would just be speculation at this stage.

Using Barnatt's more precise grid references and my maps zoomed in to maximum I get the following deviations from perfect alignment of the middle circle in metres.

Ash Cabin Flat - Gibbet Moor  30m
BarBrook 2 - Smelting Hill  5m
Bull Ring - Offerton Moor  18m
Arbor Low - Broomhead   6m
Moscar Moor - Doll Tor   5m
Lawrence Field - Doll Tor 46m
Hob Hurst - Ninestone Close 8m
Broomhead - Ninestone Close 5m
Barbrook 1 - Nine Ladies 55m


Incredibly the 2 longest lines of over 20 miles are only 5m or 6m out.

Given that my GPS is only accurate to 30m I think they all qualify to be considered aligned.

Here are some 10 figure grid refs for some of the above
Arbor Low (center ) SK 16014 63582
9 Stone Close SK 22544 62646
Barbrook 1 SK 27850 75584

  I can;'t get a 10 figure ref for Barbrook 2 using the above ref means it is 290 metres from barbrook 1 but Burl describes it as being 600 meteres , he is likely to be approximating but something is wrong .


George

         Forgot Moscar Moor  SK 22111 84533

  George

Could you list the names of the various sites in what you consider the most accurate "alignment " ?

      George

[RobStanton]

[/quote]
Could you list the names of the various sites in what you consider the most accurate "alignment " ?

      George
[/quote]


I don't think this discussion can go much further. I have given you have 2 sets of map references published by recognised authorities in the subject. If you want to try to build a counter-argument for non-alignment using this or any other data you can find go ahead.

Rob

[tiompan]

[/quote]


I don't think this discussion can go much further. I have given you have 2 sets of map references published by recognised authorities in the subject. I you want to try to build a counter-argument for non-alignment using this or any other data you can find go ahead.

Rob
[/quote]
                I seem to be having probs with replies so hope this is not duplicated .
With the amount of info that you had on the original page , regardless of content , most people rightly gave it short shrift , I attempted to get a bit of clarification .
Did you spot the 3:4:5 triangle which includes a due north . All 10 figure grid refs and therefore more accurate , but not good enough and jsut a coincidence .
Arbor Low –Nine Ladies =90.501 degrees  8.84838 Km
Froggats Edge –Arbor Low =214.267 degrees 15.95214 Km .
Froggats Edge –Nine Ladies =180.578  13.27803 Km
A counter argument suggests that there was an argument/case in the first place , there wasn't one . The two authorities are archaeologists ,when it comes to accuracy in relation to topography they are the last people you would want to trust , it is not their job . Check most arcaheo plans and they are woeful in relation to even something simple like a northing . Thankfully they are much better at interpreting and excavating ,well some of the time .

George

[RobStanton]

That is just your personal opinion and does not constitute a counter argument.

Rob

[tiompan]

RobStanton, on 19 February 2009, 14:48, said:

That is just your personal opinion and does not constitute a counter argument.

Rob

There is no argument to counter .
George

[tiompan]

tiompan, on 19 February 2009, 17:22, said:

RobStanton, on 19 February 2009, 14:48, said:

That is just your personal opinion and does not constitute a counter argument.

Rob

There is no argument to counter .
George

                          Any opinion on the" traingle " Rob ?  A useful link in relation to statistics http://www.geocities...97/leystats.htm

George

[RobStanton]

Did you spot the 3:4:5 triangle which includes a due north . All 10 figure grid refs and therefore more accurate , but not good enough and jsut a coincidence .
Arbor Low –Nine Ladies =90.501 degrees 8.84838 Km
Froggats Edge –Arbor Low =214.267 degrees 15.95214 Km .
Froggats Edge –Nine Ladies =180.578 13.27803 Km

[/quote]
                          Any opinion on the" traingle " Rob ?  A useful link in relation to statistics [url="http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/6197/leystats.htm"]http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/6197/leystats.htm[/url]

George
[/quote]

Well if it was a 3:4:5 triangle and the shortest side is nearly 9 Km the second shortest side would be nearly 12 km but it is 13.3 km which is way off. It is therefore not a 3:4:5 triangle. As for the Hough transform, in the article the lowest number of points in the area it has results for is 50 whereas I am using 22 and they are all in an alignment of some kind. The lowest resolution refered to in the article is 50m but in my example the resolution of more than half the lines is less than 10 metres. It is an interesting idea though and needs futher consideration.

Rob

[tiompan]

[/quote]

Well if it was a 3:4:5 triangle and the shortest side is nearly 9 Km the second shortest side would be nearly 12 km but it is 13.3 km which is way off. It is therefore not a 3:4:5 triangle. As for the Hough transform, in the article the lowest number of points in the area it has results for is 50 whereas I am using 22 and they are all in an alignment of some kind. The lowest resolution refered to in the article is 50m but in my example the resolution of more than half the lines is less than 10 metres. It is an interesting idea though and needs futher consideration.

Rob
[/quote]

Rather than go for nearly : 8.84838 / 3 = 2.949
                                       13.27803 /4 = 3.0695
                                       15.95214/5=   3.1904
a max difference of 0.2 . But it's meaningless . Needless to say if it was 8 figure grid refs being used the figures would be even "better "
  I would be interested in an alignment of 5 points with an error of 10 metres although most staisticians would be looking for some thing approaching 6-7 .

George

[RobStanton]

tiompan, on 22 February 2009, 23:08, said:

Well if it was a 3:4:5 triangle and the shortest side is nearly 9 Km the second shortest side would be nearly 12 km but it is 13.3 km which is way off. It is therefore not a 3:4:5 triangle. As for the Hough transform, in the article the lowest number of points in the area it has results for is 50 whereas I am using 22 and they are all in an alignment of some kind. The lowest resolution refered to in the article is 50m but in my example the resolution of more than half the lines is less than 10 metres. It is an interesting idea though and needs futher consideration.

Rob

Quote

Rather than go for nearly : 8.84838 / 3 = 2.949
                                       13.27803 /4 = 3.0695
                                       15.95214/5=   3.1904
a max difference of 0.2 . But it's meaningless . Needless to say if it was 8 figure grid refs being used the figures would be even "better "
  I would be interested in an alignment of 5 points with an error of 10 metres although most staisticians would be looking for some thing approaching 6-7 .

George

13.27803 /4 = 3.3195  not  3.0695. The second longest side is more than 1.3 Kilometers too long to be a 3:4:5 triangle.


Rob

[tiompan]

quote]

13.27803 /4 = 3.3195  not  3.0695. The second longest side is more than 1.3 Kilometers too long to be a 3:4:5 triangle.


Rob
[/quote]
          Dead right , now apply that level of precision to your alignments . Even better give the names of any one that has 4 or more .

George

[harry sivertsen]

Email me

Rob,

Regarding alignments between sites, this is something of a touchy subject but one of great interest. I cover aspects of this in chapters 8,9and 10 of my work Measurements of the Gods which can be read on line or bought at

http://www.completel...580/books/77136

Basically alignments need to be meaningful.  As others have stated this is the principle reason for the non-validity of 'ley lines' as any long straight line will pick up on a number of points along its length simply due to a profusion of locations.  However, this is a good base from which to start. Find a line that has a number of sites along its length, including old churches [many built on ancient sites as I clearly show in my book],  prominent hill tops and of course ancient sites but leave out forts as these did not necessarily utilise  the same criterion. Occasionally they do appear in line and may be relevant but we cannot utilise these as positive evidence.
The next step is to carefully take the angles of the lines discovered and search out astronomical alignments of value. If you discover relevant sun, moon or other astro alignments then the chances are the alignment is correct.
There is another element to take into consideration and that is measure. While this sounds far fetched it is a reality and numerous sites are indeed spaced at very specific distances apart as I demonstrate in Measurements of the Gods. The examples given are mainly from South Gwent, my home and they include a replication of the 40 days of rain of the Genesis Flood story...actually a reference to the PLeiades...dated here to 2500BC and in the Genesis to [in our familiar calendar] March 19th 2300BC. Here the new year commenced with the first new moon after the winter solstice. [see the companion book Deluge from Genesis to Atlantis at the same web page as as 'Measurements'] Both the Genesis flood and Atlantis were CELESTIAL events hence the skies were vitally important and this is reflected in the alignments set up so long ago here in Britain.