Posted 5 June 2006 - 10:21
We believe these forums must remain an "open space" for our visitors, but we would like to draw a line between what is commonly accepted by professional archaeologists and any other non-conventional theory. We are not saying that megaliths are "science" and ley lines are "fiction", but we believe a separate section to discuss any alternative theories you may have is strongly needed.
Please remember also that this new section is about archaeology anyway, so please stick to the subject.
Posted 5 June 2006 - 22:31
I had already sensed a problem ?
I will be carefull, it is not easy when I am so certain about something, and I will try to limit myself to hints, as I tried to with stonecarvers latest thread.
As a Yorkshire born man, I prefer straight forward talk, rather than any feelings festering, so if anyone has anything to say about my theories, don't hide under a bush , whatever is said to me is like water off a ducks back.
It is only 9/10 months ago, that I would have regarded my theories as the ramblings of a mad man, and I clearly remember how I viewed such things then, so I hold no bad feelings towards anyone who feels I am talking nonsense.
I am the person that will prove what many dowsers have been trying to say for so long, but without a measurable visable proof , they have been easily downtrodden, and ridiculed, every dog has it's day, and the dowsers are about to re-appear.
It will be of great benifit to the megalithic world, and to those people involved with the sites, and whom have recorded and preserved them, once a realisation of the importance and value of them is re-established.
Almost everyone involved with the sites can sense something, a lot are happy for it to stay that way, with the air of mystery surrounding the subject, but the cat is out of the bag, and it is the fault of the internet as such, everything is becoming available to all, and there will be plenty more like me who put two and two together and realise a truth.
Change is often hard for some, and they will repel any advance towards such change, tough.
Posted 6 June 2006 - 15:08
kevin.b, on 5 June 2006, 23:31, said:
There are no problems from our part. As you probably know, this is the "oldest" of all forums devoted to the megalithic world. The Stone Pages forums were active years before TMA and other websites, so many "Megalithomaniacs" visited those pages: some of them stayed around here, while others decided otherwise.
Over the last few days we started browsing the messages posted in the main section over the years, and discovered that they had become progressively convoluted, often following personal (even if interesting) theories instead of giving more practical information. As the main section of the forum is the one causal visitors have a look at first, it seemed it was filled with too many non-conventional and complex theories instead, which - in our opinion - may be quite overwhelming for the causal reader.
Of course we strongly believe everyone have the right to express his/her opinion, so we simply opened a new section where anyone can discuss their alternative theories about megaliths.
All the best,
Paola & Diego
Posted 6 June 2006 - 22:22
Thank you , for creating and maintaining this site, and thus spawning similer.
It is most appreciated by the non computer literate such as myself.
We can visit and marvel all around the globe, analize and discuss with fellow enthusiasts our passion,
Megaliths and why they were built.
Without these sites , I would not have understood and appreciated their importance to mankind.
Posted 11 June 2006 - 09:18
jcantunes, on 7 June 2006, 11:04, said:
239,665 unique visitors
697,723 pages served
54,07 GB of data transferred
That's not bad, isn't it?
Posted 26 June 2006 - 12:21
So the massive stone circles were built to drag heavy loads around? The only heavy loads were the stones themselves. A backward and circular argument.
What did they make the ropes from? Hide? They would have had to slaughter many thousands of animals to provide even a small proportion of the ropes required. Even the weight of the various ropes would be colossal, You try dragging 100M of lightweight modern polypropylene rope along the ground and see how far you get.
Look at the windlass on top of Silbury. Have you ever been there? The hill is huge and from the scale the conctruction on top would have been impossible to construct and even if it could, the frictional forces involved in trying to rotate it would be insurmountable.
There are no signs of any "rope marks" on Stonehenge, trust me I've been there within the stones and looked at them closely.
The rope going through Men an Tol is also laughable as we are not sure if the stones are in their original position.
Round barrows occur, in their many forms, in their tens of thousands all over the UK. If they weren't just simple burial mounds, of what use were they here in Hampshire where the geology is mainly chalk and there are no big stones to drag around.
The theories are completely implausible and show not even the basic understanding of elementary mechanics/ friction/ constructional techniques/life in the Neolithic period.
For a more sober discussion and examples of people trying to work out how those incredibly inventive people of the Neolithic period built their monuments go to the Stonehengineers website. http://stonehengineers.co.uk/
Posted 26 June 2006 - 14:04
I must confess that it is the ropes required length and diameter that I can't comprehend of.
I do though feel that on a more localised and practical level certain parts of your theories should be discussed, especially with grinding of crops .
It was the alignments around the barrows and circles that really caught my eye, but not with ropes as the force, but something else.
All the circles or as I find them polygons, and barrows , are sited precisely in line with something that matched your drawings of the ropes, so we have a basis of agreement, but a difference of opinion in the method of force that is being produced.
I note you are an aircraft specialist?, and as such you will be well versed on the required thrust needed to produce lift across the wing area ?, this is produced in air, to try to overcome gravity.
Because I have been lifted through the air by the force at a stone circle, with no feeling of force as such, I am very driven to work out what lifted me ?
Unfortunately their forum has been temporarilly hacked, but their web is good to read , especially David Barclay, he is really on the ball.
I truly believe that there is a very subtle force all around us, and that this force was transformed up, by the stones etc, and because I also consider that it has a central role in gravity, that gravity itself can be overcome, then if the stones were weightless or almost weightless, Merlin could well have made them dance ?
People will laugh and scoff at such proposals, but I am certain of what I am detecting, its alignments and the way that natural materials have been used to manipulate it.
The knowledge of all of this could easily have been wiped out by the last ice age, and only a handfull of those that had any rememberance may have survived, and if you keep a secret for long enough everyone forgets, including those that knew as they die off.
Unless you can show how to produce enormously strong ropes of extensive length, your theory will be scoffed at.
Posted 27 June 2006 - 01:23
They were clever people, they need to know maths and trignometric relations to know
how to divide a circle in so many parts, such as Stonehenge!? 30 parts, and many others in the
exterior stones. Didn't they? And tangential lines, did they use a trignometric relation to find them?
Posted 28 June 2006 - 20:36
All I can keep repeating is that it it is so easy with a pair of dowsing rods to detect and mark out all the known alignments , to precise detail.
Aprox 30 minutes and I have done all around a typical so called circle, they are actually multi sided polygons created by stright lines crossing in groups of nine parallel lines, all occuring in accordance with the fibonacci sequence, and almost but annoyingly not quite exactly to inchs measure ( the polygons radiate around a central spot every 13 inchs, upto and including 55 times, the distance between the nine lines is measurable in distances that match the sequence.
Without doing a thom, and developing a new measure it is hard to give these measurements.
Many of these polygons overlap each other and create a vesica pisces area, the distance between the polygon centres varies , but always follows the sequence( at the rollright stones the centres are 89 inch apart)
The number of lines that cross and create the polygons are 13, 21, 34 and 55 .
where two polygons are close together, the lines cross certain radiuses at the same spot, dependent on which radius they cross most at would appear to have determined the position of the stones, this can lead to egg shaped and other odd shapes been used, but it matters little, it is the transforming up of the available subtle force and subsequent direction of the flow of this force that appears to be most relevant.
All the above I have detected by wandering around known circles and lots of circles out in open fields, the larger polygons drive lots of smaller ones , which in turn drive even smaller ones, this forms a complete web everywhere, which I can only speculate is globally.
I have good reason to believe that the biggest ones around the globe will have 89 crossings, I dearly want to stand on one of these spots, I also consider there will be found to be 89 constellations to a universe, and that each universe will spiral to 1.618.
The spirals continue into the centre of each polygons, they spiral in , in a flower like pattern following a fair curve inwards crossing from line to line, this occurs how ever many times there are lines crossing through the polygon.
It is truly awesome and a great privalage to be able to follow this so easily.
To really confuse you totally it does this all in a dual way in/out on top of each other.
All this is my personal opinion.
Posted 16 January 2008 - 12:07
Sorry jcantunes, to quote an old northern English comment "I haven't laughed so much since my Granny caught her t**s in the mangle"!
I love this, I met a group of tourists from the US at Stonehenge, one lady visitor asked," say who's house ruin was this?", another from the mid-west wondered," if the local farmers had clears the rocks and stacked them up, 'kind of pretty like'?" both better than most of the theories I have seen. The big problem in solving stonehenge is that most want a 'mystery' and not a solution.
i met up with a producer from Time Team whilst loading up a sledge with a 3 tonne bluestone by axe technques and erecting a large tree trunk by hand. He asked," if I could do a project for TT that Phil could get involved with?". I said," how about laying out laying out Stonehenge full scale and erecting a large stone to prove it". This guy turned down the biggest exclusive in his life - no its a mystery, isnt it.
Posted 21 January 2008 - 11:54
The bottom line with theories even well tested ones is - would people in the past actually have used it - and for that one its impossible then and now.
I accept my work may upset a few as its so simple to apply but it matches the evidence and to quote the big man Prof. A - "all the surveying tools came out of the hedge" .
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users