On 2011-12-30 21:07, sem wrote:
Jonm and Ledgehammer
The angle of stones pointing to a Pole Star has been suggested many times. Cerrig has suggested Maen Llia fits the bill and DocP reckons Maen Mawr (Cerrig Duon) has a similar line up. The only thing is I can't find a "Pole Star" that fits the bill.
I'm only using Starry Night Backyard (now for-free but cost me fourty quid) and take an occasional look in case I missed something, but can't see a candidiate.
Any suggestions as to which star this was (ie due North and moved very little for a few hundred years)?

Do You agree with Jonm's ASSUMPTION that accurate measure couldn't have been available back then????
He's a theodilite type, reckon I could better a theodolite?
cropredy

On 2011-12-31 08:19, jonm wrote:

Quote:

Do You agree with Jonm's ASSUMPTION that accurate measure couldn't have been available back then???? He's a theodilite type, reckon I could better a theodolite? cropredy

Sure, some people may be gifted. But how do you prove it to the satisfaction of others? The assumption is that a method would have to exist capable of proving, beyond all reasonable doubt, that theory A is better than theory B.

PS I do indeed have my own theodolite (and, even more nerdy, a few EDMS).

On 2011-12-31 18:25, jonm wrote:

which helps to add a bit of mystery to the explanation.

For instance - some people nowadays, apparently, can't even find the North Star without reference to the web!

Lets say that several dowsers mark out some detectable lines inside and outside the embankments, You could check them with Your trusty theodolite for accuracy, the same line would need to be marked on the embankment tops for You to check bearing either side, the lines can extend through any stones also. .

I think that about covers WHY I am so driven.

On 2012-01-01 14:18, jonm wrote:

Quote:

I think that about covers WHY I am so driven.

Interesting, but where is the benefit to humanity?

For example, one argument goes that research spent on things that will benefit the future are more important than the past. A counter is that, with continuous expansion of knowledge about the past, we can avoid repeating mistakes of the past.

Perhaps the latter sums up a prime reason for bothering to finance archaeological work? But where is the benefit to humanity in lines and flows that cannot be proven, used or otherwise harvested?

On 2012-01-01 15:22, cropredy wrote:


Let's say that the lines can be proven by marking out around a point multiple lines that cross that point , and are not visible where they are marked, such as behind the stones of SH.
I think You will agree that the chances of accurately marking out such lines all around 360 degrees that will all pass through the centre point and form dead straight lines, would be difficult to achieve , if not impossible without a very precise framework to operate to?
I can do that with total ease.


cropredy

On 2012-01-01 17:36, tiompan wrote:
Could you mark say , 30 points in the circumference of say Avebury have the points recorded then repeat a few days later ?
George

Quote:

On 2012-01-01 15:22, cropredy wrote: Let's say that the lines can be proven by marking out around a point multiple lines that cross that point , and are not visible where they are marked, such as behind the stones of SH. I think You will agree that the chances of accurately marking out such lines all around 360 degrees that will all pass through the centre point and form dead straight lines, would be difficult to achieve , if not impossible without a very precise framework to operate to? I can do that with total ease. cropredy

On 2012-01-01 18:28, cropredy wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-01-01 17:36, tiompan wrote: Could you mark say , 30 points in the circumference of say Avebury have the points recorded then repeat a few days later ? George Quote: On 2012-01-01 15:22, cropredy wrote: Let's say that the lines can be proven by marking out around a point multiple lines that cross that point , and are not visible where they are marked, such as behind the stones of SH. I think You will agree that the chances of accurately marking out such lines all around 360 degrees that will all pass through the centre point and form dead straight lines, would be difficult to achieve , if not impossible without a very precise framework to operate to? I can do that with total ease. cropredy

Tested Myself to a standstill with such, no problemo.
I could extend the lines across the embankments, or wherever.

The lines are fixed....full stop.
What flows about upon them crossing from line to line under attraction is different, it varies constantly, and to really confuse, they reverse, and travel in layers on top of each other, it's beyond word description.
The position of the sun and moon in particuler is what the flows respond in variation to.
it is field interactions.

cropredy

You focus upon what is termed visible light, sunlight ,and consider that by concentrating the reflected rays of such valuable work can be achieved.
I would argue that the flows along the lines can also be concentrated at all times of the day and night, and that far far more work can be achieved.

On 2011-12-30 10:44, jonm wrote:

Quote:

Jon, can you summarise your theory in reference to Avebury? Well at least as far as the cove is concerned? How does this theory relate to other sections of Avebury. Do you think there could be a real possibility of the site being an observation/ learning center for aspects of the heavens.

Hi Tom.

To be honest I haven't even been to Avebury as yet: Many of the stones appear to have been removed so it'll be difficult to find confirmatory evidence.

Because measurement couldn't have been accurate back then, there might have been several theories about the nature of the heavenly movement: The methodology that the cove resembles is just a way of proving which of those theories is correct (particularly the Sun). It's a 'mind experiment', but to our eyes would just prove something that is blindingly obvious. Describing why would need the competing theories to be compiled and I'd need to show how to prove one or the other using accumulations of marginal changes: You only bother to come up with indirect methods of marginal measurement if your equipment isn't good enough to measure what you want to see by direct means (which is why the idea is not really an observatory as we would understand it)

But the cove would have had to be the first stage: A sort of 'are they right? let's try it out using a few stones'. Then the next stage (of building a circle round it) would work slightly better. All of this is the stuff of observation and none of it is as good as the original (another set of coincidences somewhere else).

Then the rest of Avebury seems to resemble less of an observatory and more of a place to store knowledge and perhaps do other stuff (I have no idea what).

A huge level area of slightly elevated cleared ground with strategically located sights to the horizon is the next logical step: None of Avebury resembles this (edit though the main area perhaps would have been good enough for an initial go at it). If the ground isn't available or you don't have the resources, one or two straight lines of ground would do if they're at just the right angle. A 'cursus' or two, with lines surrounding the area is a bit over the top but would serve to mark out what was being done: This would also seriously out-do the 'original' version and give much better results (a neolithic 'space race'?)

This is why I'm interested in the angle of the greater cursus. Both of these two cursi appear to have the correct general angles for the 'enhanced' experiment. If the pits of the greater cursus prove to be at an angle of about 5.25 degrees anti-clockwise from East (I should work out the exact angle sometime but it won't be more than +/-0.2 degrees from 5.25), this particular angle fits exceptionally well with the number methods associated with the rest of the coincidences at Stonehenge.

That all followed by, 'let's out-do everyone else in the World by building a stone hinge of the heavens using the new technology (tin).'

I have no idea if the above sequence of construction matches what was done. Unless someone knows offhand what the sequence was, it would take a lot of work to find out if it does?


The trouble is that there are so many coincidence sets associated with this that it's difficult to tell the wood from the trees (and work out what time to spend on what). I think that Stonehenge is probably the key because it has so many special, unusual and unique features, so I'm thinking of 'back-burning' all the other monument coincidences and concentrate on expanding the rest of the coincidences associated with Stonehenge?

For example, look at page 166, then take a look at this assembly of items. There wasn't space to do everything and some of the readers thought that the technical stuff was a bit boring, so I stripped it out to leave just references to just the bare bones of the other coincidences (I think I cited about 28 from memory whereas there are actually about 40 or so).


PS there might be something really interesting, another (new) confirmatory coincidence, coming up soon. This is extra over the additional coincidence mentioned by Neil (Feanor) on Stone 53.



[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2011-12-30 11:27 ]

On 2012-01-01 18:55, cropredy wrote:
Tiompan,
Hamish Miller was demonstrating that in this clip at the merry maidens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-D2qHKUC0E


cropredy