Featured Title:
Stone Lord: The Legend Of King Arthur, The Era Of Stonehenge by J P Reedman |
 |
| Roads and Trackways of North Wales |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 110 guests and 2 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : davidmorgan , TimPrevett , Andy B , Klingon , MickM , bat400 , sem , Runemage , TheCaptain
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Sacred Sites and Megalithic Mysteries >> New book Silbury Dawning claims aliens founded early human civilizations
|
 |
| Page 2 of 3 ( 1 | 2 | 3 ) |
| Author |
New book Silbury Dawning claims aliens founded early human civilizations |
JohnCowie
Joined:
27-02-2008
Messages: 11
from Bradford on Avon
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 26-09-2012 at 20:56
Quote:
| Thanks for the prompt reply and I apologize in advance for the length of the following. (I am known to be rather long-winded, and here's your first dreadful example!) |
|
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your generous advice and incisive information.
“The Dustman Gets No Chalk”. Yes, definitely a good one!
Best wishes,
John
 Profile
 Reply
|
JohnCowie
Joined:
27-02-2008
Messages: 11
from Bradford on Avon
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-09-2012 at 21:34
Quote:
| the tobacco tins were found just inside the door. Smoking wasn't allowed inside the tunnel. You seem determine to believe that the RC results are contaminated! |
|
Hi PeteG,
This is the extract from the English Heritage Silbury Hill Conservation Project 2007 Finds Update
Quote:
| During the 1968 Atkinson excavation, Welsh mining students were used to tunnel into the mound. Due to the oxygenated air within the tunnel itself smoking was not permitted. To enforce this rule, workers were asked to empty their pockets at the entrance to the tunnel. On the re-opening of the entrance this year, several tobacco tins (including the one pictured to the right) were recovered. |
|
Seems strange that English Heritage would make this statement or any statement if as you suggest the tobacco tins were found just inside the door?
As I mentioned previously I appreciate your determination to hold on to your views and so we must beg to differ.
Farewell,
John
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 319
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-09-2012 at 21:40
Quote:
|
On 2012-09-26 16:25, AndyB wrote:
Feanor, you could review it for us if you like - I'm sure John would oblige us a review copy - although an ebook version would be cheaper to send to the US! |
|
JohnCowie then wrote:
Hi Andy,
More than happy to send a copy for review. It would be cheaper getting a Kindle copy to Neil, but I’m not sure how to get a complimentary copy from Amazon – [URL=http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0081L4V3W]/URL]
I have sent a number of copies off to magazines for review. However one of the reviewers is the website called Universe Today. Maybe when the book review appears on this website you will be able to link to it?
Cheers
John
[/quote]
I Wrote:
Hey guyz,
My curiosity is quite piqued, so I'll just get a copy through the usual channels on the first of the week.
Looking forward to reviewing it for the Portal, certainly Fearless Leader.
My Kindle is on the fritz, so I'll get the new Fire HD or a Nexus next week as well. (Dearest Emily left it out in the rain whilst shopping shoes. Luckily most of my stuff is in the Amazon Cloud.)
But I prefer the printed word in any case, so whichever comes first ...
Best,
Neil
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
PeteG
Joined:
21-11-2002
Messages: 287
from Avebury
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-09-2012 at 21:47
the thing is John, you have no evidence whatsoever for a 10,000BC date.
I only have science on my side, although I'm not alone in trusting the RC dates given for the start of Silbury.
Theories are there to be tested and modified, something which you seem reluctant to do.
Read the forthcoming monograph.
PeteG
Profile
Reply
|
JohnCowie
Joined:
27-02-2008
Messages: 11
from Bradford on Avon
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-09-2012 at 18:01
Quote:
| I only have science on my side, although I'm not alone in trusting the RC dates given for the start of Silbury. |
|
PeteG
As part of a world-wide network of researchers and scientists from many universities and faculties, I also have regular access to the scientific community via conferences, discussions, facebook, forums and the world wide web.
Do I have evidence for a possible 10,000BC date? Yes I do, but difficult to substantiate at present and therefore easy to discredit - hence it can only be a possibility.
A couple of examples of evidence:-
Flint flakes over 10,000 years old were found at the centre of Silbury Hill.
PeteG reply: The Mesolithic flints were almost certainly bought in with the turf stacks and basket loads of earth taken up from the surrounding landscape – but do you know this to be fact?
[Quite a coincidence considering only a few flint flakes were found at this site. Actually the flint flakes were not recovered from clods of earth, but found in small pits at the top of the first phase of the hill. This suggests they were placed there, maybe for a future date record?? But like your reply, this can only be speculation].
Molluscs from within Silbury Hill have been scientifically dated and stated to be over 10,000 years old.
English Heritage palaeontologist reply: “These shells could not be accurately radiocarbon dated due to the absorption of the carbon from the surrounding chalk. The calcium carbonate they would use to make their shells would be geological in age rather than derived from the present atmosphere. So this is likely to provide a date that is too old.” No sure what this means, but sounds impressive?
[It’s seems that samples supporting the 10,000 year argument are contaminated while 2400BC samples are not?]
Do you have evidence for your conventional date of 2400BC for the start of Silbury Hill?
A couple of examples of examples of evidence you have mentioned:
A deer antler was found at Silbury Hill and was radiocarbon dated to 2400BC.
My reply: Did the antler fall off a deer grazing on the hill which was already standing there 4500 years ago? Over time the antler become buried in the much older hill slope. How did you scientifically match dates from two separate objects? How do you know it was used as a pick in the construction of the hill?
[Interestingly, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart at a Yale University study yielded three different ages for an antler - 5,340 years, 9,310 years, and 10,320 years. The researchers explained what caused variations in result: limestone contamination of the sample. The 5,340 years is the carbon 14 date for the antler; the 10,320 years is the limestone contaminant; and the 9,310 years is the date for the antler and limestone combined.
Maybe during the radiocarbon dating of the Silbury Hill antler a few dates were thrown up and conveniently one of the dates came close to the conventional date? Interestingly, where did this conventional date come from? Many old charts show an evolutionary timeline which charts our progress from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age up to present day. These charts place stone circles such as Stonehenge, Avebury and Silbury Hill at around 2400BC. Maybe you or someone can explain how this first early date was arrived at before radiocarbon dating techniques were invented?
The primary mound was cored in many places. These gave totally uncontaminated samples which gave EH reliable RC Dates of 2400BC.
My reply: Silbury Hill is a totally contaminated site due to its age, location, weather and damage done by aristocratic explorers and “clumsy treasure hunting” amateur archaeologists over the millennia? Any results from samples taken from the hill would be unreliable.
Quote:
| From Jim Leary’s book “The Story of Silbury Hill”, page 91: The conditions in the tunnel were far from ideal for archaeological recording; it was cramped and despite the ventilation tubes the air was foul and the lighting poor at best...] |
|
I have searched but couldn’t find any other evidence to categorically support your conventional date of 2400BC.
You mentioned theories are there to be tested and modified. I see no sign of this happening with the conventional date of 2400BC first ‘established’ around the time of Flinders-Petrie???, I'm led to believe and has remained unchallenged ever since?
I can see it difficult to accept but nevertheless intriguing to contemplate that Silbury Hill, Avebury, Stonehenge and a host of other ancient structures were already on this landscape before our history began.
Was Silbury Hill originally something more than a chalk mound? Some archaeologists are now reflecting on this possibility. I believe we have seriously undersold Silbury Hill.
Silbury Hill, although inspirational to my ‘alien visitor gene theory’, but for the reasons just mentioned, is a small part of my investigation into our early evolution – it’s all in the book.
I look forward to reading the forthcoming monograph.
JC
Profile
Reply
|
PeteG
Joined:
21-11-2002
Messages: 287
from Avebury
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-09-2012 at 18:36
"A handful of new radiocarbon samples
have been processed from our work at
Silbury (although many more are planned
for the coming year). These dates show
that at least the early phases of the mound
were constructed around 2400 BC."
Jim Leary
English Heritage Research Newsletter #10 p17
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 319
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-09-2012 at 21:03
Quote:
|
On 2012-09-30 18:01, JohnCowie wrote: (in part)
... examples of evidence:
Flint flakes over 10,000 years old were found at the centre of Silbury Hill.
... It seems that samples supporting the 10,000 year argument are contaminated while 2400BC samples are not?
... A couple of examples of evidence you have mentioned: A deer antler was found at Silbury Hill and was radiocarbon dated to 2400BC.
My reply: Did the antler fall off a deer grazing on the hill which was already standing there 4500 years ago? Over time the antler become buried in the much older hill slope. How did you scientifically match dates from two separate objects? How do you know it was used as a pick in the construction of the hill?
...Was Silbury Hill originally something more than a chalk mound? Some archaeologists are now reflecting on this possibility. I believe we have seriously undersold Silbury Hill.
|
|
Hi John, it's me again ...
The 3 or 4 Phases of Silbury Hill are roughly dated and this process is ongoing. While it's true that a smattering of radio-carbon evidence at various sites have been misinterpreted over the years, this has mostly come from improper application, older technologies, or even the site-location an item was obtained.
By the same token, they don't positively date a site based solely upon the RC-Signature of a single item, buried a while or not.
Flint chips? Did I miss something? Are they shaped? Call me crazy, but Flint is dated geologically - not archeologically. Unless it's been worked - good luck with that.
That these flakes are collected within the initial mound tells us nothing about the Age of the feature.
Flint is formed in chalk, so wherever they got the chalk is where this vein of flint came from.
10,000 years? 50,000 years? 65 million years? Who cares? Rake it into the basket, haul it away and throw it on the Heap.
The referential comparison between dating a deer antler and a clam shell found in carboniferous limestone chalk should be fairly self-evident, and I'm not really seeing the value of that debate.
But I will say that if a deer antler found within the First Phase is below a clam shell found in the 2nd or 3rd, it follows that the antler has been there longer, ultimate dates notwithstanding.
... I believe we have seriously undersold Silbury Hill.
I couldn't agree more.
Though I can in no way be construed as a 'Silbury Hill Guy', it seems to me that these folks spent a numbing length of time carrying baskets full of chalk from who knows where just to dump in a pile.
Not satisfied with the result, they did it at least 3 times till they got to where it was 'supposed' to be.
(Steve had no doubt been awarded a middle-management situation by this time, being long-familiar with man-made hills in his tenure with Ugge-The-Mighty in the South. Senior Dustman-In-Chief, I believe it was.)
There's no big stones aligned to Orion's belt or the 3rd link of Cassiopeia's chain. It's just a really big Pile. Breathtaking to behold, knowing it's Human-Made, but pretty boring after a while.
Naturally, Avebury and the WK Long Barrow steal a lot of thunder from this quiet, aloof Hill.
But whatever it was intended for, we can be assured that it was extremely important to them.
Perhaps it has been neglected archeologically, yes. This is changing.
We now know that the inhabitants of at least the Southern UK were pretty savvy astronomically. We see evidence of this all over the place. Among the several things a contemporary Stonehenge was during its active life, it did in body represent the Cosmos as they understood it.
This makes any tentative suspicion of intent at The Hill possible.
But I believe it's somewhat premature to assign purpose or motivation to these people - leave aside their Age - nor to take them out of context from the rich cultural landscape that surrounds this monument.
Best Wishes,
Neil
_______________________
[ This message was edited by: Feanor on 2012-09-30 21:06 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 918
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-09-2012 at 23:01
Actually, the flinty chalk is probably Glacial in origin. I've researched this 
Profile
Reply
|
PeteG
Joined:
21-11-2002
Messages: 287
from Avebury
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-10-2012 at 13:53
when you say "Silbury Hill is a totally contaminated site due to its age, location, weather and damage done by aristocratic explorers and “clumsy treasure hunting” amateur archaeologists over the millennia? Any results from samples taken from the hill would be unreliable. "
I take it you mean you will refuse to accept any results even though a huge amount of the mound has never been disturbed.
Some of the Core samples taken from the top were sampling parts of the mound untouched since it was built, but I guess you will ignore these as the results don't fit your theory?
Profile
Reply
|
ainsloch
Joined:
04-08-2012
Messages: 27
from Belfast
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-10-2012 at 16:26
Hi John
Your book sounds interesting, and there is no doubt Silbury Hill is an enigmatic, stupendous monument. Just on the dating issue, Marlborough Mound which lies on the same latitude as Silbury Hill and just over 5 miles east from it has also been RC dated to around 2400 BC which would appear to suggest these monuments are contemporary - if we accept the conclusions of the archaeologists involved in the excavation. I am curious as to whether Marlborough Mound figures in your theory?
Regards
A
Profile
Reply
|
JohnCowie
Joined:
27-02-2008
Messages: 11
from Bradford on Avon
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-10-2012 at 19:52
Hi A,
Quote:
| I am curious as to whether Marlborough Mound figures in your theory? |
|
It is highly likely that Marlborough Mound was part of a huge ‘Wessex’ complex including Silbury Hill, Avebury, Stonehenge plus a great deal more (including many ‘Silbury Hills’ mentioned by earlier local historians), that have since vanished over time.
When? I think it is very difficult if not impossible to date these structures so I could be easily wrong to suggest they were built around the same time and as part of a huge ‘Giza-like’ complex. If archaeologists are convinced that these structures were built at the same time and around the conventional date of 2400BC, then so be it. What we do know is that something remarkable happened here in our distant past.
Yes, Marlborough Mound and many intriguing mounds and pyramids from around the world figure in my theory. There is too much unexplained science, mathematics and technology in our ancient history that has been readily dismissed by our early aristocratic European Christian archaeologists. The pressure from the Vatican to make sure the findings didn’t conflict with the Biblical mould was enormous. Many ancient anomalous technological discoveries have been ‘lost’. There are many exceptions including Flinders-Petrie discovery of diamond tipped drills and saws as described in his book ‘Ten Years’ Digging in Egypt (1881-1891)’. Maybe there are important technological clues to support my theory waiting to be re-discovered?
Kind regards
JC
Profile
Reply
|
JohnCowie
Joined:
27-02-2008
Messages: 11
from Bradford on Avon
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-10-2012 at 20:22
Hi Neil
Just a quick comment on a couple of interesting things you mentioned.
The few flint flakes that were found had been placed individually in pits at the top of the first phase. This information along with the date of 10000 years for these flint flakes came from a conversation with Barry Bishop, English Heritage Flint Specialist on site at Silbury Hill in October 2007.
What does this mean? “The Dustman Lost His Flints”.
There doesn’t appear to be an English Heritage record of deer antler being found inside the hill? The fragments were found either on top or in the side of the hill.
Good luck with the book!
John
Profile
Reply
|
JohnCowie
Joined:
27-02-2008
Messages: 11
from Bradford on Avon
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-10-2012 at 21:08
Quote:
| Some of the Core samples taken from the top were sampling parts of the mound untouched since it was built, but I guess you will ignore these as the results don't fit your theory? |
|
Hi PeteG,
A huge area of the mound may have been untouched by humans. Clumsy as humans were over the centuries, including pumping oxygenated air into the mound, alas the majority of the damage was done by Mother Nature.
Accepting your date of 2400BC, we cannot ignore rain water has been seeping through Silbury Hill for at least 4400 years. During this time external constituents/pollutants will have been introduced from the environment disturbing the original chemical complexity of the hill. In other words, even with the best scientific analytical tools, latest computers, etc., the basic law of computer analysis applies (GIGO). Same problem applies to my date of 10000BC or any other date which under these imprecise conditions can only be theoretical in spite of your insistence they are factual.
As mentioned previously, to have inexact radiocarbon dating techniques used on an antler from 1969 precisely match contaminated 2012 core sample results from Silbury Hill to 2400BC is remarkable - in my humble opinion.
Will the 2013 set of results throw up any new surprises? 
John
Profile
Reply
|
PeteG
Joined:
21-11-2002
Messages: 287
from Avebury
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-10-2012 at 21:25
sorry but you are wrong.
When the BBC tunnel was opened the centre of the hill was found to completely dry.
It was never soaked though with rainwater.
I climbed into the shafts above the main tunnel to the top of Silbury two and it was bone dry.
Some of the Cores taken from the top and the sides were dry.
It is only the main tunnel from top to bottom that Drax dug and the centre of the Atkinson tunnel which were soaked after the collapse of june 2007.
You seem determined to believe that the hill is contaminated when it clearly isn't. If you have a Theory then you should be open to changing it when new evidence comes to light.
You also don't seem to grasp how Radio Carbon Dating actually works!
Do you know Anyone else who believes your idea other than yourself?
Profile
Reply
|
JohnCowie
Joined:
27-02-2008
Messages: 11
from Bradford on Avon
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-10-2012 at 19:32
Chalk provides great drainage to my local golf course so it is very rarely water-logged and it also dries out fairly quickly.
Some chalk is less porous than others, but nevertheless all chalks are porous – they allow water to seep through them!
Walking through the tunnel from the edge to the centre, I found the ground and walls were soaking wet, as also reported in the first paragraph of this article:–
[URL=http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2007/oct/25/heritage.art[/URL]
Wet core samples/dry core samples they are all contaminated. This supposed new evidence that has come to light, provided by the highly dubious science on your side, based on the madcap assumption that Silbury Hill was “never soaked through with water” is incredulous.
Profile
Reply
|
PeteG
Joined:
21-11-2002
Messages: 287
from Avebury
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-10-2012 at 19:59
You seem to be badly informed about what has happened at Silbury both during the restoration and the original excavations.
When you spent a small amount of time in the tunnel on October 2007 the centre of the mound was wet after the June collapse.
The tunnel from the entrance towards the middle of the mound was bone dry.
The 1960s miners report that it was bone dry!
The way the mound was built, with clay cappings, made sure the contents of the primary mound were perfectly preserved.
If rain had got into the mound things like grass and insects would have rotted millennia ago!
They didn't, which proves that the mound was dry.
The way Silbury three was constructed funneled rainwater down the outside.
It's Your theory which is Madcap and Highly Dubious.
I am only reporting back what highly skilled and trained professionals are saying to me.
I've wasted enough time on this already. You can't convince a Believer they are wrong so good luck with your belief (it's not a Theory)
[ This message was edited by: PeteG on 2012-10-05 20:02 ]
[ This message was edited by: PeteG on 2012-10-05 21:58 ]
[ This message was edited by: PeteG on 2012-10-18 16:30 ]
Profile
Reply
|
brigantia
Joined:
13-01-2002
Messages: 804
from Yorkshire & Argyll
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2012 at 00:39
Now come on Pete - get real!
I was talking with Derich von Jerrycan the other week about this, when we were resurfacing bits of the Moon (bloody dusty up there!). Silbury Hill wasn't even made by humans - surely you know this!? What on Earth have you been doing with y'self all these years. Now we know that you've lived round the Silbury/Avebury complex for much of your lilfe - but c'mon mate! Anybody would think that you've been researching the area, going round all the sites for years & years, discovering previously undiscovered sites, visiting them night & day in all weathers so that you know them like the back of yer hand - and you have the audacity to think that they're NOT 10,000 BC in age. Now c'mon Pete. What are you on??? (it was actually built around 250,000 AD (time-travellers), then fell into a wormhole and came out covered in grass & stuff, looking a bit scruffy & all, just before Stukeley & his mates arrived. Seriously! 
And doesn't it look like a UFO from some angles!? Surely that's significant?!! 
Profile
Email
Reply
|
PeteG
Joined:
21-11-2002
Messages: 287
from Avebury
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2012 at 01:08
LOL. It must of been that corn circle I stepped in wot woz on that Ley Line that made me miss the aliens....
Profile
Reply
|
brigantia
Joined:
13-01-2002
Messages: 804
from Yorkshire & Argyll
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2012 at 14:48
Quote:
| On 2012-10-06 01:08, PeteG wrote:
LOL. It must of been that corn circle I stepped in wot woz on that Ley Line that made me miss the aliens.... |
|
Errr, look here.... You'd better not be ripping the piss!! 
Profile
Email
Reply
|
PeteG
Joined:
21-11-2002
Messages: 287
from Avebury
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2012 at 15:16
What Me? Not on such a serious topic.
Whatever next?
"Space Aliens ate my Megaliths?"
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News