| Author |
circle>square |
aknifethatfellfromthesky
Joined:
01-05-2008
Messages: 85
from within and without
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 07-01-2013 at 02:15
stonehenge is a multiphase monument. i believe the four station stones were erected at least a thousands years before the trilithons. the question is, are the two phases linked geometrically or do they just happen to occupy the same ground space and the builders of the trilithons took no regard of the station stones when the final stage was being planned?
Dx
 Profile
 Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 07:57
The Avenue is in contrast to the complete absence (today) of any track on the other solstice lines, or any structure on the lintel ring marking the solstice lines of the right angles. Another right angle should be the Avenue turning SE to the river but this is emphatically absent. The circle and then the horseshoe shape seem to make sure the right angles are unnoticed.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2655
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 10:28
Chimera , square or rectangle , it doesn’t matter , it’s the four right angles that count ,or at least what I was talking about . And none are visually blocked by the monument .
George
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 12:08
But they're not visible either. As Station or solstice there is no shape on the grass nor in any structure. You can only see 4 stones or 1 sun.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2655
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 12:30
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-07 12:08, chimera wrote:
But they're not visible either. ......You can only see 4 stones or 1 sun.
|
|
??
Stones 91 and 93 are still standing , the mounds (north and south “barrows “ ) that held stones 92 and 94 are still evident .We can still stand at the point where the stones had stood and see the those that remain but more importantly at the time when the sarsen structure etc was built all the stones would have been intervisible except across the diagonals .
george
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2655
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 14:12
Dowser , I wasn’t talking about marks on megaliths ,which may or may not be astronomically based symbols , but the architecture of major monuments including the most iconic in prehistory i.e. Stonehenge and the Pyramids .
The evidence for an astronomical association related to the architecture is clear to archaeologists , astronomers , builders and anyone with an interest in the subject . This evidence is empirically based with multiple repeatable measurements and if necessary basic visual confirmation . The all important intention of the builders is always debateable but in both cases the general consensus based on the evidence is supportive of a positive intention . This contrasts with your subjective experience ,where the fact that your dowsing rods moved in a particular manner at some prehistoric sites led you to believe that this explains the reason for the architecture or placement of these sites ,that is a belief not evidence .
George
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5549
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 20:37
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-07 14:12, tiompan wrote:
Dowser , I wasn’t talking about marks on megaliths ,which may or may not be astronomically based symbols , but the architecture of major monuments including the most iconic in prehistory i.e. Stonehenge and the Pyramids .
The evidence for an astronomical association related to the architecture is clear to archaeologists , astronomers , builders and anyone with an interest in the subject . This evidence is empirically based with multiple repeatable measurements and if necessary basic visual confirmation . The all important intention of the builders is always debateable but in both cases the general consensus based on the evidence is supportive of a positive intention . This contrasts with your subjective experience ,where the fact that your dowsing rods moved in a particular manner at some prehistoric sites led you to believe that this explains the reason for the architecture or placement of these sites ,that is a belief not evidence .
George
|
|
I need a bucket.
Sick bucket.
You can bury anywhere.
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 21:07
"it’s the four right angles that count ,or at least what I was talking about . "
The 4 distant stones are visible, the right angles aren't. Telephone poles may relate to a mental angle but all you see are three poles. Stone axes probably formed a right angle with the handle but it's not the point, you see.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2655
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 22:12
It's not a case of seeing the right angles . It's the point that the lunar and solar alignments are at right angles to each other .
Profile
Reply
|
Dowser
Joined:
06-12-2008
Messages: 979
from North-East Poland
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 22:44
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-07 14:12, tiompan wrote:
Dowser , I wasn’t talking about marks on megaliths ,which may or may not be astronomically based symbols , but the architecture of major monuments including the most iconic in prehistory i.e. Stonehenge and the Pyramids .
The evidence for an astronomical association related to the architecture is clear to archaeologists , astronomers , builders and anyone with an interest in the subject . This evidence is empirically based with multiple repeatable measurements and if necessary basic visual confirmation . The all important intention of the builders is always debateable but in both cases the general consensus based on the evidence is supportive of a positive intention . This contrasts with your subjective experience ,where the fact that your dowsing rods moved in a particular manner at some prehistoric sites led you to believe that this explains the reason for the architecture or placement of these sites ,that is a belief not evidence .
George
|
|
George,I can't answer you now,too late and tomorrow early morning start great hunting here
,three days,ugh...Something interesting :http://www.exploratorium.edu/ancientobs/chichen/HTML/alignments-caracol-bldg.html
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 22:55
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-07 22:12, tiompan wrote:
It's not a case of seeing the right angles . It's the point that the lunar and solar alignments are at right angles to each other .
|
|
Cars have horse-power but horses aren't built into them .
[Enzo Ferrari told the story of the prancing horse logo just once:
The horse was painted on the fuselage of the fighter plane of Francesco Baracca — a heroic airman of the first world war. In ’23, I met count Enrico Baracca, the hero’s father, and then his mother, countess Paulina, who said to me one day, ‘Ferrari, put my son’s prancing horse on your cars. It will bring you good luck’.]
This derives from the sun-gods who drove chariots in the sky and SH has a horse-shoe. The contract was to build circles which is why you see stone and earth circles.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2655
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 23:35
No prob Dowser . The Caracol is very contentious and has split the archaeoastronomy community pretty evenly re. intentionality .
George
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-07 22:44, Dowser wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-07 14:12, tiompan wrote:
Dowser , I wasn’t talking about marks on megaliths ,which may or may not be astronomically based symbols , but the architecture of major monuments including the most iconic in prehistory i.e. Stonehenge and the Pyramids .
The evidence for an astronomical association related to the architecture is clear to archaeologists , astronomers , builders and anyone with an interest in the subject . This evidence is empirically based with multiple repeatable measurements and if necessary basic visual confirmation . The all important intention of the builders is always debateable but in both cases the general consensus based on the evidence is supportive of a positive intention . This contrasts with your subjective experience ,where the fact that your dowsing rods moved in a particular manner at some prehistoric sites led you to believe that this explains the reason for the architecture or placement of these sites ,that is a belief not evidence .
George
|
|
George,I can't answer you now,too late and tomorrow early morning start great hunting here
,three days,ugh...Something interesting :http://www.exploratorium.edu/ancientobs/chichen/HTML/alignments-caracol-bldg.html
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1710
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 00:34
Hi George
Now we have an acceptance that the station stones are at right angles to each other and thus form a rectangle, have you any comment on - that by using a diagonal line between two opposite corners you get a 5:12:13 ratio (or 40:96:104 megalithic yards), a Pythagorean triangle.
Cheers
Sem
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 02:16
Hi sem,
We have Station stones of 3metres width in a length of 40 metres making 7.5% solidity, and 3metres width in 100 metres at 3%.
SH has 2 metres width of uprights to 1.5 metres gap, or 60% of stone to built distance, and 100% lintels to distance.
A building of 7.5% solidity is a bit sparse and needs its invisible right angle to be carried 30 metres inwards to make another invisible square around SH.
Even the Avenue gets a couple of ditches to mark its reality, but not the SH square.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2655
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 12:25
Hi Sem , the rectangle was never a problem for me , although , whether the lunar alignment was a fortuitous consequence of the latitude rather than the latitude being the reason for siting the monument is debatable , and if pushed I would opt for the former .
True , the rectangle provides a ratio of 5:12 and if the diagonals are included , although possibly only ever visible between the points for a short time , we get a Pythagorean 5:12:13 .
I don’t accept the MY , it has too many problems and the evidence for , refuted a long time ago .
Treating the station stones as a special case , then the problem has to be accuracy . We are dealing with two remaining stones and two stone sockets . S91 has fallen and the stone hole is 2.1 m wide , the stone hole for S92 =2.3 m ( the socket for S 94 is similar but excavation was never completed due to proximity to AH 46 ) Where do we measure from to obtain any kind of accuracy when an MY = 0.829 m ?
George
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-08 00:34, sem wrote:
Hi George
Now we have an acceptance that the station stones are at right angles to each other and thus form a rectangle, have you any comment on - that by using a diagonal line between two opposite corners you get a 5:12:13 ratio (or 40:96:104 megalithic yards), a Pythagorean triangle.
Cheers
Sem
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 13:00
A megalith has to be unsuitable for defining a maths measurement. As are earth banks that contain the geometry which is disguised by SH across the middle.
Profile
Reply
|
Dowser
Joined:
06-12-2008
Messages: 979
from North-East Poland
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 22:20
[quote]
On 2013-01-07 23:35, tiompan wrote:
No prob Dowser . The Caracol is very contentious and has split the archaeoastronomy community pretty evenly re. intentionality .
George
[quote]
On 2013-01-07 22:44, Dowser wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-01-07 14:12, tiompan wrote:
Dowser , I wasn’t talking about marks on megaliths ,which may or may not be astronomically based symbols , but the architecture of major monuments including the most iconic in prehistory i.e. Stonehenge and the Pyramids .
The evidence for an astronomical association related to the architecture is clear to archaeologists , astronomers , builders and anyone with an interest in the subject . This evidence is empirically based with multiple repeatable measurements and if necessary basic visual confirmation . The all important intention of the builders is always debateable but in both cases the general consensus based on the evidence is supportive of a positive intention . This contrasts with your subjective experience ,where the fact that your dowsing rods moved in a particular manner at some prehistoric sites led you to believe that this explains the reason for the architecture or placement of these sites ,that is a belief not evidence .
George
George, what is the accuracy of the angle reading in such a "observatory?. 1 degree error in angle reading results + / - 2days in the determination of the time ......Was SH observatory,really?
Profile
Reply
|
Dowser
Joined:
06-12-2008
Messages: 979
from North-East Poland
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 22:27
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-07 02:11, chimera wrote:
"And simple egyptians were workers,not a constructors.What global society knew about technology of production of bomb A in 1944 y.?There was none public information about it."
But there's kilometres and megalometres of Egyptian writing and coloured pictures showing what gods do in a day's work and the boats that travel the sky and the sun's force field. Pharaohs and priests raise their hands and none are dowsing.
|
|
....none are dowsing...Chimere what it is- "ankh"?
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-01-2013 at 22:50
Ankh is a vegetable and garlic grinder.
Ankh is the bath-plug for pharaoh's hot-garlic and marijuana bathtub.
Ankh is held vertically because it's solid copper and too heavy to hold out sideways and is the wrong shape to swing for dowsing.
However the Nile valley is a force field line which is why the river flows exactly along that course.
And Durrington has many square houses so they could have built square megaliths at SH. They didn't.
[ This message was edited by: chimera on 2013-01-08 22:55 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-01-2013 at 08:20
Quote:
| whether the lunar alignment was a fortuitous consequence of the latitude rather than the latitude being the reason for siting the monument is debatable , and if pushed I would opt for the former . |
|
Hey George! Is this a back door way of saying there might be something to it?
Profile
Reply
|
Main News