Featured: Ark of Secrets - Neolithic spirit alive in the Middle Ages

Ark of Secrets - Neolithic spirit alive in the Middle Ages

Random Image


Flower's Barrow

Megalithomania by John Michell, Only £4.99 + P&P

Megalithomania by John Michell, Only £4.99 + P&P

Who's Online

There are currently, 382 guests and 3 members online.

You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here

Sponsors

Moderated by : davidmorgan , Andy B , Klingon , bat400 , sem , Runemage , TheCaptain

The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >> Sacred Sites and Megalithic Mysteries >> Neo-Geocentrism & Stonehenge
New  Reply
Page 1 of 2 ( 1 | 2 )
AuthorNeo-Geocentrism & Stonehenge
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 25-01-2015 at 10:04   
Variety Magazine have reviewed The Principle. This is a documentary film that, from the review, appears to promote modern day 'neo-geocentrism'. It also uses Stonehenge to illustrate how our ancestors perceived the cosmos:

Quote:
'For most of its first hour, “The Principle” offers a fairly straightforward history of cosmological thought, stretching from Ptolemy to Tycho, Copernicus to Einstein.'



Variety seem to accept the Geocentric explanation for Stonehenge (despite the producer telling me that this was one of the biggest risks that they took with the film).

Variety review of The Principle

So far, the Stonehenge connection just seems to be accepted by all reviewers without comment. Thought they did Stonehenge very well myself. I still haven't actually seen anything other than excepts yet but am told I'm in the credits (for the Stonehenge section) at the end of the film.


Jon

[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2015-01-25 10:05 ]




 Profile  Email   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 29-01-2015 at 08:34   
Here's another one. Los Angeles Times weighs in:

Los Angeles Times review of The Principle

Quote:
"A quarter of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. That appalling statistic would suggest there is a large potential audience for The Principle..."



Stonehenge doesn't get a mention (again), despite having by far the largest audience reaction (the segment seems to have a 300% higher rating than any other part of the film). Until I came across Stonehenge, I didn't even know what Geocentrism was. Funny old world.


Jon





 Profile  Email   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 30-01-2015 at 11:46   
The follow up to this review might go into more detail on Stonehenge:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-principle-a-movie-review.

The "Big Question":

Are you dissociating yourself from this movie?




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 30-01-2015 at 20:09   
Hi Orpbit

Quote:
Are you dissociating yourself from this movie?



Almost certainly not. There are two possibilities here:

1) The movie makers are real life Geocentrists of the type portrayed in some of the reviews. Those movie makers, if real Geocentrists, were very quick to understand the Geocentric model of the Universe that Stonehenge presents. I haven't seen the film but real geocentrists agreeing with the Geocentric theory of Stonehenge and then making a movie that uses Stonehenge to illustrate how the geocentric model works isn't something that I would necessarily want to dissociate from.

2) The movie makers are real movie makers (as in the CVs of the majority of people who produced it). In this circumstance, I really can't see a reason to dissociate from it.


Having said that, I haven't seen it yet. It does seem that some of the bad reviews are starting to get retracted so will be interesting to see what happens next.

There's a huge irony in all of the above if the Geocentric theory of Stonehenge becomes accepted. I don't think the interest is there (at the moment) to justify bringing any of it forwards though.


Jon





 Profile  Email   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 31-01-2015 at 17:51   
Going back to this Orpbit: The more I think about it, the more I wonder what you are asking:

Quote:
Are you dissociating yourself from this movie?



Let's say that the people who made the movie are Bible thumping geocentrists who insist that the Bible is literally correct and that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe (geocentric).

My work on Stonehenge shows that it could have been used, as an early scientific device, to show people how to understand the movement of the heavens about the Earth: It does this both using the layout of the grounds and also using the mechanism within the stones themselves. (anyone new to this, see stonehinge.co.uk)

The part of the movie concerning Stonehenge uses it (Stonehenge) as a device to illustrate how the ancients came to the conclusion that the World was fixed. There is no dispute that the ancients did see the Universe as geocentric: This is well known and highly documented

On what possible grounds do you think that the movie could be dissociated from?





 Profile  Email   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 31-01-2015 at 18:34   
Quote:
Going back to this Orpbit: The more I think about it, the more I wonder what you are asking:



I have a copy of your book - Kindle version.

I was just wondering whether you were of the view that arguing that the Earth is at the centre of all things physically, in the light of overwhelming evidence that it is not, is something that you wish to associate yourself with.

Arguing that the builders of Stonehenge were of that view is one thing, although it is clearly not well documented, nor "well known". Nothing is "well known" about Stonehenge. So I read your evidence with a totally open mind as a well reasoned presentation as one hypothesis among many. Stonehenge is clearly outside of recorded history.

However, as I haven't seen the movie, I can only conclude from the balance of the reviews, that the film makers used any evidence available to misleadingly push their view that the Earth is indeed at the centre. I can only assume that you have been "used", and was wondering therefore whether you agree that this is the case, and whether you are happy with that. Others clearly aren't.

Your first response appears to be the answer that I was looking for - in short, at this stage no one has disagreed with the Stonehenge part, and therefore we need to wait and see what develops.

Have you had any scholarly response to your book, indeed any response from the "alternative" camp also, such as the Robin Heath category of authors?

Richard

[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2015-01-31 18:38 ]




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 01-02-2015 at 08:30   
Hi Richard

Ah; I see: No, I wouldn't argue for that position.

Thanks for taking the time to read the book. I haven't seen the film but, to my knowledge, they haven't misrepresented the 'Geocentric' theory or tried to imply something else as a consequence of the theory. So it is difficult to see a circumstance in which I would have anything to be upset about.

There seems to be a general call for anyone whose work was used by them to disavow the film without actually seeing it. Though I don't generally have much sympathy for the type of religious view that some reviewers say the film promotes, it seem to me that their opponents may be stepping over the line with the latest accusations (link here). A case of wait and see?

As it happens, anyone trying to associate Stonehenge with the type of modern religious interpretation hinted at in some of the reviews would find that they have introduced a Trojan Horse into their camp: A gift to their opponents. The reason for this is not something I've shared widely as I don't see the point in courting controversy (and I haven't had the time to compile some of the additional evidence found since writing the book). So all in all I'm very relaxed about it.


Quote:
Have you had any scholarly response to your book, indeed any response from the "alternative" camp also, such as the Robin Heath category of authors?



Some authors I have a response from. The responses fall into two categories:

1) Some authors have written to agree that Stonehenge was a Geocentric model, though with some reservations. Of the 'big hitter' authors, only Prof Tim Darvill has responded.
2) The majority have made no comment at all that I am aware of.

I don't think I tried to contact Robin Heath for his views as, from memory, I don't have any of his books. As a rule, I've only read Stonehenge books if the content could help to disprove my own theory. And I've generally only contacted authors after I've read their books.

Thanks again for taking the time to read the book!


Jon





 Profile  Email   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 02-02-2015 at 18:38   
Quote:
Have you had any scholarly response to your book, indeed any response from the "alternative" camp also, such as the Robin Heath category of authors?



Thinking about it, Brian John didn't like it. But, having said that, I sent him the first edition (before it got all the additional material put in)

Here's his review:

http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/new-stonehenge-book.html


PS just been reminded of another: A chap called Tom Flowers (aka "Professor Thom" according to his moniker). Don't remember what he said though.

[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2015-02-04 06:47 ]




 Profile  Email   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 04-02-2015 at 22:40   
Thanks Jon for your response. Been particularly busy over the last couple of days, so replying to emails has been a bit difficult - not the least, having also been provisionally invited to give a public talk on archaeoastronomy and the use of Stellarium later this year, at a well known venue. An opportunity I don't want to miss, and so keeping my fingers crossed it will be confirmed!

Perhaps you are aware of a new journal coming out as from March this year. It's titled "Journal of Skyscape Archaeology" and there is a call for papers for consideration as potential articles for the next edition in September. Closing date is end of this month. The link is:

http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/JSA/index

There is a blind peer review option, so that any submission will be entirely judged on its merits, irrespective of status or academic background of the author. Thought you might be interested, and there are also options for research/hypotheses already published.

In the meantime, I will follow up the reviews you refer to.

Cheers,

Richard



[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2015-02-04 22:40 ]




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 06-02-2015 at 10:15   
Good luck with the talk Richard: What you're up to sounds seriously interesting.

I wasn't aware of the new Journal but will contact them so see if they are interested. I noticed that the one of the editors is at UCL. I'm often in that vicinity as I do quite a bit of work on the investigation of structures that UCL own (nothing to do with archaeology as such). It would be interesting to produce something for/with them that is a lot older than the norm!

Cheers,


Jon




 Profile  Email   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 18-02-2015 at 12:20   
Contacted the journal you mentioned but not sure if the highlighting of atypical construction details would really be their sort of thing. Wait and see I guess.

Atypical construction details are things in the built environment that stand out as unnecessary for 'normal' construction. They usually point to either a specific customised usage or a folly type of construction. This was where the geocentric hypothesis started: Stonehenge happens to contain a lot of atypical details all of which also happen to be specific requirements of a geocentric system. Whilst some of the anomalies in other monuments appear to suggest geocentrism, the rest appear to be about a related phenomena.

Assuming that this is all a bit too multi-disciplinary for the way things are done at the moment, I've been thinking about how to set up a useful archive this stuff: I've had a moment to go through all the potential 'papers' that could have been produced and reckon there are about 20-30.

But papers highlighting the construction anomalies in Neolithic constructions are a very time-consuming and somewhat unrewarding thing to do. At the moment, the record (of anomalies in monuments that display these characteristics) exist in an engineering format. The current format would be too difficult for future researchers to get to grips with even if they had the software necessary.

So any thoughts from the forum on archiving would be very welcome.






 Profile  Email   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 05-03-2015 at 19:27   
Forgot to mention where this got to:

The journal does seem interested if re-done academically, so am planning to go for the next submission (Feb 2016 or 2017) with the aim of publishing the first one before the end of 2017

I reckon that the whole geocentric thing can be condensed into about 12 academic papers, so a paper every one or two years might work if the first one gets off the ground. So plan to start with Newgrange (that's already on the forum somewhere but done for a lay audience) and then work through the rest, probably finishing with Stonehenge phases 1 though 3 (3 and a small part of 2 are somewhere on the forum)

Cheers

Jon




 Profile  Email   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 08-03-2015 at 11:36   
Hello Jon,

Thanks for the update. Apologies for not keeping up with the Forum recently - urgent life issues (nothing of life-threatening - indeed any medical - seriousness, so as not to mislead!) which will continue for a few weeks yet on the one hand, and a difficult quandary I'm in regarding the issue of the tunnel under Stonehenge, on the other (a quick note in Andy's thread, on signing the petition against, to be posted after this).

Very interesting bit you state:
Quote:
The journal does seem interested if re-done academically



I'm speculating as to exactly what that means - can you help by elaborating a bit more on this? Not necessarily in open forum if issues dictate, but I'm interested as I might have similar issues to deal with in due course.

As to archiving "atypical construction", clearly the details are in your hands and I assume the "papers" you refer to are those potentially coming out of your research specifically, rather than the wider context of an archive including papers to be found published by other authors dating back to whatever timescale you have in mind?

I suppose a starter would be a list of categories of "atypical construction", each with a short supplement of bullet points. My own particular research objectives do not go into construction except in a peripheral way, although any conclusions reached by other researchers relating to a whole range of scientific issues such as geocentric influence, astronomy, geodesy, and various combinations of geometry, maths and number, indeed are of interest to me.

Your timescale for the dozen or so looks interesting, bearing in mind the "academic" processes of peer review and range of appropriate journals to publish in. Also, preparing these papers for such more rigid scenarios is also time consuming, as you say, but I'm not sure about "unrewarding". I have been facing the same problem since roughly 2006 when my interest in archaeoastronomy first started and quickly developed into a passion, so-to-speak! At least I now have a strategy for publishing, which unfortunately,is being slightly interrupted by the tunneling issue mentioned above. Whether or not I will gain any "rewards" (financial ones are the least of any expectations!) remains to be seen - it's dangerous to prejudge.

I empathise entirely with your comments and wish you good luck in dealing with the issues to meet your own personal circumstances. I thought that entering into my retirement years would help, but the reality is that the initial few months have been more of a hindrance - such is life!

Cheers,

Richard




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 10-03-2015 at 07:41   
Apologies for not explaining it well: Yes, it's multiple new hypotheses all stemming from the work

Re-doing it academically means that papers have to be written to work in 'archaeo-academic' style. Doing the explanations using an 'engineering' style of academic writing is rewarding and enjoyable but trying to shoe-horn reasonably tasking engineering explanations into the required archaeo-academic style will, on reflection, be difficult work.

Doing all these as academic papers is probably overly optimistic in the time-scale. I'm a couple of decades or so away from retirement & no real plans to give up working. Not encouraging to hear that you're up to your eyes in it!


Happy to discuss my experience of the publication mechanics privately if it's of any help.

Cheers

Jon





 Profile  Email   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 11-03-2015 at 10:19   
Thanks Jon,

That clarifies the current status on this matter. Also thanks for the offer of further discussion. I won't trouble you with that at the moment, not at least until my current priorities are out of the way, which as I indicated, could be a while yet.

Good luck with your researches and any further publications that you might have in mind.

cheers,

Richard




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 21-03-2015 at 09:31   
Quote:
Good luck with your researches and any further publications that you might have in mind.



Thanks Richard

Another way of making a long term 'peer reviewed' archive is to patent the methodology of each type and then cross-reference the design features to the atypical details found in each individual monument: The methodology must be proven to work, so it's one of the most reliable sources from the point of view of a researcher. Another big plus is that it's very cost effective by comparison to trying to publish via peer review from outside the academic system.

For a test, and a bit of fun, I took out a couple of patent applications on some of this. The 'wait and see if anyone objects that it's been done before' period (3 years) is now nearly up so it'll be interesting to see what the examiner makes of it given how similar it looks to Stonehenge.

If I manage to patent it, I thought it might be fun to set up all the old apparatus in the 'Stonehenge configuration' and have a BBQ megalithic Party (we have the space to set up the apparatus in the new garden). But the 'glitterball' would definitely be visible to drivers going west on the A27 so that might be a potential problem with using my garden.

Jon




 Profile  Email   Reply
cerrig



Joined:
25-09-2009


Messages: 2803
from Brecon Beacons

OFF-Line

 Posted 24-03-2015 at 16:10   

Saw this and thought you might find it interesting Jon.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 24-03-2015 at 17:33   
Thanks Cerrig

Neat graphics! Really neat graphics. Shame that the terminology they've used to describe this frame of reference is incorrect (vortexes occur in fluids). Also saying that the heliocentric model is wrong because their helical/vortex model is 'right' makes just about as much sense as claims for the geocentric model.

Also looked at part 2; from a first-pass glance looks as if there are some technical errors in that (not just terminology). However.. really well made (apart from the vortex and flower thing) and nice music. Wasn't really sure what the point of it all was.

Jon





 Profile  Email   Reply
davidmorgan



Joined:
23-11-2006


Messages: 3090
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 24-03-2015 at 21:38   
That video makes the solar system appear to be going upwards. It should be going sideways...

"Our solar system is hurtling through space while angled nearly perpendicular to the plane of the Milky Way, new computer models suggest.

"It's almost like we're sailing through the galaxy sideways," said study team leader Merav Opher, an astrophysicist at George Mason University in Virginia."
http://www.space.com




 Profile   Reply
Andy B



Joined:
13-02-2001


Messages: 12276
from Surrey, UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 25-03-2015 at 13:09   
Jon, in the US the term vortexes is used as people in the UK might talk about energy lines or ley lines. (the metaphysical sort rather than purely physical alignments)

They are considered in the same way as chakras are to the human body.

http://www.ofspiritandsoul.com/earth%20vortices/vortices.html

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/anna_jones1/vortexes.html

(not my sort of thing but stuff you pick up in this malarky)




 Profile  Email   Reply
Go to Page: 1 | 2
New  Reply
Jump To

Sponsors