Featured: Hare and Tabor T Shirts for discerning antiquarians

Hare and Tabor T Shirts for discerning antiquarians

Random Image


Merrivale Centre N

Sacred Stones in Indian Civilization: with Special Reference to Megaliths

Sacred Stones in Indian Civilization: with Special Reference to Megaliths

Who's Online

There are currently, 481 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 >> The HSMF (Harris and Stockdale Megalithic Foot) - proposed measurement for Megalithic Architecture
New  Reply
Page 46 of 83 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 )
AuthorThe HSMF (Harris and Stockdale Megalithic Foot) - proposed measurement for Megalithic Architecture
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 01-12-2017 at 00:19   
Academia.edu

"Validation of the HSMF" discussion

30-day Document Views
+ 8,700%

30-day Unique Visitors
+ 2,133%

15 days still left if anyone would like to join the discussion.






 Profile   Reply
davidmorgan



Joined:
23-11-2006


Messages: 3090
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 01-12-2017 at 13:02   
Those are meaningless statistics. All they show is that the number of original viewers was divisible by 3.




 Profile   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 01-12-2017 at 16:58   
David. The statistics you should be focussing on are the ones in my book, "Astronomy and Measurement in Megalithic Architecture!"

The only reason I posted those figures from Academia is to show how the interest has grown in my recently published paper, "Validation of the HSMF and Stonehenge.," and to encourage others on the Portal to consider Academia as another forum for publicising their work.

As regards statistics nearly 36,000 visits have been made to the HSMF thread on the Portal and there have been 900 posts.

Academia.edu

30-day Profile Views
26 + 2,500%
30-day Document Views
291 + 9,600%
30-day Unique Visitors
69 + 2,200%



[ This message was edited by: STOCKDALE on 2017-12-02 15:57 ]

[ This message was edited by: STOCKDALE on 2017-12-03 09:46 ]




 Profile   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 27-12-2017 at 07:00   
Thanks to Bill Wilkinson for this information.


If one treated the Stonehenge to The Sanctuary measurement as (not centre to centre) 84853 ft (Harris Stockdale Megalithic Foot x 72000) a triangle can be made.

The Sanctuary to Woodhenge = 81600 ft
Woodhenge to Stonehenge = 10036.224 ft
Stonehenge to The Sanctuary = 84852 ft




 Profile   Reply
sem



Joined:
12-11-2003


Messages: 2806
from Bridgend,S.Wales

OFF-Line

 Posted 27-12-2017 at 23:53   
Quote Stockdale "As regards statistics nearly 36,000 visits have been made to the HSMF thread on the Portal and there have been 900 posts."
Put like that it sounds pretty impressive, but.....
1) I'm willing to guess that most of the 900 posts came from 3 or 4 people. Could you give us any statistics from the database AndyB?
2) This thread was first posted in Jan 2016. A quick check on youtube shows over 28million hits during the same time period for various videos.
I'm not denigrating anything Stockdale says but statistics have to be taken in context.







 Profile   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 28-12-2017 at 18:33   
Sem. As a moderator of this site I would have expected fair but objective criticism from you. Factual and objective to be more precise even if critical.

Within 2 days of this thread being created as only the 4th person to post you said after criticising my research source that:

"I stand ready to be corrected if any of my information is wrong but am at a loss to see how using these measurements a very precise figure of 35.9195cms for a MF can be arrived at."

Now over 900 posts later and nearly 2 years on we have your latest post:

"I'm willing to guess that most of the 900 posts came from 3 or 4 people. Could you give us any statistics from the database AndyB?"

For what purpose are you doing this Sem? What does any of this add to the credibility or validity of my arguments for the use of the HSMF?

The number of visits to this thread are factual and objective. And if you really wanted to know how many different people had posted on this thread you only have to look back and count them as you are fully aware.

Sorry Sem, I cannot help but sniff the smell of someone trying to find yet another way to denigrate myself and this thread. As a moderator you should be above this.




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 28-12-2017 at 20:12   
Quote:
Sorry Sem, I cannot help but sniff the smell of someone trying to find yet another way to denigrate myself and this thread. As a moderator you should be above this.


Good grief.


A few weeks ago (16-11-2017 at 12:31), you promised the forum that:

Quote:
“after a great deal of thought I have decided to end all connections with this HSMF thread and the Megalithic Portal....”


When will this happen STOCKDALE?





 Profile  Email   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 28-12-2017 at 22:04   
It is becoming so, so predictable Jonm! In comes a criticism of me on this thread and then you follow.

Rather than debate my ideas, my research, my evidence, that is being widely discussed on other websites, on Academia, and is being widely read on the Portal in the form of other papers I have written, you continue this personal baiting of me.

I will leave this Portal thread when I choose, not at your convenience. The fact is that I had fully intended to leave but with the number of visitors to this thread now passing 37,000 there are still clearly people who would like to consider rationally my proposals. Some of this increase being generated by new and recent discussions on Academia.

Additionally Bill Wilkinson`s new book gives a direct, up to date link to this thread and I think people who pursue this deserve to see allegations rebuffed or challenged that are aimed at me personally or seek to undermine my integrity.

You have had, as have my other detractors, two years to take my research evidence to pieces and my conclusions. So I offer you this opportunity. Spell out your criticisms of my research and my HSMF proposals, leave the personal asides out and tell us about your theories, which thread is dedicated to your book and how many visitors and posts you have had. Let's debate the issues. Basically put up ideas and evidence or please just keep quiet.


[ This message was edited by: STOCKDALE on 2017-12-28 23:53 ]

[ This message was edited by: STOCKDALE on 2017-12-28 23:55 ]




 Profile   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 28-12-2017 at 22:20   
Here you are Jonm a bit of publicity for your book. Clearly you are a good imaginative novelist!

"Stonehenge - an introduction to the concept of the Heavens’ Hinge
Jon needs no introduction to those MegP readers who frequent the forum pages here - his theories will be quite well known if you do.

For those unfamiliar with the background, a while ago Jon wrote an adventure novel set in the Neolithic, entitled “The Broken Stone: and the secret of the Heavens’ Henge.” This novel was written after the author was carrying out a research project into a renewable energy device using a rotating solar collector and he realised that Stonehenge was a perfect fit for all the features of his invention. This publication is in essence the science behind the novel plus some more up to date research.

The book is in six parts.

The first part is by far the largest section of the book and in it Jon seeks to show that with the aid of some wooden poles, rope and polished tin mirrors, Stonehenge’s plan layout could have been used as an idealised geocentric description of the Universe."

The Way of Serenity: Finding Peace and Happiness in the Serenity Prayer https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00H7LT67S/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_taa_B.yrAbG2YEV9N by Father Jonathan Morris


[ This message was edited by: STOCKDALE on 2017-12-29 00:48 ]




 Profile   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 29-12-2017 at 09:36   
There has been speculation on this and other threads at a possible linkage of use with both the Imperial Foot, Thom`s MY and our own proposed HSMF.

These are Bill Wilkinson`s recent measurements:

If one treated the Stonehenge to The Sanctuary measurement as (not centre to centre) 84853 ft (Harris Stockdale Megalithic Foot x 72000) a triangle can be made.

The Sanctuary to Woodhenge = 81600 ft
Woodhenge to Stonehenge = 10036.224 ft
Stonehenge to The Sanctuary = 84852 ft

In other words the Sanctuary to Woodhenge = 2.72 feet (Thom`s MY) x 3000
Stonehenge to The Sanctuary = 72000 HSMF

Which leaves the 10036.234 ft or 8516 HSMF Woodhenge to Stonehenge.

Bill Wilkinson suggests the following possibility:

Woodhenge to Stonehenge 10036.224 ft or the Long Yard of (3 x 1.056 ft the Long Foot) 3.168 x 3168.

Interesting!

[ This message was edited by: STOCKDALE on 2017-12-29 09:42 ]




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 29-12-2017 at 09:56   
Quote:
I will leave this Portal thread when I choose, not at your convenience.


I'm getting the feeling that you're not going to end all connections with the HSMF thread and the Megalithic Portal after all?


Thanks for mentioning the novel. Unfortunately the link you've given is to Father Jonathan Morris's book: Nice chap who lives in the US. We've talked about meeting up if either of us ever gets to the other's country. We've also had a bit of joking correspondence about the name thing so easy mistake to make.

Here's a link to the novel:
The Broken Stone and the Secret of the Heavens' Henge
Available at all good bookshops.







 Profile  Email   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 29-12-2017 at 13:26   
Jonm. As long as there is still genuine interest in the HSMF on the Portal I will continue to be active and post comments.
If the moderators ensure that this thread is used correctly, ie to discuss the HSMF, its validity and other related issues, then again I have no problems.
But ideally moderators should not be required.
Common sense surely says that if people want to ask or make personal remarks then they should contact me by private message.
And for general comments about the relevance of comments on the Portal and the Portal as a project in relation to other social media, (as raised by Sem), I would suggest start a new discussion topic thread.

Ps I have more going on in my life than to count the various individuals who have contributed on this thread but as regards Sem`s comments re it being predominantly 3 or 4 people posting. Does it make any difference if it is only a few people sharing and debating ideas in effectively such a small minority interest? Clearly people are still visiting the thread on a regular basis and to be honest, and I don't know how Andyb views it, but I am absolutely astounded that this is still the case.
For me, and hopefully the Portal as well, a great success!

[ This message was edited by: STOCKDALE on 2017-12-30 08:55 ]




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 30-12-2017 at 08:43   
Quote:
Sem`s comments about it being only 3 or 4 people is clearly nonsense!


It's usually best to try to avoid re-wording what someone else has said so that their statements appear to be nonsense: It gives the impression that your arguments are so weak that you have to resort to using Straw Man Arguments. This probably isn't the impression you want to give. Here's a link describing what that means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man




 Profile  Email   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 30-12-2017 at 09:30   
Point taken Jon!

This is what Sem wrote, " I'm willing to guess that most of the 900 posts came from 3 or 4 people. Could you give us any statistics from the database AndyB?
2) This thread was first posted in Jan 2016. A quick check on youtube shows over 28million hits during the same time period for various videos.
I'm not denigrating anything Stockdale says but statistics have to be taken in context."

Yes it predominantly was myself, Richard, and DavidK who posted on this thread. But it would be unfair to not acknowledge that a question or point raised from Cerrig, Kevin, yourself or Andy B, David Morgan, Feanor, Timothy, Wilko, and others, set the discussion off in differing directions for us to consider in relationship to the HSMF.

But does it make any difference to the validity of this thread who posted how many times? That is my main point. I would suggest clearly not with the numbers of people still visiting this thread.

And to take these matters in context means comparing this thread against similar threads on the Portal, not You Tube.

Over 37000 visits to this thread in the last two years I would say makes the HSMF thread stand up there as one of the most popular Portal threads both in volume of viewers and people posting over that time span.

And in that context I would have thought that Sem or AndyB ( who created this thread) would have thought it a tremendous success.





 Profile   Reply
cerrig



Joined:
25-09-2009


Messages: 2804
from Brecon Beacons

OFF-Line

 Posted 30-12-2017 at 09:59   
The 37000 visits statistic is a bit misleading because it doesn't refer to how many people viewed the thread, just the number of views. The 37000 views could theoretically be made by very few people or thousands of people, we don't know. This figure doesn't, in itself, doesn't validate anything but the popularity of the Portal.

Perhaps, Peter, you could move this debate away from meaningless statistics and get the thread back on track by discussing the HSMF itself. If it is a genuine measurement unit it really doesn't matter how popular or not it is.

Maybe you could inform us of any developments that came from Academia for further discussions here?

cerrig




 Profile   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 30-12-2017 at 15:05   
Cerrig.

I never thought I would say this but thank you, thank you, thank you!
At last someone actually raises the idea of discussing the HSMF on the HSMF thread!!!

This as you will see over the months passed, is all I have wanted to use this thread for but unfortunately I have felt it necessary to spend time defending or justifying my personal actions or motives and wasting time on other such side issues.

All that matters to me is the central question, did Megalithic designers use a measurement I have propose be called the Harris and Stockdale Megalithic Foot, the HSMF of 14.142 inches and/or the Harris and Stockdale Megalithic Inch, 56 equal parts of the HSMF?

I have to say I miss the input of Richard and DavidK, not only because of their total support for the HSMF but also because their ideas re other Megalithic measurements, was completely new to me. They made me have to reassess my thoughts particularly re Thom`s MY and the Imperial Foot.

It was from collecting all the various positive comments re the HSMF from a variety of people from a variety of differing backgrounds and perspectives, that stimulated me to collate this evidence and use it to form the core of my latest paper.

What was new about this evidence though was that it came predominantly from people involved in Metrology, whereas our book and conclusions were drawn from " in the field" research done by Norman Stockdale and myself over 40 years.

However it was this paper, "Validation of the HSMF" (still available on the Portal) that I uploaded onto the Academia website for discussion.

I will need to recheck a couple of things on the Academia website as the 42 days discussion has now ended but I will pass on as best as possible the gist of the discussion and developments.

Please be aware that it may be only a flavour of the discussions as without express permission from the other participants, I will have to respect that their views and identities were given in confidence.






 Profile   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 30-12-2017 at 17:50   
This is a very brief summation of the Academia discussion on my recent paper, "A New Interpretation and Validation of the HSMF."

For a fuller picture my previous posts on the Portal need to be read.
Also for ease of vocabulary I will call these new readers of the paper on Academia, "academics."

Over 300 new academics read and downloaded the paper. The discussion over 42 days filled 60+ pages of dialogue.

Taking part were a professor from the Russian Academy of Science, plus 2+ professors from Spain. There was also a professional archaeologist, input from a British university lecturer plus Harry Sivertsen, author of books on ancient measurements and Richard Bartosz, amongst others.

Clearly I cannot recount all of the details but the discussions covered such areas as what people felt was the basis of measurement, whether it was the human form or astronomy.
Many references were made to some of the accepted measurements of the pyramids; the Mayora and other Megalithic sites including Avebury, the Aubrey Holes and Stonehenge.
There was discussion of the role and validation? of Thom`s MY and around the Imperial Foot and other possible megalithic and prehistory measurements.

Clearly so much more was said than I haven't detailed but pleasingly for me new links were built across both academic and nonacademic bridges as well as between working archaeologists and those deemed for ease as metrologists.

It is early days yet but I hope to follow up and develop these links in the new year, in both theory and practice, possibly with a jointly held practical, multi discipline research project at one or more specific sites.

I felt overall it was a very worthwhile and stimulating discussion that added to the discussions held here on the Portal/ other websites, where my research work has been opened up for scrutiny and criticism.




 Profile   Reply
cerrig



Joined:
25-09-2009


Messages: 2804
from Brecon Beacons

OFF-Line

 Posted 30-12-2017 at 22:03   
That all sounds very positive Peter, and I would hope that positivity can be maintained within future discussions in this thread. I think that restricting those discussions only to the HSMF itself within this particular thread would probably be the most successful strategy.
Maybe now would be a good time to look beyond any past clashes of opinion and try for a fresh start. I'm willing to give it a go.

cerrig





 Profile   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 30-12-2017 at 23:25   
Appreciate that Cerrig. Let's give it a go!

Happy New Year to all!




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 31-12-2017 at 09:04   
Quote:
The 37000 visits statistic is a bit misleading because it doesn't refer to how many people viewed the thread, just the number of views.



Agreed with this Cerrig. It's probably worthwhile doing a bit of research to show why using some of the other threads.




 Profile  Email   Reply
Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83
New  Reply
Jump To

Sponsors