Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
This is a neat, concise and well composed review of observed events.
The activities described of course are ongoing and the participants generally well known.
I would like to pass comment upon the Bluestone scenario of Stonehenge.
While Paul Devereux has indeed accomplished some interesting investigations in the past he seem here to be clinging to an outdated, outmoded idea that has no relevance simply because it has been shown to be wrong by modern science.
Today we generally accept what science informs us. Science has, for many, replaced religion as something in which to have faith. Indeed science keeps many of us alive and has meant that men have been to the moon and arrived safely home. Science has enabled Devereux to conduct his experiments.
Yet when the well established scientific disciplines of geology and glaciology are applied to the Bluestones of Stonehenge a different picture emerges. This science is deemed NOT acceptable! What utter nonsense!
How can one who is not a glaciologist nor a geologist claim that the stones were not moved by glacial action and expect to be reasonably well received by the scientific community who ultimately will sanction or otherwise the statements made. How can a person in one discipline contradict the extensive specialist learning of others in their own disciplines and expect to be accepted?
Geologists have long stated that these stones were moved by glacial action. Glaciologists currently believe that they were moved during not the last big freeze but the episode prior to that when glacial coverage extended as far as the South Coast.
Why should these experts not be believed? Archaeologists nor those on the fringes of archaeological studies are specialists in glacial movement nor in geological studies. The important point here is that if sound and generally accepted science is not accepted as a base from which to work then what chance is there that an eventual evaluation will arise that is logical and stands up to examination? The chances are slim indeed so why waste time on fantasy?
These stones are from over 15 different locations in South and West Wales and not a singular localised source. Add that one of these is a non Bluestone from Brecon and then ask how on earth would all of these be found and how could they have been moved to Salisbury plain. An attempt a few years back, assisted by modern equipment was a failure with a singular stone so what are the statistical chances of the stones at Stonehenge being moved in such a fashion? To assume that this is the case when logic indicates the concept implausible and when science gives a perfectly rational explanation that does not involve these ludicrous ideas raises questions regarding the thought processes of those who push such ideas. Such thinking is alien to the logic that we try to teach our children to apply.
In terms of some clarification here I recommend Brian John's book The Bluestone Enigma published by Greencroft Books. Follow up on his website.
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/
Brian John is an entertaining writer of my acquaintance who has, over the years and many different projects, maintained his interest in his university studies.
Extract from his Wiki profile.
Dr Brian S. John (born 1940) is the author of the historical-fiction series Angel Mountain Saga.
John was born in Carmarthen, Wales. He studied at Haverfordwest Grammar School and at Jesus College, Oxford, where he read Geography from 1959 to 1962 and went on to obtain a D Phil for a study of the Ice Age in Wales.[1] He worked as a field scientist in Antarctica and spent eleven years as a Geography Lecturer in Durham University. He has travelled widely in the Arctic, Antarctic and Scandinavia. Since 1977 he has made his living as a writer and publisher.
It is apparent from this that Brian John will have more knowledge of the movements of Ice than those who have not studied the matter and of course he cites up date studies.
Following on from the above I suggest that those of us who are of an investigative nature, move forward in our own studies using what science has revealed to be correct and emphatically NOT fantasy and emotion.
This does not mean that the art of dowsing and any similar activities are to be neglected simply because to date they remain unexplained, dowsing can and does work. As we are aware, people have found water via dowsing since way back before any recorded history; I have seen drains found via dowsing with a hazel fork and bent steel coat hangers. However, while I would not argue with Devereux regarding any concept of sound and I think he should continue his work in that direction, I most certainly do think he should accept that those stones were moved by glaciers. To do anything less is to be pandering to emotion and not logic, or as it appears just may be the case with the Riverside Project, making something from media attention with a good story instead of an adherence to science and solid learning.
Harry Sivertsen
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road