|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Prehistoric stone row - or collapsed modern wall? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Pete G 3506 posts |
Mar 09, 2005, 23:25
|
||
|
>You living in the midst of the circles and missing the enlightment contained within the grand designs Actualy I found that living in the area gives you the ability to see through the bullshit. The Tanhill formation was made over several days, as are most of the big designs. The vale of pewsey is notorious for its mist which hides the cropstompers from the watchers on the hills above but allows a group of people to work together. I have photos of people making circles in broad daylight which days later visiters were telling me were genuine! I'm not going to get drawn into a cropcircle slagging match again. If You want to believe they are supernatural thats fine but don't try to inflict your beliefs on me.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Mar 10, 2005, 07:09
|
||
|
>> I also know that there is not a single person on eart that can envisage >> the design of this crop circle So you obviously don't know me or any other mathematician (or even someone with a Spirograph!) The crop circle on that book cover is a very poor, very cut down verion of this: http://www.geocities.com/rerewhakaaitu/Moonlight_Spiral.jpg Fractals my dear Watson! All the creators had to do was break down the formula for centering the next circle (quite a simple one) and measure it out. All you need is a bit of string and a compass. If Nature/a-super-intellegent-being-from-outer-space had created the crop circle it would have looked like that. As it was the team of blokes who did do it couldn't manage the full effect of Nature's own choatic beauty. Most of these complex ones are simply taken from Fractal Patterns. Fire a load more at me and I'll show you the fractal they came from - and how poor they are in comparison - studied chaos theory for ages and would love to get all the books out again! Don't get me wrong, some of the designs are worthy of being called art. It's just the fools that stand around not appreciating them for what they really are that get me.
|
|||
StoneLifter 1594 posts |
Mar 10, 2005, 07:27
|
||
|
Yes, belief is not a rational state - it's something else altogether. I know how everbody holds on to daft things that could not possibly be true and just as easily disregards something that is true in favour of something that is not. Only twenty five years of oil left eg. But - I 'have a line' for a Nobel prizewinner at a loose end. He's a chemist, same school though he's a decade older, and I would like to invite him to investigate these marks in the straw. He's on the south coast. I could write two Cd's, part one and part two, of a very accessible video and would like to say "Just put these on the background, with the sound off, and see if anything catches your eye". But I need a Unique Selling Proposition even to persuade him to do that.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Mar 10, 2005, 10:24
|
||
|
just to put my oar in: Well, "enkidu41" I hardly think your message is a polite introduction to this forum. Some might consider it trolling. But anyway. Some people would say there's a continuum between misunderstood genius and 'eccentricity' and madness. Think of Van Gogh, Stonelifter, was he appreciated in his time? No. And scientific revolutions happen after years and years of people sticking to the same old paradigms unable to see further than the dogma that the once shiny and new ideas have become. Burn the heretics. Ok, I haven't been to see any of Stonelifter's purported ancient traces. But hardly has anyone else. It's (apparently) not as though he's producing these theories out of thin air - he at least claims to have a better understanding of stoneworking methods than other people: perhaps this should be given some credit. And he's out there looking for alignments - something that's easy to talk about and think about, but how many people actually try it practically? There's nothing like actually being at a particular place to see its position in the landscape - a few photos on tma don't really cut it. Just because something doesn't feature in the local Official Stone Monuments Record doew that mean it doesn't really exist?? Of course not, things get discovered all the time. I'm not saying everything Stonelifter proposes should be treated with the same certaintly as Stonehenge. But surely they could be seen as a useful point of discussion. Why exactly is person A so sure they're prehistoric while person B thinks it's a fallen-down wall? Wouldn't this help everyone to be more aware about what they're looking at in their own locality? I'm not arguing with the wisdom of the editors, I'm not saying this website should be stuffed full of speculative sites as it could get out of hand (and I've pulled a few dodgy things I've posted myself). But nothing ever progressed without someone with a bit of vision. (makes irritating 'whatever' shrug). I'll get my coat now.
|
|||
rocknicker 908 posts |
Mar 10, 2005, 10:32
|
||
|
>>No, Suzanne never got to any of my sites. She got very near to where the stone circle at Hexham had been, but on the other side of the river. that's true. And it took me ages and I felt afterwards as if I'd been on a chase for a noisey feral feathered white thing. I'll perhaps have another go one day - but probably after I've done the more recognised sites first. I have many more on my list...
|
|||
Kammer 3083 posts |
Mar 10, 2005, 11:19
|
||
|
I guess the question is (or the questions are), a) How many people have to recognise a site before it merits inclusion on TMA? b) How should a site with limited 'recognition' be represented? K x PS. Sorry Stonelifter, I think it's a wall.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Mar 10, 2005, 11:31
|
||
|
ok it may be a wall. Walls can be old too. :) Is it possible that tma could have a sort of 'holding corral' where people could post descriptions and pictures of New things they'd found, before being joyfully ripped to shreds? I jest. But then they wouldn't get posted as Proper Sites (thus 'tainting' the approved quality of everything else) but if approved could be moved across. Or if not approved might stand as examples of Easily Misconstrued Features or Undesirable Things. This might prevent endless reposting of the Braunceston Goddess for example. Or is this too complicated. Or opening the floodgates. Or putting off shy and retiring people from posting new things without seeking approval all the time.
|
|||
|
Kammer 3083 posts |
Mar 10, 2005, 12:04
|
||
Sounds ideal to me.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Mar 10, 2005, 12:07
|
||
|
really? :) What do other people think then??
|
|||
Hob 4033 posts |
Mar 10, 2005, 12:39
|
||
|
I think something along the lines of the 'Dodgy site' flag that Kammer suggested ages ago is still in order. Major revisions to TMA's structure would seem to be unlikely until after Mr McG has done the thing with Europe. But if dubious sites had something to identify them it would make it much easier for the Eds if the time ever came to have a corral such as you suggest. As far as Stonelifter's putative sites go, I agree with him that there are undiscovered monuments out there in the Pennines, this one http://www.megalithics.com/england/crawbery/crawmain.htm was found fairly recently, and wasn't on any database prior to it's rediscovery. It was found by some of the few people to actually work on the hills, whilst heather burning. But that's not to say every stone out there in the pennines has prehistoric significance...
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
