=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Stonehenge and its Environs »
The bluestone debate
Log In to post a reply
390 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Moth
Moth
5236 posts

Edited Nov 21, 2008, 02:38
For what it's worth...
Nov 21, 2008, 02:33
What a shame this discussion has become somewhat acrimonious. Just in the vague hope it can resume, I thought I'd put in me tuppenceworth....

I was involved in the Stonehengineers project with Gordon and Steve.

I'm convinced that Steve wouldn't try to take credit for anything he didn't say/draw/tell people about.

I also find it hard to believe that Gordon would knowingly take an idea and claim credit for himself. I do think it's possible that Gordon may have forgotten Steve telling him about it, or believe it to be a different idea.

A little 'background' is that Gordon and Steve (and others) worked together on the Stonehengineers project really well, with as far as I know little (pardon the pun) 'friction' until the 'big weekend' of the experiment at Foamhenge for the TV. Then it became apparent that Gordon seemed to think that Steve was trying to take over (or something).

Nobody else in the group could see what made Gordon feel that way. But, basically Gordon wouldn't work with Steve after that weekend and Steve was very hurt by Gordon's mistrust. It was the end of the Stonehengineers project.

That weekend, I was pulling one of the levers for the 'stonerowing' developed by Gordon and we proved clearly that it worked.

The next day there was a 'pulling' experiment, which unfortunately I couldn't stay for. But everyone I've spoken to about it who was there (except Gordon) agreed that it seemed from the experiment that on pretty even ground, pulling was far more efficient, and that it would certainly be interesting to develop it alongside stonerowing.

They were all of the view that stonerowing could be very useful on rough terrain or uphill.

Of course Gordon's entitled to stick to his theory that stonerowing would be the major method to use, but in my view, those are the reasons that Gordon and Steve 'rub each other up the wrong way'.

What I don't quite understand is why you, Tony, have become quite so antagonistic towards Steve, yet believe everything Gordon says.

I'm not physics or mechanically-minded enough to be able to make any judgements on a lot of the discussion, but I was enjoying it up until the point when you said:

tonyh wrote:
Steve Gray wrote:
tonyh wrote:
But you had 50 teams of two oxen..

Do they stretch out in a straight line and have 50 different lengths of rope
runing back to the sledge? or are the kind of fanned out so that the are not in each others way?

Tony


It doesn't matter, the principle is the same. I would imagine practicalities might dictate a mixture of the two.

Bear in mind that I only posed this as a question, not as a fully-fledged theory.


You mean it would not work..

That's OK..

So do I..

Tony


...which understandably (in my opinion) riled Steve, whether it was meant to or not.

Up until then (and on other parts of the thread) the discussion had been very interesting.

It'd be nice if all the protagonists in this discussion could find a way to 'get on' well enough to continue....

love

Moth
In reply to:
Re: The bluestone debate (tonyh)		 Replies:
Re: For what it's worth... (goffik)
Re: For what it's worth... (tonyh)
Re: For what it's worth... (tonyh)
Re: For what it's worth... (GordonP)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index