tiompan wrote: moss wrote: 'Dunno where to start . Does anybody actually accept any of this ?'
Well you could work outwards from Silbury Hill, making isocles triangles up as you go - sadly I never got the hang of geometry...there's Marlborough mound and the other one, almost really a bit like pyramid building, which are'nt isocles shaped because they have four sides... I like Silbury as a gnomon best, a large post on top telling the time of day...
Basically it's finding sites equidistant from another site .In one case Silbury was the primary site . It is very easy to find two sites that are equidistant from Silbury particularly when you have a 100 metres to play with and the target could be 445 m x 170. There is litle more than doing this a couple of times using different primary sites . You would expect to these results easily by chance and he has missed more than he has recorded . Most of the sites are not intervisble which doesn't seem to be a problem. Rather go on i think it's easier to say that the same book could be written a hundredfold without repeating any of these examples and it would still be nonsense .
That criticism is based on the small amount of evidence available from the mail piece , I would imagine the book would provide even more cause for complaint .
|