|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » To the Heart of the Matter |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
wd 5 posts |
Nov 11, 2007, 12:06
|
||
|
Phew thats a relief. Those massive internal collapses that trashed atkinson's supports must be a thing of the past. Nothing to see here, please move along.
|
|||
ocifant 1758 posts |
Nov 11, 2007, 12:12
|
||
|
Pete, Pete G wrote: The new tunnel that skanska have installed has corrugated sheeting top and sides so any amount of chalk falling will sound a lot worst than it really is. Given that the steel Atkinson supports have clearly buckled under the strain of holding up all that 'stable' chalk, what odds do Skansa put on a few sheets of corrugated sheeting doing the job now that water has an easier ingress to the hill via the stonking great hole up top? See, it's that kind of info that's not coming out from EH. On one hand we hear about continued chalk settlement, and see it for ourselves - remember Amada Chadburn went white on the TV prog when she heard it falling!. On the other you've come on here saying that a few corrugated steel sheets make it all safe, and EH themselves seem to be rather unconcerned despite the evidence of their own eyes. Can you not see that there is a plain conflict between those two viewpoints that people want resolved? Alll we want is the information to be able to decide for ourselves what the state of play is. I think the time for any blame as to the current state of the hill is long gone. It's now all about what can be done to stabilise and preserve it, in the safest way possible. Corrugated sheeting doesn't cover it, sorry!
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Nov 11, 2007, 12:31
|
||
Well said!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 11, 2007, 12:32
|
||
Chuckle.
|
|||
Pete G 3506 posts |
Nov 11, 2007, 12:36
|
||
|
don't be silly. The Kirkbride tunnel has new Iron supports with corrugated sheeting around it to stop sliippage. Did you really think they would just use metal sheets and no supports? It seems people here are looking for things to moan about what with secret trusted sources leaking worrying information. Name your sources! If you know of someone who has been inside tell us who and what they said, don't be vague.
|
|||
|
Pete G 3506 posts |
Nov 11, 2007, 12:46
|
||
all this information is in the EH updates if anyone bothers to read them properly...
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 11, 2007, 12:50
|
||
|
You're right to apply your critical faculties to the available evidence and to compare it with the official announcements Oci. After all, some people enthusiasticly swallowed EH's official line that the time capsule would be a jolly good thing hook line and sinker. Thank goodness not everyone did!
|
|||
|
ocifant 1758 posts |
Nov 11, 2007, 12:57
|
||
|
Pete G wrote: Did you really think they would just use metal sheets and no supports? In a word, no. But in the same fashion, I wouldn't expect corrugated sheets to be sufficient to stop a major slippage. Would you? I've not been fortunate enough to enter the hill, so can't speak first hand. I'm not sure I'd have the bottle to go in there anyway, having seen the state of the place. I understand you've been in there Pete? How did you feel at the time? A (truthful) first hand witness report would be good to help dispel any rumours...
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Nov 11, 2007, 12:59
|
||
|
Effective campaigning is not necessarily about insulting the other side and I do not recall Lord Avebury using language such as 'plonkers' in the heart-felt and erudite letter he wrote against the ill-advised time capsule project. If you're referring to the post above where I used 'bungling plonkers' to describe those at English Heritage (and elsewhere, past and present) over their 'conservation' policy at Silbury I'm afraid I fail to see the connection between that post and Lord Avebury's letter in The Guardian. I make no apologies for referring to those responsible for the delayed Silbury conservation programme as bungling plonkers because that is what they are (as were Atkinson, the BBC and others before them). Nor is there any doubt in my mind that it was the vigorous debate on TMA over English Heritage's 'ill-advised time capsule project' (as well as Lord Avebury's letter) that succeeded in forcing English Heritage to abandon the project. I'm afraid I don't agree with your statement that, "Effective campaigning is not necessarily about insulting the other side..." Effective campaigning is very often about insulting (or lampooning) the other side and showing it up for the incompetent institution or individual that it is. The likes of Bremer, Hislop, Humphrys and Merton insult and lampoon the 'other side' regularly - in a way they're running their own campaign and are applauded for doing so. You may find that sort of campaigning distasteful - I do not; in fact that sort of campaigning has been a pillar of our social conscience and an avenue for 'us' to express our dissatisfaction with the 'establishment' and people in power for centuries. You may believe that, "...at the end of the day we are all on the same side." but the reality is that we are often not all on the same side. Public institutions are riddled with incompetence and the personal aggrandisement of some in them. By contrast there are people here and in other campaign groups who have the courage to call a spade a spade, take the flack that goes with it, and continue to call a spade a spade. Meanwhile others keep silent, make silly comments in an attempt to undermine the issue or try to score points and advance their own personal agenda - missing or ignoring the real issue in the process. And the real issue here is the stability of Silbury - so let's get back to discussing that shall we. Those who have been inside the structure (especially recently) have a responsibility to share with us here, and with the wider public, what they have seen and what they know. Those at English Heritage have a responsibility to keep the public up-to-date (with at least weekly updates) on their progress at Silbury. Those updates should not only contain detailed information on the major issues of instability or the discovery of further voids but discuss less urgent (though equally important) issues such as the removal of the Atkinson/BBC door and lintel - an announcement on which could be made tomorrow if English Heritage so wished.
|
|||
|
Pete G 3506 posts |
Nov 11, 2007, 13:07
|
||
|
ocifant wrote: Pete G wrote: Did you really think they would just use metal sheets and no supports? In a word, no. But in the same fashion, I wouldn't expect corrugated sheets to be sufficient to stop a major slippage. Would you? I've not been fortunate enough to enter the hill, so can't speak first hand. I'm not sure I'd have the bottle to go in there anyway, having seen the state of the place. I understand you've been in there Pete? How did you feel at the time? A (truthful) first hand witness report would be good to help dispel any rumours... You can read all about it at eternalidol in due course. We want to make sure everything we post is accurate, informative and true. Posting here is a waste of time, not even Julian Cope posts here and its his site! EH post on their Silbury webpages more often than JC posts on his. The fact you wrote (Truthful) in brackets tells me that anything I write here that you don't like will just result in me called a liar. Now over to the kids.. "to me, to you, to me, to you...." etc
|
| Pages: 22 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
