Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury Hill, the truth
Nov 11, 2007, 22:22
|
Bump.
For example, what is your opinion on the 1960s Atkinson/BBC tunnelling program at Silbury? Were English Heritage correct in thinking (until quite recently) that a 21st century 'time capsule' inserted into this Neolithic structure was appropriate when the owner of the structure (Lord Avebury), conservators and those belonging to different spiritual beliefs, were vehemently apposed to the idea? And what do you think of English Heritage's present reluctance to so far confirm that the 1960s metal Atkinson/BBC door and concrete lintel will be removed on completion of conservation work at Silbury?
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury Hill, the truth
Nov 11, 2007, 22:48
|
|
I know from personal experience that they are generally a well intentioned and generally bunch highly skilled of individuals
Mmm... couple of 'generallies' in there. Care to share with us what that 'personal experience' means? And does a 'bunch highly skilled of individuals' include those who sat on their hands for six years trying to decide what to do about conserving Silbury fall into your category of 'well intentioned' individuals?
|
StoneGloves
|
Re: Silbury Hill, the truth
Nov 12, 2007, 07:40
|
What to have them crapped on again?
I'd rather post you some Spyrogyra songs with the aim of providing potential cover material (not many songs from Moss Bank Park made their way onto vinyl). I think out of about forty tunes they recorded four are near perfect. I just need a postal address.
|
StoneGloves
|
Silbury Hill - the truth is out there somewhere - perhaps - or perhaps not (ot)
Nov 12, 2007, 08:04
|
|
q.v. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirogyra_(band)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury Hill, the truth
Nov 12, 2007, 09:06
|
For the record:
1.
I was told that the Ask the Experts section on the website has very few requests for info.
If anyone said that on behalf of EH they were telling a bare-faced untruth on behalf of a public body funded by the taxpayer.
I personally sent a large number of extremely pertinent questions to Ask the Experts (they are still on this forum) and just to make sure I also sent them to the Project Board. I received no reply whatsoever.
2.
If there had been any more serious internal collapses they would be visible on the surface of the mound.
That is apologism run riot or else stunning naivite. The way in which internal voids migrate upwards and appear at the surface some time later has been analysed in great detail. To cite "no current surface evidence" as a sign of "no new internal collapses" is just a joke.
|
goffik
|
Re: Silbury Hill, the truth
Nov 12, 2007, 23:03
|
Two words:
Hear, hear!
G x
|
Paulus
|
Re: Silbury Hill, the truth
Nov 13, 2007, 00:34
|
|
Rockrich wrote: Littlestone wrote: 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.
pure genius!!!
Nearly Rich. "Pure egomania" I think the more accurate, as per the LittleMan's usual offerings...
|
moss
|
Re: Silbury Hill, the truth
Nov 13, 2007, 06:59
|
|
Well, at least LS focuses his anger on a necessary cause rather than doing nowt Paulus - or is that a product of the north/south divide?
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury Hill, the truth
Nov 13, 2007, 08:13
|
I gave up trying to engage with Paulus a long time ago moss; he seems to have nothing but contempt for those with views and lifestyles different to his own. One look at his TMA profile where he continues to demean modern pagans, druids and shamans with the words, "...please don't get any ideas about the modern New-Age shamans [or pagan-druids for that matter] being owt like the real thing, cos they're not: they're shams not shamans!)" says it all. But have you noticed that Paulus and a few others on this thread can't or won't address the issue? So, for him and those others, I'll repeat a few of the questions I've asked above and hopefully they will add to this debate with relevant replies rather than trying to subvert it - the issue (the stability of Silbury) deserves that much.
For example, what is your opinion on the 1960s Atkinson/BBC tunnelling program at Silbury? Were English Heritage correct in thinking (until quite recently) that a 21st century 'time capsule' inserted into this Neolithic structure was appropriate when the owner of the structure (Lord Avebury), conservators and those belonging to different spiritual beliefs, were vehemently apposed to the idea? And what do you think of English Heritage's present reluctance to so far confirm that the 1960s metal Atkinson/BBC door and concrete lintel will be removed on completion of conservation work at Silbury?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury Hill, the truth
Nov 13, 2007, 09:30
|
Dinna worry Littlestone. "Pure egomania" is mild. I don't know what it is about Silbury that impels people to snipe at and attack those that express most concern about its welfare but its been happening for years. Sure we get things wrong sometimes, but so ruddy what? At least we try, as Moss says. The pro-Time Capsule lobby said I was one of a number of pseudo-intellectual tossers. I guess if we'd not shrugged it off Silbury would be about to have a time capsule put in it.
One thing's for certain, if EH published a diagram showing the scale of the voids, and they'll have one for sure, they'd have something far more important than us to focus on. As proof of this I offer you the lack of such a diagram on EH's website!
|
