|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trethevy Quoit in danger |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Mar 05, 2013, 21:58
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: tiompan wrote: Just noticed pics of myself and Jamie on that link. :) Was that the Police Five link? :-) That's defamation ! ;) You'll be hearing from my lawyer as soon as i've filled in these legal (hengi) forms. *Several people reach to hand me my coat* I'm impressed. After that bottle of red I thought you would have said defacation :-) Now you're just talking shite ! I'm playing catch-up :-) That comment really caught my eye. (player) Btw, this wine really packs a nasty PUNch. :)
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 05, 2013, 22:09
|
||
|
harestonesdown wrote: Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: tiompan wrote: Just noticed pics of myself and Jamie on that link. :) Was that the Police Five link? :-) That's defamation ! ;) You'll be hearing from my lawyer as soon as i've filled in these legal (hengi) forms. *Several people reach to hand me my coat* I'm impressed. After that bottle of red I thought you would have said defacation :-) Now you're just talking shite ! I'm playing catch-up :-) That comment really caught my eye. (player) Btw, this wine really packs a nasty PUNch. :) I've had my 'up' for the night...Man U getting trashed!!
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Mar 05, 2013, 22:16
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: tiompan wrote: Just noticed pics of myself and Jamie on that link. :) Was that the Police Five link? :-) That's defamation ! ;) You'll be hearing from my lawyer as soon as i've filled in these legal (hengi) forms. *Several people reach to hand me my coat* I'm impressed. After that bottle of red I thought you would have said defacation :-) Now you're just talking shite ! I'm playing catch-up :-) That comment really caught my eye. (player) Btw, this wine really packs a nasty PUNch. :) I've had my 'up' for the night...Man U getting trashed!! And excellent results all round for us Blades, including the scum across town losing. I'll drink to that !
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Mar 06, 2013, 00:05
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Just watched it and it's a great insight to a fella i've never actually met, so cheers for the link George. Unlike watching a MPP prog i never once cringed at any of his answers. :)
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Mar 06, 2013, 01:41
|
||
|
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: Thanks, it's going to be strange watching him, after using his corpus on stone circles for all those years [and owning the Cornwall and 2 peak district ones], I like the fact he distanced himself from the Thom like early work, even though it mostly stands up brilliantly, Thanks again. Loved it, the world he paints is totally the way the world was back then, I've never in my life listened to someone for an hour and agreed with pretty much everything, it's good to know the world isn't quite full of complete idiots just yet, and with better questions it could have been even better no doubt, it spooked me a little though because he don't half look like my dad.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 06, 2013, 10:18
|
||
|
Just been comparing C.W.Dymond's 1877 ground plan to that of John Barnatts 1982 version. It is interesting that CW not only shows the ground plan layout but the 'lean' on the stones as well, indicated by the dotted lines. You will note on the far south-west stone on the left he shows said dotted lines as being away from the adjacent stone as well, where today they are touching. Of course the problem with this is that it doesn't show the 'middle' between the top and bottom where is actually touches so hopefully, if John Barnatt replies to my email he may be able to clear that up...certainly in his drawing some 105 years later anyway. https://picasaweb.google.com/100525707086862773355/DropBox?authkey=Gv1sRgCPmU2MWil9rM9AE#5852155605660104418
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 06, 2013, 10:58
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Just been comparing C.W.Dymond's 1877 ground plan to that of John Barnatts 1982 version. It is interesting that CW not only shows the ground plan layout but the 'lean' on the stones as well, indicated by the dotted lines. You will note on the far south-west stone on the left he shows said dotted lines as being away from the adjacent stone as well, where today they are touching. Of course the problem with this is that it doesn't show the 'middle' between the top and bottom where is actually touches so hopefully, if John Barnatt replies to my email he may be able to clear that up...certainly in his drawing some 105 years later anyway. https://picasaweb.google.com/100525707086862773355/DropBox?authkey=Gv1sRgCPmU2MWil9rM9AE#5852155605660104418 Roy, do you have a note of the heights for the westernmost side stones ?
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 06, 2013, 11:10
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Just been comparing C.W.Dymond's 1877 ground plan to that of John Barnatts 1982 version. It is interesting that CW not only shows the ground plan layout but the 'lean' on the stones as well, indicated by the dotted lines. You will note on the far south-west stone on the left he shows said dotted lines as being away from the adjacent stone as well, where today they are touching. Of course the problem with this is that it doesn't show the 'middle' between the top and bottom where is actually touches so hopefully, if John Barnatt replies to my email he may be able to clear that up...certainly in his drawing some 105 years later anyway. https://picasaweb.google.com/100525707086862773355/DropBox?authkey=Gv1sRgCPmU2MWil9rM9AE#5852155605660104418 Roy, do you have a note of the heights for the westernmost side stones ? Yes I have George and will dig them out in a mo. Do you want ground height or top of bank height? I have all the measurements.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 06, 2013, 11:20
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Just been comparing C.W.Dymond's 1877 ground plan to that of John Barnatts 1982 version. It is interesting that CW not only shows the ground plan layout but the 'lean' on the stones as well, indicated by the dotted lines. You will note on the far south-west stone on the left he shows said dotted lines as being away from the adjacent stone as well, where today they are touching. Of course the problem with this is that it doesn't show the 'middle' between the top and bottom where is actually touches so hopefully, if John Barnatt replies to my email he may be able to clear that up...certainly in his drawing some 105 years later anyway. https://picasaweb.google.com/100525707086862773355/DropBox?authkey=Gv1sRgCPmU2MWil9rM9AE#5852155605660104418 Roy, do you have a note of the heights for the westernmost side stones ? Yes I have George and will dig them out in a mo. Do you want ground height or top of bank height? I have all the measurements. Either please , I'm really trying to to see if what I would call the backstone would have supported the capstone , and how that would effect the load bearing of the side stones .
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 06, 2013, 12:11
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Just been comparing C.W.Dymond's 1877 ground plan to that of John Barnatts 1982 version. It is interesting that CW not only shows the ground plan layout but the 'lean' on the stones as well, indicated by the dotted lines. You will note on the far south-west stone on the left he shows said dotted lines as being away from the adjacent stone as well, where today they are touching. Of course the problem with this is that it doesn't show the 'middle' between the top and bottom where is actually touches so hopefully, if John Barnatt replies to my email he may be able to clear that up...certainly in his drawing some 105 years later anyway. https://picasaweb.google.com/100525707086862773355/DropBox?authkey=Gv1sRgCPmU2MWil9rM9AE#5852155605660104418 Roy, do you have a note of the heights for the westernmost side stones ? George, the two most westerly support flankers are 8'-3" on the northern side and 7'-0" on the southern taken from the internal base level. There is a 15" difference in their height obviously. The prostrate stone is 8'-8" long/tall. I've had to take thse measurements from the scale model as I can't find my original notes taken when I met the EH guy there last year at the moment! I remember them anyway so they are correct. The catflap stone is 10'-3" tall off the same base level. As you will know the other flankers fall short of the Capstone.
|
| Pages: 44 – [ Previous | 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 19 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
