Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Trethevy Quoit »
Trethevy Quoit...Cornwall's Megalithic Masterpiece
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 40 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 13:26
I'm sure you will have gathered that I had made a firm decision to ensure the truth of the matter came out even if it meant I got slung out of here. Thus, your can of worms threat hasn't worked nor has your You'll get Sacked threat and I presume you've now run out of them. Fine.

(Please pay full attention to my first posting).
Littlestone
Littlestone
5386 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 13:32
Sanctuary wrote:
When re-arranged is an unknown I'm afraid. I believe it comes down to the hole in the Capstone because when that was pummelled through it was the likely cause of the Capstone slipping. Due to the positioning of the buttress that was offset from the opening it suggests it was still in use after the slippage otherwise it would have been placed centrally for maximum benefit.


Didn’t you once suggest that it may have been rearranged relatively recently (recently as in 500 years or so ago) maybe as a territorial marker (the hole possibly serving as a securing point for a banner or something). The hole in the capstone could provide the answer. Does it look like it was made using metal or stone tools?
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 13:35
nigelswift wrote:
I'm sure you will have gathered that I had made a firm decision to ensure the truth of the matter came out even if it meant I got slung out of here. Thus, your can of worms threat hasn't worked nor has your You'll get Sacked threat and I presume you've now run out of them. Fine.

(Please pay full attention to my first posting).


Fella's, should you be discussing this on an open forum as it's a private matter surely?
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 13:37
It's finished Roy.
Evergreen Dazed
1881 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 13:39
Sanctuary wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
"Funnily enough there is only one stone circle with lintols as well!"

Two, but both currently in the same place"?


And to suggest it as 'something new' is erroneous, as if it is a stone circle variant, it's barely a stone circle at all, a likely representation in stone of a wooden linteled circle.
To use that as an example of how there might suddenly appear a completely new tradition in portal tomb building is just typical misleading stuff, desperate connections attempted, typical self published, unreviewed fare.


I'm smiling to myself here as I had you down as the number one to stick the knife in as all of your previous posts to me have been. Nothing new there either is there. Try lightening up a bit and read the whole content before accusing me of being misleading. I'll await your order in due course :-)


"Sticking the knife in" is just the type of lurid, exaggerated response that I would expect of somebody who churns out 'books' full of wild speculation and nonsense, and indeed "sticks the knife in" regarding the archaeological community whilst standing on their shoulders.

You'll be waiting a some time. I have real books to read.
Evergreen Dazed
1881 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 13:40
Littlestone wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
...desperate connections attempted, typical self published, unreviewed fare.


There’s nothing wrong with self-publishing (as opposed to vanity publishing). If it was good enough for Beatrix Potter it’s good enough for anyone. It’s those who claim they're working on this book or that book, and it’ll be out shortly but never is, that gets my goat. If you’re going to criticize Mr Goutté’s book at least have the courtesy of reading it first and then do it with his research in front of you.


There's nothing wrong with self publishing per se. Especially if you are writing stories about rabbits.
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 13:47
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
nigelswift wrote:



If you: well, pointing out SH is unique in order to illustrate that lack of precedents don't invalidate your theory is a totally valid thing to say.

A lack of precedents doesn't necessarily invalidate a theory but when that precedent also involves negating the most obvious and simpler explanation it does make it much less likely .


But the 'obvious and simpler explanation' is only valid if the other evidence against has been rejected first George. Reading the book for yoursel will tell you what it is before dismissing it.


What type evidence can there be to prove that the obvious backstone was not the backstone ? That problem is further exacerbated by then suggesting that the explanation involves accepting a feature that is unique .
The obvious and simple explanation involves one event that has been noted elsewhere , the alternatives involve more than one event ,and in this case features that are unprecedented .There is no reason that a complicated series of events didn't take place but the problem is providing evidence for them and also evidence to disprove the most obvious explanation .


Exactly what evidence have you got to prove that the claimed backstone WAS the real backstone George. Have you seen it in place, has anyone? I've explained why I don't believe it was and actually shown an alternative. I think the ball is in your court with respect to prove your case.


The backstone being in place is the most obvious and economic explanation ,if anyone believes it wasn't , the onus is on them to prove that it wasn't . Simply believing, is not enough .


Haaaaaaa neatly side-stepped :-)


Eh??


You said 'simply believing, is not enough'. You 'believe' it is is a backstone but have no concrete proof that it is. I on the other hand have actually shown an alternative scenario, you have shown nothing other than what is 'likely'.
If the fallen stone was the backstone then the Capstone would be some 19" higher than it is now to the rear and only being supported by it and the front closure.
So you are not taking into account that the current rear support side flanker to the north-west that is still in place just happened to have EXACTLY the correct angle with keying points to its top edge just in case the supposed rear backstone fell? Do you not think that was a huge coincidence? And one of the stones now out of place is identical to it with keying points and was most likely to have been its opposite number before it all shifted?


The likely scenario involves one event , the backstone fell, and there are precedents .
If the backstone was in it's original position it would support the capstone leaving the sidestones free , a typical situation in portal tombs in fact many portal tombs don't even have side stones ,whether as a result of removal because they were non supporting and thus easy to nick or just not used doesn't matter , it shows that they were not necessary for supporting the capstone whatever their angle .
Nearby Zennor has a side stone with an angle that fits exactly with the collapsed capstone , that was clearly not it's function as we know the capstone was supported by a backstone and the sloping angle of the sidestone had no supporting role . The angle of a non supporting sidestone in relation to a capstone is not much of an argument for it ever being considered as a future support in the case of collapse but when just part of a far more complex sequence of events and re-arrangement it is much more difficult to prove .
The alternative scenario involves a far more complex sequence of events including a major feature that has no precedent , to support extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence is a bit trite but useful particularly when one simple event explains all and there is no evidence to show that it didn't happen and the evidence for the extraordinary sequence is based on beliefs on a 21st C take on how a monument should look .
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 13:57
Littlestone wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
When re-arranged is an unknown I'm afraid. I believe it comes down to the hole in the Capstone because when that was pummelled through it was the likely cause of the Capstone slipping. Due to the positioning of the buttress that was offset from the opening it suggests it was still in use after the slippage otherwise it would have been placed centrally for maximum benefit.


Didn’t you once suggest that it may have been rearranged relatively recently (recently as in 500 years or so ago) maybe as a territorial marker (the hole possibly serving as a securing point for a banner or something). The hole in the capstone could provide the answer. Does it look like it was made using metal or stone tools?


I don't know the answer to that LS, it would need someone with knowledge of stone v metal tools to answer that one I suggest. Amongst the suggestions for the hole have been for a flagpole or to even drag the capstone into place by it. I don't suppose we'll ever know. If it was only, say 500 years ago, then the monument must have still been in use because if I am correct and it was likely to have become unstable after and because of the hole pummelled through it, then it would be after that that the buttress would surely have been installed. As it was offset from the entrance it must have ben 'open' for something!
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 14:04
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
"Funnily enough there is only one stone circle with lintols as well!"

Two, but both currently in the same place"?


And to suggest it as 'something new' is erroneous, as if it is a stone circle variant, it's barely a stone circle at all, a likely representation in stone of a wooden linteled circle.
To use that as an example of how there might suddenly appear a completely new tradition in portal tomb building is just typical misleading stuff, desperate connections attempted, typical self published, unreviewed fare.


I'm smiling to myself here as I had you down as the number one to stick the knife in as all of your previous posts to me have been. Nothing new there either is there. Try lightening up a bit and read the whole content before accusing me of being misleading. I'll await your order in due course :-)


"Sticking the knife in" is just the type of lurid, exaggerated response that I would expect of somebody who churns out 'books' full of wild speculation and nonsense, and indeed "sticks the knife in" regarding the archaeological community whilst standing on their shoulders.

You'll be waiting a some time. I have real books to read.


Charmed I'm sure. Written any of your own lately?
harestonesdown
1067 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 14:05
Oh fucking brilliant ! well done for spoiling a thread i'd been awaiting for ages.
Should have expected it really. Oh well, fuck it.
Pages: 40 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index