|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » John Michell lecture |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 10, 2016, 14:11
|
||
|
cerrig wrote: Depending on the circumstances, I may use a watch, a compass, a clinometer, or a theodolite. I would never suggest using it as a very accurate measure but the eye can be accurate to within a degree with a bit of experience . For the same reason I would never consider a watch or compass for an accurate alt .All can provide something that will suffice , (I can think of theodolite surveys that would have done better from a photograph ), but it's best that we can be as accurate as possible . Using a theodolite can produce accurate reasults but so much depends on the user , never mind the problems associated with weather . Very often the same user at the same site comes up with differing results not to mention whopping errors . How do you think Michell came up with his bearing for May day from men an tol ?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 10, 2016, 14:14
|
||
|
No help required and I doubt very much that you could help . If you think I have made a mistake then point it out . That's what I do .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 10, 2016, 14:43
|
||
|
cerrig wrote: It's a free country Nigel. Believe what you want. Thank you. Of course, some of us don't have freedom of belief, we are slaves to evidence. It must be fun to throw off that yoke and be free to believe any old bollocks! ;)
|
|||
|
Paldywan 3 posts |
May 10, 2016, 16:45
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: In a small area crammed with ancient sites, wouldn't you expect a lot to line up by chance though? How are you deciding if those lines are meaningful and not coincidental? Hello Rhiannon. No, the 'by chance' factor doesn't work - it was cooked up by someone thirtyish years ago, and it's a convenient get-out, but it's necessary to look closer at the evidence. Because, at least in Penwith, many alignments connect certain kinds of sites, and certain ages of sites, and they also follow a certain landscape logic in many cases. So these aren't just random points. I humbly suggest that it's necessary to recognise that the neolithics and bronzies did this intentionally, and accurately too. Just because the modern mind cannot see why, according mainly to modern thinking, it doesn't mean that, because rational explanations cannot yet be found, they do not exist. This is fundamental. It's a worldview and paradigm issue and, if one chooses to get involved in prehistoric sites, then it's necessary also to overcome the academically-conditioned need to try to fit ancient realities into modern intellectual frameworks. In particular, such modern frameworks posit that there cannot be 'earth energies', therefore there aren't. But the fact that science cannot measure or detect these is its own problem, not a problem for the ancients. It needs to be the other way around: we need to fit the modern mindset to the ancient way of seeing things. (Actually, I think there seem to have been at least two - the mid-neolithic mindset seems to be different by degrees from that of the bronze age, the first being more intuitive-naturalesque and the second being more megalithic-scientific.) The randomness hypothesis remains just that - a hypothesis - and it rests, imho, mainly on maintaining a distance from the data and evidence, and also on the support of a meme that claims rationality when really it is based upon an emotional predisposition which, conveniently, is also majoritarian, therefore comfortable to hold. Archaeo-astronomy didn't used to work either, but then there was the evidence.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 10, 2016, 17:06
|
||
|
Paldywan wrote: In particular, such modern frameworks posit that there cannot be 'earth energies', therefore there aren't. No-one has ever said "there cannot be earth energies, therefore there aren't".
|
|||
|
Paldywan 3 posts |
May 10, 2016, 17:07
|
||
|
I think Men an Tol is one of the worst sites in Penwith to get into an argument over. The altitude of its horizons is quite extreme, its shape and size in its original form as a stone circle is not clear, neither is the location of its centre. I suggest suspension of the terms 'right' and 'wrong' too. Sorry, but reality isn't a simple binary equation. To quote Bertrand Russell: "War is not about who is right, it's about who is left". Decisions based on who is left are not always the best decisions.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 10, 2016, 18:36
|
||
|
"I think Men an Tol is one of the worst sites in Penwith to get into an argument over. The altitude of its horizons is quite extreme, " Not sure what you mean by "extreme " , if you mean steep or high it certainly isn't that . even if it were as long as the sun rose over it on My day we can talk about what the azimuth or bearing might be . "its shape and size in its original form as a stone circle is not clear, neither is the location of its centre." That didn't stop John Michell using it in TOSOLE " I suggest suspension of the terms 'right' and 'wrong' too. Sorry, but reality isn't a simple binary equation." The reality is that the sun would not have been seen to rise on the horizon as seen from from the monument on May day on he the bearing he suugested .He believed that was "right " because it suited his purposes to connect it with the same bearing as the "ley" ,which was also problematical . But he was wrong. To quote Bertrand Russell: "War is not about who is right, it's about who is left". The quote is a wee bit different but more to the point we are not talking about war . [/quote]
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 11, 2016, 12:42
|
||
I don't know how John came up with his figures George, and that's still the case with yours.
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 11, 2016, 12:52
|
||
I believe we have been here before George. I don't believe for one second that you have made up your figures, but as that is all you have put forward , with no method, it's hard to see how any problems could be seen. We could go on with this, but until you explain how you come to your conclusions it's just going around in circles.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited May 11, 2016, 13:40
May 11, 2016, 13:39
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: cerrig wrote: You are very reluctant to reveal your methodology George. Why is that? Your wrong on two accounts , there are various methodologies . I have explained how to do some of them here and elsewhere for anyone who asked . If you don't know , it's not difficult to find out . As mentioned previously ,I would happily explain to most but I can't be arsed telling you . George, I think if you explained it thus, "The fields are of consciousness that are all connected and within the overall galaxies field, they transfer across to each other along birkeland currents, and the whole system is similer to DNA diagrams" it would be accepted without a murmur. (In fact I know it would).
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 21 22 23 24 25 26 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
