|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » John Michell lecture |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 11, 2016, 18:10
|
||
|
The point is to show that they are right or wrong . It's simple . Look at what he suggests as a bearing , you know the rest ,work it out . 've told wha tthe correct azimuth is , you could even work out what the alt is from that .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 11, 2016, 18:18
|
||
|
It's simple to show how the figures are wrong , if they don't work out . Think of one example of a ridiculous alt from a theodolite survey at Bryn Celli Ddu .The method was immaterial , the alt was so ourageous it changed the declination enough to make it fit an agenda ,eventually it was appreciated that it wass wrong . There are multiple ways to find the necessary ,azis , alts and decs . It's what is being offered that matters . If you don't know how to do that , read the literature .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 11, 2016, 18:48
|
||
|
,”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. “ When we do look at the evidence it becomes clear that what the statistical approach highlighted , is that there were problems with the hypothesis . Bob Forrest a mate of Michells played a part in this . When you have the number of sites that would be considered as valid points by ley hunting criteria then you will expect to find lots of examples ”by chance” . That is a basic problem . It applies to any example where random patterns are thought to be meaningful i.e. apophenia . Michell said “Still , to avoid controversy ,in the following examples of aligned sites in West Penwith the only monuments considered are menhirs ,stone circles and dolmens “ p. 14 TOSOLE . But when we look at the examples , there are multiple sites that do not fit these categories . Plot the actual number of Neolithic and BA sites then add , stone crosses , boundary stones , rubbing stones ,large stones in hedges etc and you will not only find large numbers of “leys” , some will probably align with the sun on your birthday . What Michell did was to add only those non menhir , dolmen and stone circle sites that fitted with his hypothesis and ignore the rest , this skewed the stats significantly . The men an Tol 1“ley” is not only wrong astronomically ,it only has one monument that fits in with the “menhirs ,stone circles and dolmens” restriction .In effect a ley based on one site . We could include the terminal point ,a possible tumulus as at least being prehistoric but two sites will always align regardless . “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. “ As in the old cases of leys the Michell points were from Neolithic to medieval . “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.” Imposing straight lines on a visual representation of the landscape i.e. a map is very modern way of working and thinking . If you are attempting to consider “ancient realities” then using maps ,and measuring distances between sites imposes modern post Mercator external viewpoint .This is exemplified in TOSOLE where some points are not even visible from it’s nearest neighbour . Creating lines on a map by joining ancient sites (or in the case of the ley hunters anything that takes their fancy gets included including natural sites and relatively modern buildings i.e. churches.) or any category that provides enough points in a given space tells us nothing and is simply to be expected by chance . “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. “ Nobody said that there cannot be energies that are as yet undetectable . That doesn’t mean that they exist or that there is a connection between ancient monuments and these putative energies . Those that claim to be able to detect these energies can always be tested . And that is the problem ,they either won’t or can’t come up with the goods . “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. “ It is comfortable and accepted by a majority who have looked at the evidence and data because it has been shown to be wanting in claims for the energies and any connection with ancient sites ,whether they are aligned or not . “Archaeo-astronomy didn't used to work either, but then there was the evidence.” The associations of some monuments with alignments towards astro events was noted long before the term appeared . There has been much nonsense written since . The Michell example at Men an Tol being a case in point .It was just accepted and never investigated .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 11, 2016, 19:00
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: 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). That's one way . I prefer to channel a Neolithic priest whilst dowsing . And if you don't buy that ,then it has all been confirmed by a psychic who knows nothing about anything and repeats what the holy one says ,not verbatim but very close .
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 12, 2016, 15:16
|
||
|
That's one way of getting out of it. I will continue to take your figures with a pinch of salt then George, and continue to believe actual on site observations instead. This scrutiny thing seems a bit uncomfortable when it's aimed back at you. Why's that ?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited May 12, 2016, 15:48
May 12, 2016, 15:32
|
||
|
You were told from the off . It seems you don't understand simple english any more than the subject . Here it is again . I have explained to others who asked here and elsewhere and will do again ,but can't be arsed doing it for you . There are also multiple methods throughout the web and literature . It is hardly difficult or a secret . You may have heard of Thom but possibly not read or understood him ,that is an obvious starting point . All methods when done properly produce the goods . There are countless examples of "on site observations " that are demonstrably wrong , I mentioned one from Bryn Cellu Ddu in the previous post and the literature is replete with them . If you are incapbale of undrerstanding the uses of the formulae and how the results derived can be shown to be in error and can't understands how Michell's suggestion of the bearing in TOSOLE is wrong , or even how to calculate an alt , then that's your problem . What I will gladly do for you ,is take a bet ,you suggest a site and I will tell you where the sun will rise or set as seen from the site or the alt ,to the same tolerance as is usually expected from astro calc. A referee can hold the £100 and check the test . Lets see if you can put your money where your mouth is ,or willing to accept real tests .
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 12, 2016, 16:32
|
||
|
We have already been here George, and then as now you provide figures but no proof of how you came by them, just your insistence that you are right and others are wrong. I don't need a lesson from you on how to do this. I know how to do this. So it isn't finding out how to do it that's the issue here, it's why your figures don't match on site observations, despite all your protests otherwise. There's a view of the sunrise from my garden. Very fetching when the foundry isn't casting. Try that.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 12, 2016, 16:54
|
||
|
All arch astro data can be shown to be right or wrong .How the data is arrived at is immaterial .It's whether it's right or wrong . If you can't see why the Michell data is wrong then you don't know "how to do this " Otherwise you would have provided data to show where I or Michell was wrong . You have provided nothing . For the umpteenth lets see your data showing where I am wrong . You can't even imagine how to work out the alt at Men an Tol . Put your money where your mouth is .
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 12, 2016, 17:12
|
||
I've given you the site George. What's the problem?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited May 12, 2016, 17:28
May 12, 2016, 17:25
|
||
|
My psychic is on holiday so your garden is not much help when I don't know where it is . A referee will be needed to hold the dosh and as confirmation will be necessary the site will have to suit them . And still no sign of any actual data from anywhere .
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 22 23 24 25 26 27 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
