Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

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

391 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
4828 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 12:41
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 :-)
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index