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, 12:58
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 :-)


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?
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index