|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
beatles 133 posts |
Mar 07, 2008, 20:44
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: Thanks Jane. I've just read a bit more of the thesis rather than just the synopsis, and I must admit he does cover the trilithons being a horseshoe shape. It still sounds pretty far fetched to me though. beatles - a couple of notes for your thesis: 1. It is a "mortise and tenon" joint, not "mortise and tendon". 2. Stonehenge has an "Altar Stone" not an "Alter Stone". wow, you are a good close reader. i much appreciate these corrections. thanks, i will correct those two items.... clyde
|
|||
|
beatles 133 posts |
Mar 07, 2008, 20:52
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: Well I guess I agree Stonehenge could well be 'about' grain, because as you say the landscape around that time was being cleared, and plants were being domesticated. And you'd need to sow and reap your plants just at the right time - an astronomical 'instrument' would come in handy. But isn't the carousel thing rather over-egging the pudding? I mean, Occams Razor and all that. Are there any post holes in the right place as supporting evidence for your theory? The central post for instance. That'd make a bloody big hole. I know you said they could move it around, but it would have to be huge and if it wasn't secured at the top it'd have to be secured at the bottom or surely people would get squashed? I love my folklore and I notice you say "Old stories of sound coming from Stonehenge may be folk memories of the grinding and rumbling noises of the working mill." I haven't spotted these before and am intrigued to hear more / where you got this from. hi, as for the central post in the granary theory; it would have been about 40 feet tall and not very thick since it carried no weight and did not rotate. it was about the size of a rural wooden electrical pole. the bottom of the post was probably sitting on a sort of sledge or skid plate becouse it had to be moved a bit from time to time to steer the carousel and keep it centered on the sarsen ring. it was held in place at its top by ropes to the ring of bluestones just inside the sarsen ring and also to the tops of the trilithons. the bottom of the post was held in place by ropes to the bluestones inside the horseshoe. these were the ones used to reposition the base of the pole and steer the carousel into the wind. this action overcame the effect of the wind trying to push the carousel off the sarsen ring. thanks for this very good question.. take a look at the website video for more of an idea of how this thing worked. clyde
|
|||
|
beatles 133 posts |
Mar 07, 2008, 21:02
|
||
|
TMA Ed wrote: beatles wrote: i am one of the owners of the site and will answer any questions but i will not respond to personal attacks or sarcasm..... Hi Clyde, Welcome to TMA. It's worth pointing out that the chances of personal attacks and/or sarcasm do tend to increase when people burst into the forum declaring things in all caps, telling us what we need to know and how it's for our own good. I'm sure it's not your intention to rub anyone up the wrong way, but as we have been incorrectly rubbed-up so many times in the past, you might be better off sharing your knowledge in a less declamatory fashion; many false prophets have fallen at the hands of TMA's collective wit, and their incessant "I know the way and you'll regret it if you don't follow me" ramblings have resulted in what you might call 'trust issues'! Kind regards, TMA Ed. dear ed. what i meant by that statement was that i do not intend to attack of make fun of anyone else's ideas here and that i will ignore any such attacks on myself. i apoligize if it sounded arrogant . i come here with the utmost respect because this site seems to be about real stonehenge issues and not new age stuff. i really admire your photographs and the maps and listings of all the wide spread megalithic sites. as i said, i understand that you must get new stonehenge theories often. i welcome all of your comments and will respond to each as long as they are not angry. thanks for the "heads up" clyde
|
|||
|
beatles 133 posts |
Mar 07, 2008, 21:08
|
||
|
jimit wrote: Does anyone know if soil samples taken at Stonehenge or the immediate area, show any remnants of the huge amount of corn which would have been processed here over (it is alleged) 1,000 years? Jim. thanks jim. the specific soil tests that would be needed to either prove or disprove my theory would be deep soil tests for residual grain amino acids in the ground at stonehenge COMPARED to the same tests done in the general countryside. this would show if there had been an unnatural concentration of grain inside stonehenge. It is this difference in background concentration that is the important thing. the English countryside must have had thousands of years of grain residue deposited everywhere. thank you. clyde
|
|||
|
beatles 133 posts |
Mar 07, 2008, 21:10
|
||
|
TMA Ed wrote: beatles wrote: i am one of the owners of the site and will answer any questions but i will not respond to personal attacks or sarcasm..... Hi Clyde, Welcome to TMA. It's worth pointing out that the chances of personal attacks and/or sarcasm do tend to increase when people burst into the forum declaring things in all caps, telling us what we need to know and how it's for our own good. I'm sure it's not your intention to rub anyone up the wrong way, but as we have been incorrectly rubbed-up so many times in the past, you might be better off sharing your knowledge in a less declamatory fashion; many false prophets have fallen at the hands of TMA's collective wit, and their incessant "I know the way and you'll regret it if you don't follow me" ramblings have resulted in what you might call 'trust issues'! Kind regards, TMA Ed. ed, the reason i titled my post "you need to know this" is becouse i was reluctant to title it "new theory of stonehenge" for fear none of you would read it. sorry about the choice of caps.
|
|||
|
beatles 133 posts |
Mar 07, 2008, 21:17
|
||
|
Mr Hamhead wrote: and how high would the centre post be?...and since when was Stonehenge neolithic? It's a wonderful idea...but why is it the only one? if it had worked would they have not copied the idea on a smaller scale at many other places (or was there a patent taken out?). I once had a dream that Silbury Hill was the last remains of a giant species of land living limpet...recent excavations have proved me wrong. Mr H hi , the post would have been at least 40 feet high.... only phase three of stonehenge is what we are discussing as a mechanical mill and as you know it came late in the megalithic culture. There is a part in the formal thesis near the end that answers this question. the entire culture changed after stonehenge and if i am correct not many megalithic circles were built after phase 3..... stonehenge was the only one of its kind. i wish i had seen the giant limpet...... if you come up with a working model let me know. thanks , clyde
|
|||
Mr Hamhead 1020 posts |
Mar 07, 2008, 22:51
|
||
|
Hi Clyde I have to admire your bravery for posting on here! I just find the whole mill thing so far from the norm that I find it hard to believe...but heh! anybody got any proof it wasn't built as a mill? Good luck with it all...I think your gonna need it! Mr H
|
|||
|
beatles 133 posts |
Mar 08, 2008, 01:12
|
||
|
hey hamhead. i am sure i will get a lot of flack about this but you know, the theory must eventually stand on its own merits. and there are some soil tests that can be done to prove or disprove it.......how simple. the ufo and alien theories are not so easily tested for........at least i am willing to put my ideas to the test. and i will put my working granary model up against any alien working model or any vortex working model... how about that. looking forward to a fair civil debate....... clyde
|
|||
Rockabilly 206 posts |
Mar 08, 2008, 01:52
|
||
|
I love it. I have never posted here before but this theory meant I had to. It is off the wall but some how I see where you are coming from. Beats the UFO alien theories totally. I don't buy though. Good luck beatles
|
|||
|
Rockabilly 206 posts |
Mar 08, 2008, 01:55
|
||
Oh I forgot to mention. I love the print out, cut out model on your website.
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
