|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Ley Lines |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Nov 09, 2010, 11:32
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: I believe that those who erected our megalithic structures were fully aware of earth energy currents/fields and how to use them. I'm open-minded to this possibility. Probably more so than I am to the existence of ley lines. Aside from anything else, one would suppose that any theoretical energy lines wouldn't run straight, but would rather curve and weave like other natural landscape features.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 09, 2010, 12:29
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: juamei wrote: http://www.standupmaths.com/woolworths/ Given a large enough set of data points on a map and you can draw anything you like. Watkins talked about lines of sight and straight lines across a relatively small area. Personally I'm still open to that possibility. I'm definitely not open however to 100 mile long energy lines going across the country eg St Michaels line... To this scientist, its unsubstantiated belief, no fact what so ever. Couldn't agree more, especially the middle bit, which is the beautiful baby that gets thrown out with the ridiculous bath water. Why go in a straight line ? Apart from Richard Long , in real life/topography i.e. away from maps , it's rarely the quickest option .
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Nov 09, 2010, 12:47
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: nigelswift wrote: juamei wrote: http://www.standupmaths.com/woolworths/ Given a large enough set of data points on a map and you can draw anything you like. Watkins talked about lines of sight and straight lines across a relatively small area. Personally I'm still open to that possibility. I'm definitely not open however to 100 mile long energy lines going across the country eg St Michaels line... To this scientist, its unsubstantiated belief, no fact what so ever. Couldn't agree more, especially the middle bit, which is the beautiful baby that gets thrown out with the ridiculous bath water. Why go in a straight line ? Apart from Richard Long , in real life/topography i.e. away from maps , it's rarely the quickest option . But did it mean that you had to go directly in a straight line to reach the next marker? Presumably it was just a way of reaching a destination for strangers (why would a local person need directions if they were short distances in small areas?) so as long as you ended up at each 'marker' along the way you would get there eventually. I am of course assuming each marker was within view of each other and you could look back toward where you had just come from to get your bearings to the next, irrespective of how winding your path had been.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 09, 2010, 15:31
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Why go in a straight line ? Apart from Richard Long , in real life/topography i.e. away from maps , it's rarely the quickest option . Exactly. I suspect they simply say "If you want to go from A to B then always try to keep C in view since it's prominent and near B".
|
|||
|
megadread 1202 posts |
Nov 09, 2010, 16:15
|
||
|
Jane wrote: Sanctuary wrote: So what has happened since, is the ley-line idea still fashionable or simply seen as a hit and miss or chance thing? . Yep. It's unproven mumbo jumbo. There are so many things in the landscape that if you look for patterns for long enough you'll always find things that line up. Just cos they do doesn't mean anything. Wot she said.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 09, 2010, 17:20
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: nigelswift wrote: juamei wrote: http://www.standupmaths.com/woolworths/ Given a large enough set of data points on a map and you can draw anything you like. Watkins talked about lines of sight and straight lines across a relatively small area. Personally I'm still open to that possibility. I'm definitely not open however to 100 mile long energy lines going across the country eg St Michaels line... To this scientist, its unsubstantiated belief, no fact what so ever. Couldn't agree more, especially the middle bit, which is the beautiful baby that gets thrown out with the ridiculous bath water. Why go in a straight line ? Apart from Richard Long , in real life/topography i.e. away from maps , it's rarely the quickest option . But did it mean that you had to go directly in a straight line to reach the next marker? Presumably it was just a way of reaching a destination for strangers (why would a local person need directions if they were short distances in small areas?) so as long as you ended up at each 'marker' along the way you would get there eventually. I am of course assuming each marker was within view of each other and you could look back toward where you had just come from to get your bearings to the next, irrespective of how winding your path had been. I don't buy the Watkins idea any more than the energy one .You could fill a book with the problems .He didn't have the benefit of palynology which might have shown that many of the lines of sight would have been obscured at the time of build of one or even all of the markers . The varying types of markers were built over millenia from the Neolithic to at least the Norman invasion. Some would have been very time consuming when all that was needed was a cairn or standing stone .On the early tracks that we are aware of there are no examples of ley markers i.e. Ridgeway , Icknieldway , Sweet Track etc . When you do find markers to indicate routes they are rarely in a straight line . Do tracks need markers in the first place .Wouldn't a guide book be required to tell which marker relates to which route .
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Nov 09, 2010, 17:47
Nov 09, 2010, 17:46
|
||
|
megadread wrote: Jane wrote: Sanctuary wrote: So what has happened since, is the ley-line idea still fashionable or simply seen as a hit and miss or chance thing? . Yep. It's unproven mumbo jumbo. There are so many things in the landscape that if you look for patterns for long enough you'll always find things that line up. Just cos they do doesn't mean anything. Wot she said. No. I don't agree at all, but then it's all down to the experience/experiencer. That way possibilities lie. :-)
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 09, 2010, 18:42
|
||
|
Jane wrote: Sanctuary wrote: So what has happened since, is the ley-line idea still fashionable or simply seen as a hit and miss or chance thing? . Yep. It's unproven mumbo jumbo. There are so many things in the landscape that if you look for patterns for long enough you'll always find things that line up. Just cos they do doesn't mean anything. It wasn't that long ago when every other pop archaeology book had in it's first chapter the mantras "The druids didn't build Stonehenge " and "ley lines don't exist " . Notwithstanding stats and the unlikelihood of it all , there are examples of sites being accurately aligned ,within sight of each other , of the same period , apparently intentionally and statistically significant ,sometimes all the sites of a group .An obvious example is on Cambret Moor in Dumfries and Galloway where within a distance of 280 metres a cup and ring marked stone , two cairns ,two standing stones and a stone circle are within sight of each other , all align and are the only monumnets within that immediate area . There is also a possibility of an astronomical alignment to the top of the hill to the south but that's another story .
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Nov 09, 2010, 23:15
Nov 09, 2010, 18:55
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: Sanctuary wrote: The Sea Cat wrote: Personal experience. I've used them on lines and in stone formations. There's definitely a very high level of energy. I haven't actually taken exact measurements, but that's an interesting point to be looked into further. I believe that those who erected our megalithic structures were fully aware of earth energy currents/fields and how to use them. I've done a certain meditation inside circles on occasion and you can feel the very powerful energy field. On one occasion I had to stop because it became quite overwhelming. Yes I've heard of this feeling before but of course a lot of people scoff at the idea. For myself I am completely open minded. My only real experience of 'width' with dowsing rods was when we had a bore hole specialist give us an estimate to have the system intalled when we purchased our old barn. He walked around the property with the rods until finding the water supply he felt most suited to the position where the supply had to enter the building. He then approached the area from either side (he considered it a 'river' underground) and the rods reacted leaving a width of about 6ft as a target area. Very much TIC I asked him how far down? He turned the rods upside down and walked slowly to the centre of the area and said 120ft without hesitation. The following week the bore hole was drilled and they struck water at 115ft!! I have a a cottage in Ireland that my Dad and I renovated from a ruined shell. We got a Dowser in and within minutes he located a deep natural spring within the grounds. It's now the property's sole water source, straight from the earth and on tap! Finding water/springs by use of dowsing rods has been proven many times - even sceptics would have to agree on that. The modern take on ley lines seems very much linked to sacred geometry but as I'm rubbish at maths people can write what they like and I'd have to take their word for it though I'm willing to believe maps can be manipulated to make geometry 'fit'. Someone mentioned sightlines - I certainly believe that these were deliberate and can be observed around Silbury Hill; if you stand at the end of West Kennet Long Barrow (which is thought to be an extension to the original barrow) there is a sight line beyond Silbury to Windhill Hill, a neolithic site of great importance.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 09, 2010, 19:34
|
||
|
"statistically significant" Gotta formula? ;) http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/25391 http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/64185/images/silbaby.html
|
| Pages: 16 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
