Mustard
|
Edited Jan 09, 2013, 22:14
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 09, 2013, 22:14
|
|
bladup wrote:
I don't need to be told as i can see it with my own eyes
Thing is, the evidence of your own eyes might be good enough for YOU, but you can't expect it to be good enough for everyone else. I personally have no idea, because I don't visit the Avebury area that often, and because I'm not familiar with the latest information. But I wouldn't accept the evidence of your eyes as the basis for my opinion. Nothing personal - I wouldn't accept the evidence of Nigel's eyes either. I'd want hard facts.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 09, 2013, 22:15
|
Not wholesale and not on the Waden side - and the tunnels aren't on that side of course. It's my recollection that the migration would fan out and have a progressively smaller knock-on effect so it would be decades before any surface effects, if any.
Whether there has been any localised slippage though I don't know.
|
Steve M
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 09, 2013, 22:17
|
|
I don't come here very often - is this as rational as it gets?
|
bladup
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 09, 2013, 22:42
|
|
Mustard wrote: bladup wrote:
I don't need to be told as i can see it with my own eyes
Thing is, the evidence of your own eyes might be good enough for YOU, but you can't expect it to be good enough for everyone else. I personally have no idea, because I don't visit the Avebury area that often, and because I'm not familiar with the latest information. But I wouldn't accept the evidence of your eyes as the basis for my opinion. Nothing personal - I wouldn't accept the evidence of Nigel's eyes either. I'd want hard facts.
You're right of cause, but the sad thing to me is that some damage has happened already and will be almost impossible to put right, it's starting to slip down, and it's the product of collapses in the tunnels and them thinking that a bit of backfilling will sort it all out, it won't, the place has that many tunnels that the whole thing is unstable and if it wasn't for all the backfilling could have loads of more serious collapses.
|
bladup
|
Edited Jan 09, 2013, 22:46
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 09, 2013, 22:45
|
|
Steve M wrote: I don't come here very often - is this as rational as it gets?
Whats rational? and this is as nice as it gets though.
|
VBB
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 06:32
|
|
bladup wrote: nigelswift wrote: "and there imminent collapse"
News to me. Last I heard a degree of upwards migration was anticipated over time but not to the surface.
Believe them if you want, i can see it going down, i mainly visit every solstice and each time i see the waden hill side is caving in more and more [it's lower each time i see it], i don't need people to tell me whats happening i can see it all to clearly myself i'm afraid, and what with all the water recently i think they've got a real problem on their hands, i do hope i'm wrong though.
It doesn't matter whether anyone is wrong in such instances, the important thing is that they care enough to flag it up to someone that can check it out. For future reference e-mailing EH and then head up a new thread on here would ensure it is followed up by someone.
As to above concerns, it is perhaps a trick of the perspective and light. There are at least three members of the public that regularly take photographs of Silbury from the same spots in the landscape including from the Waden Hill side. One is particularly dilligent and regular in this habit. This individual flagged slippage on the south and south west flank in 2008, and don't let's forget of course that it was a member of the public that discovered the hole on the 29 May 2000 and averted a tragedy by informing local people that called ou the NT.
To my knowledge there is no movement to the degree you describe above, however, due to this public monitoring a change was highlighted last year quite low (3/4 of the way) down on the south eastern flank. This was not connected to any of the known major excavations. It is though worth recalling that one major vertical exacavation, that took place in the wake of the tunnel of 1849, was not known to Atkinson and only rediscovered a couple of years back.
|
VBB
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 06:40
|
|
juamei wrote: VBB wrote: Is this the longest Silbury thread on tma without war breaking out and the topic getting locked?
Has the evident damage got tma-ers to pick up the same hymn sheet and discuss rationally?
I need a lie down, I feel dizzy!
You are clearly a sockpuppet causing all the problems here. BAN HIM.
My instep is in shreds, I wish he would remove the large ring he wears on that hand before getting me to reply! :0)
|
juamei
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 11:18
|
|
VBB wrote: juamei wrote:
You are clearly a sockpuppet causing all the problems here. BAN HIM.
My instep is in shreds, I wish he would remove the large ring he wears on that hand before getting me to reply! :0)
*shudder*
|
Harryshill
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 11:42
|
Yep, sometimes.
If you live in Yatesbury, I expect you get to see Silbury Hill often. Have you seen this collapsing tunnel? If there is a problem, then I expect local people would have noticed and reported it.
Mind you collapsing tunnels are a very different issue to damage by trespass
|
Steve M
|
Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 12:50
|
|
Honestly, there is no collapsing tunnel!
|
