thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 02, 2013, 19:58
|
|
bladup wrote: it looks like it was put up yesterday and is going to fall down tomorrow [i liked that last sentence].
Let's hope not, although then there would be a real opportunity to play at Megalithic Meccano.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 02, 2013, 19:59
|
|
Nice word. But everyone noticed AK doing that, no-one seems to have noticed a 19th century rebuild of Trethevy.
|
bladup
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 02, 2013, 19:59
|
|
Not very good compared to the inside of Zennor, and then you notice the stones are just stood on the topsoil and you realize somethings very wrong indeed, it's just what that is, is the issue for me.
|
juamei
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 02, 2013, 20:00
|
Looks fine to me, but then I've seen it elsewhere...
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/76776/dolmen_les_trois_pierres.html
|
bladup
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 02, 2013, 20:02
|
|
and excavate to see where the stoneholes are [it would surely have them], and this is how you could prove it's all wrong
|
harestonesdown
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 02, 2013, 20:04
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Nice word. But everyone noticed AK doing that, no-one seems to have noticed a 19th century rebuild of Trethevy.
Cos they were all too busy robbing ripping apart mounds for Objet d'art. :)
|
bladup
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 02, 2013, 20:04
|
|
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/890/haroldstown.html is a better example.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 02, 2013, 20:05
|
That's fair enough and you've got the on-site experience I haven't.
But my question remains, is there not a simpler way the tomb could have got to how it is, without a major move-around of the stones being needed?
In most sciences, people would expect to test the simple explanations first and be prepared to dismiss them if they can be demonstrably shown to be wrong. That doesn't seem to have happened here and I can't help feeling that everyone is favouring the more complex theories because no-one wants to offend Roy or criticise his work. I get that, but if his theory is to be accepted in wider circles, it will need to stand up to much more scrutiny and analysis than my ham-fisted comments.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 02, 2013, 20:06
|
|
Or right. Yes, quite.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 02, 2013, 20:07
|
Ha, probably true.
Perhaps the "re-build" was a clumsy attempt to hide early night hawk activity?
|
