Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Trethevy Quoit »
Trethevy Quoit...Cornwall's Megalithic Masterpiece
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 40 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 12:00
Paranoia involves no obvious evidence which is something I'm certainly not short of, which is why I intend to do exactly what I said and not discuss it further.
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 12:03
Littlestone wrote:
You’re becoming paranoid Nigel, I was actually thinking of someone else, well-known to both of us, who has collaborated with at least two people on books which have never seen the light of day.


I know someone like that as well. He may even be amongst us.
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 12:07
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 .
Littlestone
Littlestone
5386 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 12:23
nigelswift wrote:
...which is why I intend to do exactly what I said and not discuss it further.


Good (though if I were you I’d be very careful not to open a can of worms you might come to regret).
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 12:41
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 :-)
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 12:43
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 :-)


Eh??
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 12:46
Well, I've done many wrong things in my life but none has been of the scale of trying to steal the Heritage Journal so I suggest you desist.
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 12:51
PS, and as for a can of worms it is the opinion of all those who are privy to what you did that you acted in a totally outrageous fashion whereas I haven't had any criticism whatsoever from them relating to my own behaviour - so open your can if you wish. (As if!)
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 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 :-)


Eh??


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?
Littlestone
Littlestone
5386 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 13:11
To quote from the Forum conduct - a warning above, “Personal attacks that escalate differences of opinion aren't acceptable.”

How you conduct yourself here Nigel is entirely up to you (though I’d say you’re pushing your luck and already way out of line).

I’d like to remain a contributor however so will say no more (at least not on TMA).
Pages: 40 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index