|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » John Michell lecture |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 06, 2016, 10:29
|
||
Andy, my LOL wasn't about JM it was about your defence of him on the maudlin grounds that "it's easy to pick on someone who is now safely dead and can't defend himself". I guess Shakespeare, Jesus and Hitler can't be picked on either! A bit silly wasn't it?
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 06, 2016, 10:32
|
||
|
Andy Norfolk wrote: If you could take the time to be bothered to actually read his book and come to Cornwall and look for yourself you would find that John was reliable and sound in what he wrote. Of course it's easy to pick on someone who is now safely dead and can't defend himself. You said that Michell didn't make any errors . You have just been shown that he did . Why don't you refute or respond to that data . The errors came from the TOSOLE and others , if you didnt't recognise them that is not my problem . n most cases ley line hunters use a map and don't actually visit places on the ground . Michell managed to write about plenty of places he had never seen did you suggest that maybe he should have seen them for himself ? That fact that is dead is hardly relevant to criticism which has been present from the appearance of his first book .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 06, 2016, 10:34
|
||
PS, as for *an unedifying spectacle of fuckwittery*, someone who has been on telly telling millions of viewers they are dowsing the original layout of an ancient site really shouldn't throw such phrases about!
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited May 06, 2016, 10:56
May 06, 2016, 10:37
|
||
|
Andy Norfolk wrote: Go and read his book - you'll find you are wrong. I read it when it was first published , saw the probelms and commented on them at the time . The data that has been presented about the most recently noted errors (2 nights ago ) came from the book .They show him to be wrong in the most basic sense . If they are correct show me where I am wrong , and while you are at it tell Bob Forrest he is wrong too . Of course this does not include the huge amount of problems found throught the books that have been presented since they were written .
|
|||
|
Andy Norfolk 58 posts |
May 06, 2016, 13:03
|
||
|
One example of a misleading claim made in this thread relates to the Men an Tol. Firstly let's be absolutely clear that this is not the same as the Tolven, which is an entirely different monument many miles away near Gweek at SW 7063 2770 It has been said that John Michell gave an inaccurate grid reference for the Men an Tol. This is wrong John Michell gave the grid reference for the Men an Tol as 4264 3493 Heritage Gateway National Heritage listing gives SW 42644 34942 Historic Cornwall web site gives SW 4265 3494 John Barnatt in "Prehistoric Cornwall" had SW 4264 3493 Cheryl Straffon has it at SW 4264 3493 Cornwall HER has SW 4265 3494 But of course John Michell was working with 6" OS maps and in TOSOLE you can see that the position of Men an Tol is accurately shown on these maps and so are alignments in the area. He did not rely on grid references to check alignments - he went and looked and used accurate maps.
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 06, 2016, 13:32
|
||
|
I get the feeling that many of the doubters here actually want to be proven wrong (maybe not George). You are going to get your wish granted. All of you are in for a huge shock
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
May 06, 2016, 13:45
|
||
|
Well that's the scientific method isn't it. If you come up with evidence that goes against the currently accepted theory, then the original theory has to be rejected and a new theory written (rather than the evidence being rewritten). And that's what scientists do all the time, they have to leave their pet theory behind, and man up, admit they hadn't got things quite right and move on, and come up with a new way of explaining things. So this is great, bring on your evidence. And if when it's reviewed by other people (this being also part of the scientific method), and it supports whatever new theory you'll be setting out, then hoorah. But if you don't think it should be treated like scientific evidence, then that's fine isn't it*. but just say so? *see Sanctuary's 'you can't measure love' comment.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited May 06, 2016, 14:00
May 06, 2016, 13:45
|
||
|
The correct grid ref for Men an Tol which can be derived from large scale maps and Google Eartth shows that the Michell grid ref is out by 29 yards .Whilst this doesn't compare with the error found for Stone 4 which is out by 1146 yards it doesn't impact on the other errors of a different type ,i.e. those related to the alignment which is not based on the grid ref but on the actual position of the points on the line . If we used his grid refs it wouldd have been a total waste of time . He couldn't have seen the boundary stone from Men an Tol as it is unsighted from the monument .Further , what has not been mentioned about this type of "alignment " as it is old hat but doesn't appear to have been appreciated is that on p 14 of TOLSOLE Michell says" still ,to avoid controversey ,in the following example of aligned sites in West penwith the only monumnets considewred are menhirs , stone circles and dolmens " the boundary stone ,one of many in the area , and like other stones in the text never considered prehistoric is used as a potential example of a site . Of course he got the grid ref for the stone wrong too ,being 66 yards out in this case. The wrong grid refs were not the main point , they are just another example of dodgy methodology that I had never seen reference to . It was the claim , based on Lockyer's earlier work (Lockyer never mentioned the b.s. ) that the alignment between the two was 66.5 degrees , that is what is wrong . The other components of the"ley" don't fit into the "menhirs , stone circles and dolmens" grouping either ,one is hilariously a "round field " .what we have is a failed attempt to put some more meat on Lockyer's earlier work .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited May 06, 2016, 13:57
May 06, 2016, 13:54
|
||
|
New evidence doesn't change previous errors . As R says , bring it on and we'll see . Each case should be considered on it's own meriits/demerits . I doubt many things that I would love to proved wrong about and couldn't care less about agendas ,all that matters is the quality of the theory , not what it is about .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 06, 2016, 14:02
|
||
|
cerrig wrote: I get the feeling that many of the doubters here actually want to be proven wrong No need to "get a feeling", I'm on clear record here as saying I'd love for there to be evidence that some of the claims are right. Why would anyone not be excited for a new section of physics to open up, which is what you are talking about, presumably. When will we hear about it?
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
