|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » John Michell lecture |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 06, 2016, 14:22
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: 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? Quite .Although my " feeling " is that it won't be physics . More like metrology related to and between " ancient sites " .
|
|||
|
Andy Norfolk 58 posts |
May 06, 2016, 14:26
|
||
|
This will probably be my last comment on the misleading things said about John Michell's work in West Penwith. In the 1979 edition of TOSOLE John Michell says that Boscawen-un circle is at 4172 2735 - this is wrong, but has no effect on the alignments John plotted on the 6" OS maps as shown in TOSOLE on which of course Boscawen-un is shown in precisely the right location. A more accurate grid ref is SW 4122 2736. As I've said before John was not hung up on grid refs to determine alignments - he went and looked and plotted them on accurate large scale maps. In the same edition he places Boskednan Nine Maidens at 4341 3512. Barnatt gives SW 4343 3512. Again however John's grid reference is quite irrelevant because he didn't rely on them to determine alignments. There has been criticism of the alignment from Men an Tol to a boundary stone at 4475 3586 saying that there is no stone there. A more accurate grid ref is SW 4475 3590, hardly a huge discrepancy, and there has been a stone there since at least the 1878 OS map. However the real point is yet again that John did not rely on the accuracy of grid references to determine the alignments as is perfectly obvious from what he says in TOSOLE. John also makes it abundantly clear in TOSOLE that he was only really interested in ancient monuments of the same period and merely noted other stones, crosses etc in passing. By the way those you who have memories that work, you will recall that in the Country Tracks programme the person who found one of the stumps of the stones of the original Men an Tol Stone circle - first suggested by Blight and confirmed by the CAU a few years back - was Joe Crowley one of the presenters of the programme. I didn't tell him where to look and the expression on his face when he looked down as his rods crossed to find he was standing on a stone stub was priceless. One of the best things about that day was standing by the Men an Tol listening to five cuckoos calling at once. I'm more interested in constructive discussions that arguments. If people do wish to criticise it would help if their criticisms were objective. Do read TOSOLE again - you'll find John talking about statistics and all sorts of other things with his usual eccentric erudition. It's worth remembering I think that, without John sparking the earth mysteries movement by publishing The View over Atlantis, this web site probably wouldn't exist.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 06, 2016, 14:49
|
||
That will be interesting but disappointing. I'd much rather "energies" were revealed at last.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited May 06, 2016, 15:04
May 06, 2016, 14:53
|
||
|
No need to go . It's a discussion ,at least you don't get personal simply because you someone doesn't agree with you . It's a nice change . What did I say that was misleading ? I have already pointed out that the wrong grid refs are only a minor point in relation to the dodgy methodology .They had never been pointed out previously among the vast amount of problems related to that type of stuff . I also pointed out that the main error in the Men an Tol alignment did not involve the wrong grid refs . They are immaterial to the differnet category of error in the bearing of the alignment . The discrepancy error for the boundary stone amounts to 66 yards , again this has nothing to do with the error with the suggested bearing of the "alignment " . I quoted the the point he made about using a limited group of monuments for the "alignments " , boundary stones were not one , round fields are not either .In the Men an Tol 1 there is only one monument in the "alignment" that fits the categry .needless to say you can't have an alignment with one component . This is an entirely constructive argument .There are many problems with TOSOLE and they were noted a long time ago ,there have been a few more added in the past couple of days since the posting of the first thread . Michell may have spoken about stats but when it comes to looking at the stats they were one of the problems that made previous believers realise there were big problems with the early version of "leys " resulting in the move ,for some , to much safer ground of ""earth energies " that were purely subjective and couldn't be demonstrated to be wrong empirically .
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Edited May 06, 2016, 15:00
May 06, 2016, 14:57
|
||
|
It's about measurements and angles? So (repeating myself) "in a small area crammed with ancient sites, wouldn't you expect a lot to line up by chance though? How are you deciding if those lines are meaningful and not coincidental?" Do you know I'd rather it was about hitherto undetected earth vibes as well. Because if it's about distances and sizes of things, won't it still be a matter of interpretation about why those things are the size and angle they are? I do hope you will publish your ideas where everyone can read them. I genuinely would relish it being a huge shock.
|
|||
goffik 3926 posts |
May 06, 2016, 14:59
|
||
|
Andy Norfolk wrote: the antiquated way the site handles threads makes it difficult to work out who on earth is responding to who Hi Andy Are you looking at the forum via Head Heritage, or The Modern Antiquarian? I find the HH forum threading to be as you describe, but TMA is far more legible... EG: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=74760&message=937211 G x
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 06, 2016, 15:01
|
||
|
"I didn't tell him where to look and the expression on his face when he looked down as his rods crossed to find he was standing on a stone stub was priceless." But that's simply not evidence is it? Now, if you offered proper, testable evidence, like Cerrig is going to .... "One of the best things about that day was standing by the Men an Tol listening to five cuckoos calling at once." Six.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited May 06, 2016, 15:19
May 06, 2016, 15:16
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: It's about measurements and angles? So (repeating myself) "in a small area crammed with ancient sites, wouldn't you expect a lot to line up by chance though? How are you deciding if those lines are meaningful and not coincidental?" That is what led to the collapse of the old "ley line " thinking .The stats showed that finding lines on maps was what was to be expected by chance .The choice was immense and usually included churches ,(which were always built on ancient sites after all ,cough) ,the symbol of a church on the map also took up a fair amount of space much greaer than the actual church ,providing a graet target . Medieval Moats were a favourite ,there are so many in Norfolk and Suffolk you can't go wrong , hill forts ,cross roads , straight stretches of road ,the "round field" in TOSOLE takes a bit of beating .You didn't need ancient sites . Try it , you'll find dozens with little effort . The accuracy of the lines were often a joke too . Think of the St Michael line from "The View Over Atlantis " Most "hunters " got the point and went off into other areas . Then it became "energies " .The yhad learnt the lesson , can't refute what you can't see or measure .
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Edited May 06, 2016, 15:33
May 06, 2016, 15:33
|
||
but will AN or Cerrig give me their thought on this? I'd genuinely like to know what they think.
|
|||
|
Andy Norfolk 58 posts |
May 06, 2016, 15:57
|
||
|
Eh? Did you mean me? My thoughts on what? The development of earth mysteries since 1970 to now? Quite a big topic. Or just whether or not everything that John Michell wrote was credible? Also quite big topic. I like going to ancient sites. I enjoy being at them. Sometimes I try to work out what they are for and why they are there. Sometimes it's enough just to be with them. Leys - yes - there have been some silly moments along the way. They have been claimed to be 1 Alignments of ancient sites 2 Traditional routes for carrying the dead 3 Maps for the flights of shamans 4 Roads used by ghosts 5 Roads of the fairies 6 Energy lines 7 Markers of astronomical events - like May Day sunrise 8 Power grids to guide and refuel UFOs 9 Lines along which the ancient Druids flew stones and communicated telepathically 10 Man-made channels of earth energy to promote fertility 11 The terrestrial nervous system 12 Atlantean power supply system 13 Manifestations of etheric substance - a map of the spiritual dimensions Do some sites fall on intentional straight alignments? Yes of course some do. Do they all? Probably not. Do I care? Not much, so long as the ancient sites are loved and protected from idiots and enjoyed by those who want to go there and think their own thoughts about them. I have had a lot of fun looking at all the theories over the years. I've especially enjoyed Paul Devereux's repeated advance publicity for each of his books that it was the final answer to leys the universe and everything. Which they nearly were. I haven't enjoyed the petty squabbles and the nitpicking. I do still like John Michell's idea that we are living in the wreckage of a prehistoric landscape built for some extraordinary reasons. Did John get deep into esoteric number theory that left me cold? Yes. Did I believe everything he wrote? No. Should my views on this matter to anyone else? Probably also no. What John was very good a doing was confronting people with extraordinary ideas and getting them to think want might have previously been the unthinkable. He was a visionary, but some of his visions were perhaps a bit too left-field even for me. Still I really don't care if he got a decimal place wrong in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, or if he he got Borlase's inside leg measurement wrong by several kilometres. It's his breadth of vision and multi-disciplinary approach that always appealed to me, not his accuracy about minutiae.
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
