nigelswift
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 16:08
|
|
tiompan wrote: They had learnt the lesson , can't refute what you can't see or measure .
I'd see it as having been allowed to get away with saying that. Truth is, there are zillions of ways of verifying if they are seeing something not visible or if they aren't as you know George. They're called Tests. Unfortunately Tests are considered not cricket....
|
cerrig
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 16:56
|
|
It's a book Rhiannon, available to all. People can make what they want of it then.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 16:58
|
Thankyou, but I just meant my last post (I know you mentioned you were having problems seeing who was answering to what) - ie "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?"If it's about distances and sizes of things (not somehow-detectable energies), won't it still be a matter of interpretation about why those things are the size and angle they are?"
But maybe you've answered that:
Andy Norfolk wrote: 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.
...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.
So really you're saying it's more that you find Michell's >way of thinking< inspirational, and it's less important what he actually said, if it gets people including yourself, out there valuing the sites?
I don't think that's what Cerrig is saying, they sound like they have more specific concrete things that they've developed from Michell's work. But maybe Cerrig will elucidate.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 17:00
|
|
you're not going to say anything about what it's about in advance? :)
|
Andy Norfolk
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 17:09
|
I've said elsewhere here that John Michell's work in West Penwith was a lot more accurate than some her have claimed, because they have (possible willfully) misinterpreted how he did it. Sourly nitpicking for minor errors is not my way of doing things. Some his other work I regard as more inspirational than a statement of fact. Funnily enough the same goes for Julian Cope - though that may be regarded as heresy here.
Do have a look at Palden's work though
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 17:22
|
|
Andy Norfolk wrote: I've said elsewhere here that John Michell's work in West Penwith was a lot more accurate than some her have claimed, because they have (possible willfully) misinterpreted how he did it.
Not wilfully misrepresented at all .The data has been given ,if it is wrong it can be refuted .
To reiterate ,apart from the huge problems mentioned decades ago ,which have mostl ybeen ignore , a quick recent look showed that he regularly got grid refs wrong , in one case out by over a 1,000 yards . That in itself was not the point of the Men an tol "alignment" problem . His description , based on lockyers earlier cross quarter day observation , is wrong .Men an Tol is not aligned to the boundary stone at 66.5 degrees as he suggested.
Lockyer doidn't make that mistake .
The numerous problems about the TOSOLE in particualr or " Leys " in general can be covered if you wish .
I was simply mentioning something new .
|
cerrig
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 17:26
|
|
No, not really. I'm sorry about that, but I may post something on here nearer the time of publication. If you keep on the good side of them fairies you might get a review copy though.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 18:43
|
Well we'll all have to wait patiently then, thank you.
Or else.
Possibly.
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 18:56
|
In realtion to equidistances , but no canon .
You may remember
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/tma/topic/40183/threaded/679446
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 19:42
|
If I were a prehistoric person going from place to place (or indeed if I were going to go from place to place today) I wouldn't find it much use to be pointed in a straight line to something 100miles away. I think I'd travel from landmark to landmark, river crossing to weird shaped hill. I might pop in on stone circles on the way. But I don't know why there's this thing about straight lines. Other than things lining up occasionally with the sun at the solstices, that might be interesting. But otherwise I wouldn't be moving in straight lines. Things don't really work like that in nature.
anyway that's just a reflection of my own mind. I'm not that bothered that X is exactly the same as Y. But I concede that whoever it was building the circles, if they did it because they liked Rules and Order and getting people to do what they were told, they might have liked that sort of thing. But I wouldn't.
|
