Andy Norfolk
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 20:10
|
You are willfully ignoring my repeatedly pointing out that the fact that John Michell got a few grid refs wrong does not matter because he did not use them to work out his alignments. The alignment he gives to that boundary stone is at about 66.5 degrees.
Lockyer wrote in the caption to figure 56 on page 283 of Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments that the Men an Tol was “an apparatus for observing the sunrise in May and August in one direction and the sunset in February and November in the other. Sun’s declination 16° N or S.” The plan of Men an Tol that he shows is inaccurate because he shows the stones in a more or less straight line which they are not.
I calculated that allowing for the height of the horizon the May Day sunrise would be at an azimuth of about 69.36° - I could have been wrong. The azimuth I calculated was for the point at which the horizon bisected the sun.
So Michells' guesstimate wasn't too bad and is probably correct for the azimuth at which the sun first shows above the horizon. He was right that the boundary stone, that does exist at the grid ref I gave earlier and is shown in the correct location in the map on page 79 of the 1979 edition of TOSOLE, is in the direction of May Day sunrise.
This line from the Men an Tol does not rely solely on it and the boundary stones of course.
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 20:44
|
You are willfully ignoring the fact that I never suggested that getting the grid refs wrong was anything to do with the alignments . As I keep saying it was indincative of the sloppy methodology . Did I mention the error of 6 + miles for Boskednan .?
The alignment to the boundary stone is not 66.5 degrees as he suggested ,thiswas based on Lockyers more accurate suggestion of the cross quarter day bearing which didn't go near the boundary stone . That is also out , by 62 yards , in the other direction from the bearing he believed was fore the cross quarter day .
Today it is 68 degrees almost bang on .This is 125 yards from the boundary stone when you extend the line from the actual horizon ,bearing in mind the stone can't even be seen from the monument .
I has already pointed out that the line from the monument does not include any of what Michell said would be the" only monuments considered , menhirs , stone circles and dolmens " .What he had on this "alignmnet" was an ancient settlement (a fair sized target , a boundary stone the hilarious "round field " and a tumulus . Not one of whichwas in that list of three leaving an alignment with one monument .
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 20:46
|
|
Rhiannon wrote: 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.
Bloody anarchist. Where will it end?
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 20:53
|
That is why the earliest incarnation of the ley thinking didn't make much sense either .It was map based , people don't do straight lines in the real world unless it is on a bowling green or sports ground .
Too many interesting things to see , awkward things to avoid or simply keeping to the contours .
The same type of problem is inherent in the equidistant type stuff they measure the distance from A-B on a map and forget about how long it might actually take to traverse the distance i.e. two 4000 feet high hills might only be a mile apart but if you have to descend 3500 to get to the other it's not really a mile in the real world . The same applies to low heights where the ground is not uniformly flat .
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 20:54
|
|
I know. Imagine the chaos. It's never going to work. We need our superior overlords to tell us what to do. Back to the grindstone. Bother.
|
dee
|
Edited May 06, 2016, 21:04
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 21:04
|
|
Jesus .... I posted this video cos I thought it might be of some interest and it seems like part (I haven't read it all ....waaaay too much) ... just proves that this forum cannot avoid falling head long into shit ... nice one
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 21:09
|
|
It was of some interest , not everybody would have had the same experience , I found it a great laugh .
|
Andy Norfolk
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 21:19
|
Oh come on - just admit gracefully that some of what you have been saying is a just a teensy, weensy bit wrong.
The fact that John got a few grid refs a little bit out is not an issue and it has nothing whatever to say about his methodology, no matter how much you keep trying to claim to the contrary. And by the way neither of us knows whether the few odd grid refs were John's fault, or that of his publishers.
As to the alignment from Men an Tol it IS 66.5 degrees in TOSOLE but that is a grid bearing, not a compass bearing or a true bearing. What is your bearing of 68 degrees? Is yours grid, true or magnetic? It makes a big difference.
I've dealt with all your comments about dubious grid refs in some detail. Why don't you do me the courtesy of taking some notice instead of persisting with making misleading claims.
By the way a round in Cornwall is an Iron-age enclosed farmstead. You might not know that.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 21:24
|
|
Your contrition is noted citizen.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 21:28
|
|
JM is a jumping off point, as JC was years later for many who come here. Neither was the messiah, but both brought bags of enthusiasm and that counts for a great deal I reckon.
|
