|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » John Michell lecture |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 13, 2016, 14:56
|
||
Too late to move the goalposts now George. This lack of data is a problem for desktop archaeologists isn't it. Hard to get the full picture without all the relevant information. Will you be sending a cheque?
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 13, 2016, 15:30
|
||
|
I realise that you have difficulties understanding the basics , but in order to say where the sun rises or sets from a site ,you have to the where the site is . I supply data ,you fail to do so ,and your failing to do so again . Not only can you not explain your beliefs ,as compared with Andy N. ,who supplied plenty of detail , you can't back up your empty claims and now you won't provide the details of where your garden is . Give me the details of the site and I'll tell where the sun rises or sets ,simple .If I'm wrong you get the dosh ,if I'm right I get it . A referee will hold the cheques and will check the data . There should be no need to re-state this as it was perfectly clear when mentioned the first time . Then we will see if you will put your money where your mouth is .
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 13, 2016, 15:45
|
||
|
You see George, once again, you are the one who doesn't get it. Data gathered on site will always be better. Without it you are stuffed. You can put up any figures you like and say they are right, but just how can that be scrutinised without the method that arrived at that figure. You are the one who is constantly ducking this issue. You don't have all the relevant information, on my back garden, or on John Michell, or any of the other topics you choose to deride. If you were any more one eyed you'd be a pirate. I accept cash if that's better for you?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 13, 2016, 15:56
|
||
|
cerrig wrote: You see George, once again, you are the one who doesn't get it. Data gathered on site will always be better. Without it you are stuffed. You can put up any figures you like and say they are right, but just how can that be scrutinised without the method that arrived at that figure. You are the one who is constantly ducking this issue. You don't have all the relevant information, on my back garden, or on John Michell, or any of the other topics you choose to deride. If you were any more one eyed you'd be a pirate. I accept cash if that's better for you? Are you really so thick as not to realise that you can't give the details for a site if you don't know what or where the site is ? What is it you didn't understand about "What I will gladly do for you ,is take a bet ,you suggest a site and I will tell you where the sun will rise or set as seen from the site or the alt ,to the same tolerance as is usually expected from astro calc. A referee can hold the £100 and check the test . Lets see if you can put your money where your mouth is ,or willing to accept real tests ." Re-read that until it sinks in . It's very simple , and you are simply avoiding coming up with the goods as always . I have the relevant information to show that Michell was wrong . Anyone can put up figures ,if they are wrong they can shown to be wrong . I have done that and had them confirmed ,often enough . You provide nothing , either as original data or anything refuting other data . Plenty wind though . Put your money where your mouth is .
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 14, 2016, 12:14
|
||
|
I see what you mean about that name calling George, most unseemly and undignified. You should know better than get into an argument with an idiot. Welcome to my level. You are the one who is being thick George, but as usual you are too fond of your own opinion to see it, or the point I have been making all along. Your calculations, which are estimates, are only as good as the information that goes into them. All manner of allowances have to be taken into account in order to come up with a final estimate. These allowances are themselves estimates. Where do you go for your estimates. You don't have all the relevant information , and I'm not going to give it to you. Keep your money George, I don't want it.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 14, 2016, 12:30
|
||
|
I offered a simple challenge , an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is , you evaded it . All astro calcs are estimates ,but some are more accurate than others ,and some are just way wrong e.g. the Bryn Celli Ddu horizon that was made up to suit an agenda . The point is that some can be shown to be wrong ,as in the case above . Saying something is wrong is not good enough you have to provide the data to support it , I do . Similarly saying someone is thick needs support to , I supplied that data too. Think of the large number of points I have made about particular “alignments “ that include data , often appended with “if anyone wants the details do ask “ , you have failed to provide any refuting evidence to show that they are wrong . In almost every case they could be confirmed one way or the other within a year , and when I do get feed back pics,vids, visual confirmation etc it always proves to be positive. It is not as if it that difficult to find the rising and setting points of the sun and there are multiple methods that can be used to confirm the findings . Much more difficult , trumpet blowing alert and apologies to all except Cerrig , is to calculate something like a potential sun roll ,this is not a one off simple sun setting or rising at one spot , but multiple examples of where the sun is on the horizon whilst taking into consideration the angle of rise or set of the sun conforms to the slope of the hill it is being seen alongside ,needless to say ,the same positive confirmation applies there too . Considering the amount of time I have wasted responding to you I would have gladly accepted your dosh .
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 15, 2016, 15:59
|
||
|
I did accept George, immediately, and you failed to respond with anything but arrogant bluster, and you are yet to supply the method you use to come to the figures that you claim are the right ones, despite repeated requests. You are not as clever or as superior as you think you are, your childish challenge has proven that. Are you still finding this amusing, George.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 15, 2016, 16:32
|
||
|
You have evaded the issue . You won't give details of where the site is .You were asked to re-read and still can't understand the basics . "What I will gladly do for you ,is take a bet ,you suggest a site and I will tell you where the sun will rise or set as seen from the site or the alt ,to the same tolerance as is usually expected from astro calc. A referee can hold the £100 and check the test ." How can I give details of the site if I don't know where it is and how can the referee confirm the detail for the same reason . I'll repeat , you suggest a site and I'll tell you where the sun will rise or set from that site . A referee will hold the cheques and confirm the data . Put your money where your mouth is , put up or shut up . You won't though ,and your failure to supply anything meaningful either as data or details of the site will make look even more pathetic than you have done so far . Yoiu have great problems understanding simple english . No matter how often it gets repeated .Here goes for the umpteenth time .There are many methods that can be used , they are all mentioned in the litertature and on the web . I have explained some of the methodologies often enough and will do again , but I will not waste my time on you . The proof of the pudding ..... , I provide data , my results have been confirmed multiple times . You provide no data and only whinge . The challenge was not childish , the only childishness we have seen is your response and evasions . What is wrong about testing ? Like your chums the dowsers and psychics etc you have shied away from the test . You are not amusing , just a bit sad ,with a prominent chip and probably shadowless .
|
|||
|
cerrig 187 posts |
May 15, 2016, 17:55
|
||
|
Once again, no response, just more bluster. I guess I will just have to guess as to how you came by your figures, as you just won't come clean about that.(not the ones from your challenge though. Just how long does it take to work out a simple equation) Is there a reason you don't want your methods scrutinised(or whoevers methods you are using) It's beginning to get a bit suspicious now. Maybe you don't really use mortal means at all. I have given this some thought, and as to your true methods, I was inclining towards a scrying bowl and your psychic powers, noting how you like to put up smoke screens and the like, over protesting as you do, but I'm not fooled, then again, maybe not. My personal favourite though, and please tell me this is true, George is actually an alias, and you are in fact Granny Weatherwax. You get your info by doing a bit of borrowing. Naturally, in Scotland, it would be as an Eagle. What with you being so majestic and all. That wouldn't work in Wales of course, you'd get shot. No, Probably as a scrawny old crow, just to fit in, all incognito like, and you do like to Crow, don't you ? My shadow has grown during our little chat George. How's yours? If you really are Granny Weatherwax then you do know this has just been one huge joke, don't you?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 15, 2016, 18:22
|
||
|
Still incapable of understanding basic English .And only wasting time and space . Maybe you think that the more you write it will put space between you evading the challenge and providing any data . The response as always , the one you keep evading . ""What I will gladly do for you ,is take a bet ,you suggest a site and I will tell you where the sun will rise or set as seen from the site or the alt ,to the same tolerance as is usually expected from astro calc. A referee can hold the £100 and check the test ." And also come up with a refutation there is plenty of data for you to do so . "Put your money where your mouth is "
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 23 24 25 26 27 28 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
