Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
John Michell lecture
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Rhiannon
5290 posts

Re: John Michell lecture
May 04, 2016, 18:40
This is all quite abstract though, you believe he's a visionary and T believes he isn't.

Could you share one of his insights that you mention?

This is not supposed to be that stirry, more it would give everyone else a chance to see and consider what you're talking about. Otherwise it's just you and T lobbing snarkiness at each other :) Which while entertaining doesn't move things on much. If you want to anyway.
thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat
6200 posts

Re: John Michell lecture
May 04, 2016, 19:12
Personally I like John Michell's books, they're very engaging. I also like Alfred Watkins for the same reason. It doesn't mean I'm going to accept a lot that either of them said, but then I don't necessarily agree with Burl about glaciers either :)

I do think it's a bit of a stretch for your friend to say JM "found" all the Land's End stones in "Old Stones of..." though; William Borlase, William Copeland Borlase, JT Blight (a visionary in every sense) and Viv Russell had already recorded pretty much everything on the peninsula in a lot more detail. But still well worth reading, especially as his books opened up the places to wider, non-archaeo audience in much the same way Cope's TMA did two decades later. And that can't be a bad legacy.
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: John Michell lecture
May 04, 2016, 19:55
Rhiannon wrote:
This is all quite abstract though, you believe he's a visionary and T believes he isn't.

Could you share one of his insights that you mention?

This is not supposed to be that stirry, more it would give everyone else a chance to see and consider what you're talking about. Otherwise it's just you and T lobbing snarkiness at each other :) Which while entertaining doesn't move things on much. If you want to anyway.


The problems with original conception of ley lines I thought old hat and everyone wouldbe aware of that .Similarly when these problems led to the change to earth energies and leys and /or ufo's yet another approach that had had it's day . if anyone wants to go over that again ,no problem .
The thread began with a lecture on the old stones of lands, the problems related to that had been gone over decades ago . I just dug the book out and found some new crackers that I have never seen mentioned before .
The first heading for the chapter on stones and how they are supposed to form leys is " Boscawen-Un Circle , The Nine Maidens 41182734 " Seems fine but that grid ref is outwith the circle by as much as 43 yards .You might imagine he would have got that right . I checked the other grid refs and they are all wrongto some degree , doesn't matter if it just a guide to finding the site but this is supposed to be about sites lining up accurately .

Depending on which of two possibles in the same field Stone4 is a whopping 987 or 1,146 yards out . The latter looks the more likely .The listed point is to the south east of the circle when it is supposed to be aligned to a stone to the west of the circle (the given ref is 4041 2721 ,when it is actually 40572 27263 ) .

Thew best one is , Nine Maidens Boskednen is given a grid ref of 43412512 which happens to be a mere 6.2 miles out .

Then there is odd criticism of Lockyer who claimed that the two Pipers were in line with the centre of the Merry Maidens circle ,that certainly is not the case if you use Michell’s grid refs , but in reality they do align to a point within the circle , the line is out by approx 6 yards .When we look at Michell’s grid ref for the circle it is 6 yards outside it never mind that amount from the centre .

That of course is not the major problem with the "vision" but that has been well covered .

Things moved on to to the "canon of number" .I gave a link ,twice ,as it had not been read or understood the first time , to a chum of Michell's ,A mkathematician who showed how problematic Michell's thinking was in this area .

So it has not been all personal sniping from me .
Rhiannon
5290 posts

Re: John Michell lecture
May 04, 2016, 20:08
I'm just suggesting I'd like to hear the cream of these insights really.

I thought maybe they'd be about something other than ley lines.
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: John Michell lecture
May 04, 2016, 20:17
Do you mean Michell's insights ?
Rhiannon
5290 posts

Re: John Michell lecture
May 04, 2016, 21:24
Cerrig said "The current models of history and mathematics don't account for Johns insights" and "thanks to his groundbreaking work another piece of the puzzle is much clearer than it would have been otherwise".

I was just wondering what Cerrig thinks these insights are and what has been made much clearer. I was hoping these would be something quite specific.

Perhaps I should have made myself much clearer also :)

Some might call it stirring but I thought it would be better to have some specific statements / concepts of his to discuss in 'lively debate', rather than what I see as the current more nebulous 'He was a visionary genius' vs 'He talked a load of rot'. But perhaps it's too much to hope for ie trying to mix visionary apple talk vs scientific evidence oranges. Unless of course he said particular testable things (rather like Lethbridge and his pendulum ideas).
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Edited May 04, 2016, 22:43
Re: John Michell lecture
May 04, 2016, 22:39
[quote="Rhiannon"]Cerrig said "The current models of history and mathematics don't account for Johns insights"

Yes it is an hilarious claim . Maybe someone should have told the historians and mathematicians .


"Some might call it stirring ."

Not me .

"
No but I thought it would be better to have some specific statements / concepts of his to discuss in 'lively debate', rather than what I see as the current more nebulous 'He was a visionary genius' vs 'He talked a load of rot'. "

I didn't just say he talked rot , I have pointed out specific examples .
Much of the rot has been covered over the years .
I assume you haven't read Michell or the criticism .


"But perhaps it's too much to hope for ie trying to mix visionary apple talk vs scientific evidence oranges. Unless of course he said particular testable things (rather like Lethbridge and his pendulum ideas)."

How about “Bladud , father of King Lear who was killed in 852 BC when his airship crashed into the Temple of Apollo in London .”

“The position with artificial mounds and sacred hills is more certain .There can be little doubt that they were the scenes of sacrifice to and landings by beings from the sky “

It's not always so funny . Listen to the lecture as mentioned in the first post in this thread , it's hilarious .
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Edited May 04, 2016, 23:48
Re: John Michell lecture
May 04, 2016, 23:31
Seeing as you have just posted notes about Tolven /Men an Tol . It might be worth looking at some of the problems associated with the monument and Michell that took about about 5 minutes to appreciate .
The monument is mentioned in TOSOLE .
The suggested Ley line is said to align with a boundary stone at 4475 3586 and this alignment is oriented to 66.5 degrees pointing to the spot where the May day sun will rise .
For starters the grid ref for men an Tol is wrong , being 29 yards from the monument .
There is no boundary stone at the suggested grid ref and neither the wrong grid ref or the correct one for Men an tol is aligned to the putative boundary stone at 66.5 degrees . Needless to say the spot given for the stone is not visible from the monument .There is a boundary stone 65 yards from the given grid ref , in fact there are plenty of boundary stones in the area but not at the given grid ref . This excess of possible markers is one of the problems first mentioned in the early seventies i.e. there were far more possible targets than suggested by Michell which changed the statistical likelihood . In fact if you want a ley line use the boundary stones ,as in many cases boundaries follow straight lines and that’s where you tend to get the set stones , in the vast majority of cases these groupings are not prehistoric .
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: John Michell lecture
May 05, 2016, 08:21
Rhiannon, your will have to whistle for proper answers, this is a dance that has been going on for decades. Special insights are claimed, evidence in support is requested or evidence to the contrary is cited and the response is always anger. The only place where the dance isn't conducted that way are forums where people take the insights as fundamentally correct. You need to decide if you're content with no answers here or content with no answers elsewhere. ;)
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: John Michell lecture
May 05, 2016, 08:41
nigelswift wrote:
Rhiannon, your will have to whistle for proper answers, this is a dance that has been going on for decades. Special insights are claimed, evidence in support is requested or evidence to the contrary is cited and the response is always anger. The only place where the dance isn't conducted that way are forums where people take the insights as fundamentally correct. You need to decide if you're content with no answers here or content with no answers elsewhere. ;)


Sometimes there is no definitive answer.

Came across this a while back which I saved...

"I had a guy round on me, in public, that my dowsing was bullshit. He was nasty. So. Giving him my best smile, I asked him if he had any children.
He had.
I asked how much he loved them?
He said, I love them.
Fine. How much do you love them?
I can't answer that. I just love them.
So, there isn't a machine to measure how much you love them?
No.
So, in that case, going by your laws of physics that you are imposing on me,
if you can't measure it, weigh it, calibrate it, your Love doesn't exist?"
Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index