Almost a month after my post about the invisible geomorphologists and glaciologists who supposedly think the MPP quarrying hypothesis is very convincing and that the interpretations of the local geomorphology by Dyfed, John and myself are dodgy, we haven't heard a whisper from anybody. All we have to go on are nudges and hints from people who themselves refuse to give their names, in comments on this blog. Whoever these "experts" are, they are still hidden somewhere in the undergrowth or behind a frosted glass screen. Very timid and demure, they are, to be sure........
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/the-strange-case-of-invisible.html
Until somebody publishes and puts their name to a proper reasoned critique of our two papers and shows them to be at fault, we will have every right to assume them to be reliable and even authoritative. Enough of ghosts and anonymity. And when are the members of the Quarrying Cult going to abandon the cowardly practice of simply ignoring everything that does not happen to be convenient to their fantastical story?
1 comment:
We need to very politely ask the senior archaeologists involved with the Rhosyfelin dig (and related Preseli fieldwork this summer) to sit down and to actually READ the two geomorphological Papers Brian and his two colleagues have written about Rhosyfelin's geomorphology, and then to let us know whether they have consulted THEIR OWN appropriately - qualified and experienced geomorphologists [NOT geologists].
I have so far made "First Contact" with one of them and he at least replied, saying if I wanted to discuss [their] interpretation of Rhosyfelin [as a prehistoric quarry] then I should meet him on site at the Durrington Walls dig (which is attempting to locate sarsen stones buried there) any time during the first two weeks in August.
Although my emails to him had drawn attention to the two Papers by Brian, John and Dyfed, he failed to say anything about them at all. Incidentally, even the very popular "Current Archaeology" magazine drew its (general) readers' attention to these two Papers. As a Graduate Geographer who studied geomorphology as part of my Durham Degree, I find this "failure to engage" to be very disappointing. Archaeology is an Academic subject as is Geomorphology (part of all Geography Degrees, just like, say, Meteorology), and this senior archaeologist told me in his email that Archaeology engaged with more other disciplines than perhaps any other academic subject. Curious that he didn't give any response to my remarks that he and his colleagues claiming Rhosyfelin as a prehistoric quarry should study seriously the counter - arguments in Brian and colleagues' two peer - reviewed Papers.
Post a Comment