tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post6041537534373570705..comments2024-03-28T14:00:12.372+00:00Comments on Stonehenge and the Ice Age: The 43 Stonehenge BluestonesBRIAN JOHNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-75500683024508131992015-02-22T22:26:01.890+00:002015-02-22T22:26:01.890+00:00Brian,
Just keeping this controversy honest! I ha...Brian,<br /><br />Just keeping this controversy honest! I have no problems with "speculation" or with "assumptions" or "beliefs". As long as these are clearly acknowledged and not passed as "facts".<br /><br />But what really gets my goat is the indignation and animosity directed against anyone even suggesting that what is deemed factual is really belief.<br /><br />KostasConstantinos Ragazasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-78933120583140751552015-02-22T09:04:25.586+00:002015-02-22T09:04:25.586+00:00Why the excitement, Kostas? This is no big deal -...Why the excitement, Kostas? This is no big deal -- if there was evidence of stumps etc they would not be counted as missing. We have debated at length whether the presence of Rhosyfelin fragments indicates "missing stones" -- Rob and Richard suggest that two of the buried stumps may be all that remains of the stones from which the fragments have come. Then there are the parch-marks described by Pete G. Do they suggest that there were stones in the places where the marks appear in the turf, or do they just suggest that there might have been holes there which might or might not have held stones? Much in the way of speculation.....BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-612781617459399362015-02-21T22:31:39.829+00:002015-02-21T22:31:39.829+00:00Brian,
So there is no evidence for "missing ...Brian,<br /><br />So there is no evidence for "missing stones"! Just as I thought!<br /><br />KostasConstantinos Ragazasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-88306101867227201752015-02-21T22:20:05.461+00:002015-02-21T22:20:05.461+00:00Quite right, Kostas. When something is assumed, i...Quite right, Kostas. When something is assumed, it is deemed to be an assumption.BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-44887403668129085622015-02-21T19:48:13.682+00:002015-02-21T19:48:13.682+00:00Brian,
You write, "Kostas -- if a stone is m...Brian,<br /><br />You write, <i>"Kostas -- if a stone is missing from a place where it is <b>assumed that there should be one</b>, and if there is no stump beneath the ground surface, it is deemed to be missing!"</i> [bold face is mine]<br /><br />Sounds like an assumption to me!<br /><br />KostasConstantinos Ragazasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-25642255408429547492015-02-19T19:08:07.422+00:002015-02-19T19:08:07.422+00:00Kostas -- if a stone is missing from a place where...Kostas -- if a stone is missing from a place where it is assumed that there should be one, and if there is no stump beneath the ground surface, it is deemed to be missing!BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-70593814612367356362015-02-16T20:50:08.215+00:002015-02-16T20:50:08.215+00:00Stonehenge is or was an internal device, purposely...<i>Stonehenge is or was an internal device, purposely designed to collect light and amplify it, and that is why the best faces of its stones were placed inward and polished.</i><br /><br />When this theory first came up, you said it was all a "just another Red Herring" (quote from a comment you made on the book). Have you changed your mind? <br /><br />http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RR1OYH8CEYK89/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00A25VWYG&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=266239&store=books#wasThisHelpful<br /><br />Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-62161780716425728472015-02-12T20:05:44.676+00:002015-02-12T20:05:44.676+00:00A bit off topic, Tom -- shall we stick to the numb...A bit off topic, Tom -- shall we stick to the numbering and characteristics of the stones here?BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-67837813344068774362015-02-12T18:48:33.325+00:002015-02-12T18:48:33.325+00:00Brian
An old friend of mine annoyed me greatly whe...Brian<br />An old friend of mine annoyed me greatly when he remarked that archaeologists do not know what Stonehenge was. So much so that I wrote the following... <br />29½.<br />Twenty-nine and a half is the number John Wood was looking for when he surveyed Stonehenge in 1740.<br />29½.<br />John Wood, visionary, surveyor extraordinaire, architect and designer of the world famous Kings Crescent and Quadrant in the City of Bath, was so convinced that the first Stonehenge was dedicated to the moon that he went looking for 29½ to prove it!<br />What was so important about 29½?<br />It‘s because 29½ is the number of days it takes the moon to complete one cycle---Her monthly cycle, in fact! (For the purist, one Lunation period is actually 29.53059 days long).<br />Skilled surveyor and man before his time, John Wood considered that because Stonehenge’s outer circle once consisted of 30 stones, if he could only prove the next circle in to have had 29, he would have had his 29½! He even claimed it was so!<br />Unfortunately for John, the number of stones in the bluestone circle has never been proven, some claiming there might have been as many sixty! Personally, I think 56 is possible - the same number as there are Aubrey holes.<br />But where was the elusive number 29 that John was looking for?<br />When the Egyptologist, Flinders Petrie surveyed Stonehenge in 1880, he measured the innermost bluestone setting and came up with a figure that converts to a very accurate 14½ megalithic yards.<br />And twice 14½ is 29.<br />So that’s where it was John!<br />According to Petrie the innermost bluestones measure 472.7 ± 0.5 inches diameter. From ‘Stonehenge: Plans, Description, and Theories, by Flinders Petrie, 1880’. Also Atkinson, in 1965, agreed with him.<br />(472.7 inches is equal to 14.472 megalithic yards).<br />Strangely enough, Professor John North also used Petries 472.7 figure, but calculated it to equal only 14Megalithic yards. For a man who believed in Professor Thom’s megalithic yard this had to be accidental or deliberate (Stonehenge: Neolithic Man and the Cosmos. North J 1996)<br />Before moving on, here are a few more Stonehenge facts.<br />1) Stonehenge is or was an internal device, purposely designed to collect light and amplify it, and that is why the best faces of its stones were placed inward and polished. Its outer ring was placed on a 36 megalithic yard diameter circle - An internal circle, that is. Also note at this point, that 36 is divisible by three.<br />2) Stonehenge’s Altar Stone measures an accurate six megalithic yards in length and this is also divisible by three. Representing the family, the number three is known to be the most important Stone Age number. John also concluded this as a fact when comparing Stonehenge against the stone circles of Stanton Drew.<br />There is more to this story, Brian, but it will have to wait.<br />Tom Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05951697954070876728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-75126004623102412992015-02-12T18:30:06.521+00:002015-02-12T18:30:06.521+00:00Brian
I see that an axis is not ventured in Johnso...Brian<br />I see that an axis is not ventured in Johnson's plan seen above.<br />The only one I can find among his work can be seen on page 198 of his book Solving Stonehenge, where the axis of the outer circle of sarsens can be seen not to pass between 55 and 56, but cuts through 55.<br />John Wood came up with the same result in 1740.<br />Meaningful solstice photo's, therefore, have to be taken along said line.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05951697954070876728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-45625239910475917612015-02-12T15:25:08.577+00:002015-02-12T15:25:08.577+00:00Brian,
I want to know. What is the evidence for &...Brian,<br /><br />I want to know. What is the evidence for "missing stones"?<br />Buried stumps I understand!<br /><br />KostasConstantinos Ragazasnoreply@blogger.com