Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Leylines (UK) - My findings

leylines

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#16    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:40 PM

View Postshrooma, on 23 June 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

heeere we go again with the 'personal insults' crap. you need to find the 'maturity' to distinguish between an insult and criticism.
as to the Thom thing, did I cite him as a reference?
or was that you....?
it was you wasn't it.
I merely pointed out you were wrong in your findings.
so trying to discredit someone you used as a source doesn't seem all that wise to me.
or mature.
but we've been through this before, haven't we, on another thread, where you cited references, and I showed you the glaring holes in them, to which you tried the same immature deflection tactics as here.
maybe laver, if you can't face criticism of your posts, then public forums might not be your ideal medium.....

Oh dear !! Someone with a problem, methinks......


#17    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,413 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:48 AM

View Postlaver, on 24 June 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Thank you for the references

The problem is that so much of 'established' opinion does not want to consider the possibility of ancient alignments and the geometric layouts of ancient sites because it would mean a complete rethink about ancient times.


The above is little more than the regurgitation of "positions" that have been expressed by the various New Age charlatans (and other fringe "authors") which would appear to be the basis for your own misguided perceptions. As evidenced by the previously referenced publications by Williamson (and numerous others), the legitimate study of landscape archaeology is hardly an ignored topic.

Nor are those involved in archaeological research "in fear" of proposing a re-evaluation of prior understandings. Archaeological research is inherently based upon new data and more informed interpretation. This aspect is well evidenced to even the casual observer.

Your various contributions are clearly reflective of one who has a minimal understanding of the depth and extent of qualified research. You would appear to have a limited grasp of cultures, timelines, technologies, population movements, and genetics, to name but a few

Am unsure if you actually spent the time to investigate the sources recently provided. If not, kindly input your personal data into the following:

http://www.tomscott.com/ley/

.


#18    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:31 PM

View PostSwede, on 25 June 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

The above is little more than the regurgitation of "positions" that have been expressed by the various New Age charlatans (and other fringe "authors") which would appear to be the basis for your own misguided perceptions. As evidenced by the previously referenced publications by Williamson (and numerous others), the legitimate study of landscape archaeology is hardly an ignored topic.

Nor are those involved in archaeological research "in fear" of proposing a re-evaluation of prior understandings. Archaeological research is inherently based upon new data and more informed interpretation. This aspect is well evidenced to even the casual observer.

Your various contributions are clearly reflective of one who has a minimal understanding of the depth and extent of qualified research. You would appear to have a limited grasp of cultures, timelines, technologies, population movements, and genetics, to name but a few

Am unsure if you actually spent the time to investigate the sources recently provided. If not, kindly input your personal data into the following:

http://www.tomscott.com/ley/

.

Just to quote what I said in full

Thank you for the references

The problem is that so much of 'established' opinion does not want to consider the possibility of ancient alignments and the geometric layouts of ancient sites because it would mean a complete rethink about ancient times. But the evidence is out there on the landscape in many ways. We do not know were the inspiration to build a site like Stonehenge came from or the skill and motivation to construct it. There were clearly some very wise and influential people behind it over a considerable period of time yet we have been encouraged, no doubt for various reasons, not to consider it.
Professor Thom came up with some interesting proposals which may well prove to be substantially valid when we can see the full picture

The 'experts' do not know all the answers and to meerly dismiss people who come up with other ideas as a bunch of 'charlatans' is a very narrow minded approach. Sites like Stonehenge are totally out of context with much that we know about the societies that existed when they were being designed and constructed but they are out there on the landscape and demonstrate knowledge, skills and motivation that cannot as yet be explained. We can see that an unknown intelligence was behind many sites in the UK and elsewhere so it is an unexplained mystery at this moment in time.
All ideas should be carefully considered even if they challenge 'established' opinions.


#19    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,413 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:26 AM

View Postlaver, on 25 June 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

1) ..."charlatan",,,

2) Sites like Stonehenge are totally out of context...

3) We can see that an unknown intelligence was behind many sites...

4) All ideas should be carefully considered even if they challenge 'established' opinions.


Re: 1:
char·la·tan  (shärPosted ImagelPosted Image-tPosted Imagen)
n.
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.
[French, from Italian ciarlatano, probably alteration (influenced by ciarlare, to prattle) of cerretano, inhabitant of  Cerreto, a city of Italy once famous for its quacks.]
     
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

charlatan [ˈʃɑːlətən]
n
someone who professes knowledge or expertise, esp in medicine, that he does not have; quack
[from French, from Italian ciarlatano, from ciarlare to chatter]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
.
Would one consider an individual who charges gullible individuals a fee for a medical diagnosis that utilizes a demonstrably fraudulent "machine" to fit the above definitions? Or an individual who attempts to verify and "prove" the  presence of "Ley Lines" via the utilization of dowsing? Not to mention the sales of books directed at the ill-informed/naive.

Re: 2: In what manner? Your qualified documentation for this absolutist statement? Please do provide such documentation.

Re: 3: Your qualified documentation for this bold proclamation?

Re: 4: 1) Not all "ideas" are of equal value, particularly when they are not supported by credible data. 2) As previously presented, such "ideas" have been professionally addressed and found to be without credible substantiation.

You have repeatedly been presented with relatively detailed information/references that demonstrate that your elaborate personal fantasy lacks verifiable substance.

May it not be time for you to provide credible references for your postulations rather than floundering about with personal-rationalization rhetoric?

.

.


#20    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 26 June 2013 - 11:22 AM

View PostSwede, on 26 June 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

Re: 1:
char·la·tan  (shärPosted ImagelPosted Image-tPosted Imagen)
n.
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.
[French, from Italian ciarlatano, probably alteration (influenced by ciarlare, to prattle) of cerretano, inhabitant of  Cerreto, a city of Italy once famous for its quacks.]
     
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

charlatan [ˈʃɑːlətən]
n
someone who professes knowledge or expertise, esp in medicine, that he does not have; quack
[from French, from Italian ciarlatano, from ciarlare to chatter]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
.
Would one consider an individual who charges gullible individuals a fee for a medical diagnosis that utilizes a demonstrably fraudulent "machine" to fit the above definitions? Or an individual who attempts to verify and "prove" the  presence of "Ley Lines" via the utilization of dowsing? Not to mention the sales of books directed at the ill-informed/naive.

Re: 2: In what manner? Your qualified documentation for this absolutist statement? Please do provide such documentation.

Re: 3: Your qualified documentation for this bold proclamation?

Re: 4: 1) Not all "ideas" are of equal value, particularly when they are not supported by credible data. 2) As previously presented, such "ideas" have been professionally addressed and found to be without credible substantiation.

You have repeatedly been presented with relatively detailed information/references that demonstrate that your elaborate personal fantasy lacks verifiable substance.

May it not be time for you to provide credible references for your postulations rather than floundering about with personal-rationalization rhetoric?

.

.

1. When is a 'charlatan' not a 'charlatan' ? Many professors come up with theories about the origins and uses of a site like Stonehenge based on guesswork. They have and do come up with all sorts of ideas; are they 'quacks' too? No just people with ideas and proposals.
It sounds to me as if a 'charlatan' in your book is someone who proposes something that you personally don't agree with which seems to me a narrow minded point of view.

2. The construction of Stonehenge with the use of massive blocks, 50 tons or more, and the use of mortise and tenon joints is out of context with what we know about the simple construction of dwellings or other buildings at that time.

3. There must have been an 'intelligence' behind many sites of the ancient world who would seem to have been the motivation behind their construction but certainly had skills and knowledge to direct the considerable number of workers involved. In Egypt this would seem to have been an elite group but in the UK there does not seem to be the evidence available yet to establish who these people were.

4. Since we do not yet know how and why ancient sites were created in particular locations 'professional' opinion is often just guesswork based on what we do know. The work of someone like Professor Thom indicates possibly advanced geometric knowledge in the layout of ancient sites which may have been dismissed by many 'experts' on the basis that it does not fit with what we know. That of course does not take account of things we do not at present know and that is obviously a great deal.
Alignments of sites is either fact or fiction, if they align they align and it is just a matter then of whether this alignment is coincidental or part of some design.


#21    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,116 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 26 June 2013 - 04:33 PM

View Postlaver, on 26 June 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

2. The construction of Stonehenge with the use of massive blocks, 50 tons or more, and the use of mortise and tenon joints is out of context with what we know about the simple construction of dwellings or other buildings at that time.
Nah.
Believe what you want, but don't include anyone else in that "we."

Quote

The thirty sarsen stones of Stonehenge were dressed and fashioned with mortise-and-tenon joints before they were erected between 2600 and 2400 BC.

Quote

This is an ancient joint and has been found joining the wooden planks of the "Khufu ship" a 43.6 m long vessel sealed into a pit in the Giza pyramid complex of the Fourth Dynasty around 2500 BC. The oldest known use dates from the Early Neolithic Linear Pottery culture, where it was used in the constructing of the wooden lining of water wells.
Source for both
"Early Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture - 5500–4500 BC. Source

View Postlaver, on 26 June 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

1. When is a 'charlatan' not a 'charlatan' ?
Your #2 bullet point is a good illustration of what is meant by the term "charlatan."

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#22    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:18 PM

View PostHarte, on 26 June 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Nah.
Believe what you want, but don't include anyone else in that "we."


Source for both
"Early Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture - 5500–4500 BC. Source


Your #2 bullet point is a good illustration of what is meant by the term "charlatan."

Harte

2. The construction of Stonehenge with the use of massive blocks, 50 tons or more, and the use of mortise and tenon joints is out of context with what we know about the simple construction of dwellings or other buildings at that time.

To clarify I did of course mean buildings in the same area of similar date which I understand were of simple construction and not made of 50 ton blocks with special joints.

The use of the term 'charlatan' is derisory which in my opinion is extremely unfair to people like Professor Thom who carried out considerable work on hundreds of sites and came up with proposals. Just because someone does not agree with his findings is no excuse for calling him a 'quack'. Many professors and others have speculated on sites like Stonehenge which must be a good thing as no one knows, as yet, the 'intelligence' behind them.


#23    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,116 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:11 AM

View Postlaver, on 26 June 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

2. The construction of Stonehenge with the use of massive blocks, 50 tons or more, and the use of mortise and tenon joints is out of context with what we know about the simple construction of dwellings or other buildings at that time.
Source?
Regarding these stones:

Quote

Each standing stone was around 4.1 metres (13 ft) high, 2.1 metres (6 ft 11 in) wide and weighed around 25 tons
Source

What, did they do two at a time or something?
Is your point that dwellings were not made out of 25 ton stones joined with mortise and tenon joints?

Well, the Egyptians didn't live in pyramids either.

Quote

The use of the term 'charlatan' is derisory which in my opinion is extremely unfair to people like Professor Thom who carried out considerable work on hundreds of sites and came up with proposals. Just because someone does not agree with his findings is no excuse for calling him a 'quack'. Many professors and others have speculated on sites like Stonehenge which must be a good thing as no one knows, as yet, the 'intelligence' behind them.
Okay.

But I was calling you a quack in my remark.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#24    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 27 June 2013 - 09:40 AM

View PostHarte, on 27 June 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

Source?
Regarding these stones:

Source

What, did they do two at a time or something?
Is your point that dwellings were not made out of 25 ton stones joined with mortise and tenon joints?

Well, the Egyptians didn't live in pyramids either.


Okay.

But I was calling you a quack in my remark.

Harte

I do not profess to know how or why ancient sites were laid out but I was pointing out that nobody else does either, they speculate and come up with theories which does not make them all 'quacks'. You say...

'Well, the Egyptians didn't live in pyramids either.'

That would appear to be the case but the motivation behind the building of many ancient sites is a mystery and they exhibit great skill and knowledge. In examples like Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid it is not at present clear where this knowledge came from let alone the motivation behind it.

This topic is about geometric alignments in the landscape and given that there is so little information available on the placement and design concepts of ancient sacred sites would seem a quite valid line of research.


#25    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,413 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 June 2013 - 11:52 PM

View Postlaver, on 26 June 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

1. When is a 'charlatan' not a 'charlatan' ? Many professors come up with theories about the origins and uses of a site like Stonehenge based on guesswork. They have and do come up with all sorts of ideas; are they 'quacks' too? No just people with ideas and proposals.
It sounds to me as if a 'charlatan' in your book is someone who proposes something that you personally don't agree with which seems to me a narrow minded point of view.

2. The construction of Stonehenge with the use of massive blocks, 50 tons or more, and the use of mortise and tenon joints is out of context with what we know about the simple construction of dwellings or other buildings at that time.

3. There must have been an 'intelligence' behind many sites of the ancient world who would seem to have been the motivation behind their construction but certainly had skills and knowledge to direct the considerable number of workers involved. In Egypt this would seem to have been an elite group but in the UK there does not seem to be the evidence available yet to establish who these people were.

4. Since we do not yet know how and why ancient sites were created in particular locations 'professional' opinion is often just guesswork based on what we do know. The work of someone like Professor Thom indicates possibly advanced geometric knowledge in the layout of ancient sites which may have been dismissed by many 'experts' on the basis that it does not fit with what we know. That of course does not take account of things we do not at present know and that is obviously a great deal.
Alignments of sites is either fact or fiction, if they align they align and it is just a matter then of whether this alignment is coincidental or part of some design.

Amazing. You were specifically requested to provide credible documentation that would be supportive of your overt statements. And the above is your response.

1) That you would appear to be incapable of distinguishing between a charlatan and a credible researcher is disturbing to say the least. Additionally, professional researchers do not generally base their interpretations on "guesswork", but rather on the available data. In the case of megalithic monuments such as Stonehenge, there is a notable amount of data that is the product of many decades of qualified investigation. Merely a few examples:

Ancient Site Was Devoted to Death: Stonehenge May Have Been Cemetery for Rulers
Bruce Bower. Science News, Vol. 173, No. 19 (Jun. 21, 2008), p. 13

Suburb of Stonehenge
Bruce Bower. Science News, Vol. 171, No. 5 (Feb. 3, 2007), p. 67

The Genesis of Megaliths: Monumentality, Ethnicity and Social Complexity in Neolithic North-West Europe
Andrew Sherratt. World Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 2, Monuments and the Monumental (Oct., 1990), pp.147-167

Dating the British Stone Circles: A Provisional Chronology for the Geometrical Designs of the Megalithic Sites is Based on Evidence from Architecture, Carbon-14, and Artifacts.
Aubrey Burl. American Scientist, Vol. 61, No. 2 (March-April 1973), pp. 167-174 [Note: Evaluation of this reference will benefit from the utilization of modern 14C calibration programs (CALIB, OxCal)].

Parker Pearson, M. and Chamberlain, A. and Jay, M. and Marshall, P. and Pollard, J. and Richards, C. and Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. and Welham, K.
2009 'Who was buried at Stonehenge ?', Antiquity., 83 (319). pp. 23-39.

Solving Stonehenge:The Key to an Ancient Enigma
Anthony Johnson.Thames & Hudson, London, 2008

Parker-Pearson, M. and Cleal, R. and Marshall, P. and Needham, S. and Pollard, J. and Richards, C. and Ruggles, C. and Sheridan, A. and Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. and Welham, K. and Chamberlain, A. and Chenery, C. and Evans, J. and Knüsel, C. and Linford, N. and Martin, L. and Montgomery, J. and Payne, A. and Richards, M. P.
2007 'The age of Stonehenge.', Antiquity., 81 (313). pp. 617-639.

2) Harte has already quite adroitly addressed your various concerns in regards to this inaccurate statement. You should also bear in mind the following:
  • There are literally many hundreds of megalithic monuments and structures scattered across western Europe (not to mention Gobekli Tepe, etc.).
  • The earliest of the European megalithic structures date to circa 7000 BP.
  • The earliest megalithic structures of the British Isles date to circa 5700 BP
Thus, we have a long cultural precedent for megalithic structures and alignments. It should also be noted that these constructions would not appear to be limited to a singular cultural element.

3) Please see references in (1). Additional qualified references are readily available. Your reference to "an intelligence" is remarkably vague. Would you be attempting to imply that the human cultural elements responsible for the construction of the various European megalithic structures were incapable of simple geometric patterning and the organization of labor?

4) A paragraph of inconsequential prattle. For a contemporary review of Thom's research, see Aubrey Burl above, (1).

.


#26    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 28 June 2013 - 12:10 PM

Reply to Swede post Today 12.52 AM

Thank you for the references

As you note, and as I said, there are many professors and eminent people who speculate, no doubt on the best available information, on ancient sites but this is based only on what we know at this moment in time and is regularly updated as new discoveries are made.
There is in my mind no reason why a private individual should not come up with proposals which can also be considered by interested parties and the general public. They may have come up with discoveries that should be in the public domain.
In the past in the early days of investigations into Ancient Egypt it would seem that parts of the 'establishment' sought to suppress any discoveries that might question established dogma which is no way to try and find out the truth about our distant past.

On another topic on UM you started bandying around derisory comments like 'charlatan' against an author, David Furlong, and the proposals in his book 'The Keys to the Temple' which was grossly unfair. This book was first published in 1997 so some of what he wrote about may be out of date but his work over many years, particularly on his circular alignments or leys, is still valid as a proposal worth careful consideration. The locations are still out there on the landscape as they have been for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.


#27    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,413 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 June 2013 - 11:31 PM

View Postlaver, on 28 June 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

Reply to Swede post Today 12.52 AM

Thank you for the references

As you note, and as I said, there are many professors and eminent people who speculate, no doubt on the best available information, on ancient sites but this is based only on what we know at this moment in time and is regularly updated as new discoveries are made.
There is in my mind no reason why a private individual should not come up with proposals which can also be considered by interested parties and the general public. They may have come up with discoveries that should be in the public domain.
In the past in the early days of investigations into Ancient Egypt it would seem that parts of the 'establishment' sought to suppress any discoveries that might question established dogma which is no way to try and find out the truth about our distant past.

On another topic on UM you started bandying around derisory comments like 'charlatan' against an author, David Furlong, and the proposals in his book 'The Keys to the Temple' which was grossly unfair. This book was first published in 1997 so some of what he wrote about may be out of date but his work over many years, particularly on his circular alignments or leys, is still valid as a proposal worth careful consideration. The locations are still out there on the landscape as they have been for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.

You would not appear to grasp the distinction(s) between interpretations based upon careful/professionally informed/documentable evaluations of data and the critically unsupported misinterpretations of fringe authors. And there are demonstrable differences.

Re #1: You are quite correct. There is no particular inhibition preventing a "private individual" from presenting a given hypothesis. However, such a presentation would need to be supported by in-depth, qualified, and well-argued data in order to have any degree of impact on more conventional interpretations. In the case of Ley lines, etc., these latter aspects have not been achieved. Actually quite the opposite. As previously presented, this "concept" has been professionally evaluated and found to be without substance.

Re #2: Am unsure of your reference here. Please provide specific citations.

Re: #3: You have referred to Furlong literally dozens of times. Early on it was demonstrated that Furlong is a New Age fraud. In the course of past personal reviews of Furlong's "operation", there was the distinct impression that this individual may operate on a rather "cult-like" basis.

Your repeated and rather slavish reliance on this singular "reference" (and your apparent ignorance of credible research) has not acted as a positive contribution to your position. This leads one to question the degree of involvement that you may personally have with Furlong. A devoted acolyte?

You could likely well benefit from a few trips to your local library in order to access/obtain some of the references previously provided. If you legitimately maintain your espoused "open-mindedness", you will hopefully find these excursions to be quite valuable.

As to Temple Farm:

http://www.ancientqu...ex-rockley.html

More technical information is available.

.


#28    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 30 June 2013 - 11:09 AM

View PostSwede, on 29 June 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

You would not appear to grasp the distinction(s) between interpretations based upon careful/professionally informed/documentable evaluations of data and the critically unsupported misinterpretations of fringe authors. And there are demonstrable differences.

Re #1: You are quite correct. There is no particular inhibition preventing a "private individual" from presenting a given hypothesis. However, such a presentation would need to be supported by in-depth, qualified, and well-argued data in order to have any degree of impact on more conventional interpretations. In the case of Ley lines, etc., these latter aspects have not been achieved. Actually quite the opposite. As previously presented, this "concept" has been professionally evaluated and found to be without substance.

Re #2: Am unsure of your reference here. Please provide specific citations.

Re: #3: You have referred to Furlong literally dozens of times. Early on it was demonstrated that Furlong is a New Age fraud. In the course of past personal reviews of Furlong's "operation", there was the distinct impression that this individual may operate on a rather "cult-like" basis.

Your repeated and rather slavish reliance on this singular "reference" (and your apparent ignorance of credible research) has not acted as a positive contribution to your position. This leads one to question the degree of involvement that you may personally have with Furlong. A devoted acolyte?

You could likely well benefit from a few trips to your local library in order to access/obtain some of the references previously provided. If you legitimately maintain your espoused "open-mindedness", you will hopefully find these excursions to be quite valuable.

As to Temple Farm:

http://www.ancientqu...ex-rockley.html

More technical information is available.

.

1. So you can only comment on a topic if you are 'qualified', a 'professional'. Qualifications are no substitute for inspiration, the two can go together but sometimes the former can inhibit the latter.

2. The Egyptian Exploration Fund was largely financed by clergymen to try and prove biblical accounts not a basis for investigation free of outside influence.

3. I am not 'slavish' to or an 'acolyte' of Mr David Furlong who I have never met or spoken to. He has written many books, I have read only one and some of that seemed
questionable. But his landscape geometry discoveries leading to possible ancient twin circular alignments on the Marlborough Downs with geometric links to the Great Pyramid and suggesting a key location, now known as Temple Farm, interested me.
Further investigation of this site showed that it seemed to be an important focal point of long distance bearings identifying alignments of ancient sites and one of these bearings clearly identifies the church locations which are the subject of the first 3 chapters of the Book of Revelations and then an important location on the Sea of Galilee in the Holy Land.
This is the subject of a seperate topic on UM, as you know, - Crop Circles just one sign of Revelation

The use of alignments of ancient and possibly ancient sites, or leylines, was a key part of David Furlong's discoveries hence the link to this topic.


#29    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,413 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 June 2013 - 11:18 PM

View Postlaver, on 30 June 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

1. So you can only comment on a topic if you are 'qualified', a 'professional'. Qualifications are no substitute for inspiration, the two can go together but sometimes the former can inhibit the latter.

2. The Egyptian Exploration Fund was largely financed by clergymen to try and prove biblical accounts not a basis for investigation free of outside influence.

3. I am not 'slavish' to or an 'acolyte' of Mr David Furlong who I have never met or spoken to. He has written many books, I have read only one and some of that seemed
questionable. But his landscape geometry discoveries leading to possible ancient twin circular alignments on the Marlborough Downs with geometric links to the Great Pyramid and suggesting a key location, now known as Temple Farm, interested me.
Further investigation of this site showed that it seemed to be an important focal point of long distance bearings identifying alignments of ancient sites and one of these bearings clearly identifies the church locations which are the subject of the first 3 chapters of the Book of Revelations and then an important location on the Sea of Galilee in the Holy Land.
This is the subject of a seperate topic on UM, as you know, - Crop Circles just one sign of Revelation

The use of alignments of ancient and possibly ancient sites, or leylines, was a key part of David Furlong's discoveries hence the link to this topic.

1) Yet again, your close-reading skills would appear to be in need of improvement. Of course an uniformed individual is entitled to comment. However, when such comments are not supported by in-depth, qualified, and well-argued data (Swede #27), the credibility of such comments is notably compromised.

2) Your inferences in regards to the Egypt Exploration Fund (EEF), founded in 1882 and soon renamed the Egypt Exploration Society (EES), may be rather exaggerated.
  • During the 19th century, and based upon the socio-cultural factors of the time, explorations based upon Biblical references were not uncommon. Nor, for that matter, are they necessarily uncommon today (e.g. BAR).
  • The second and third excavations conducted by the EEF included a certain Flinders Petrie. You may be familiar with the significance of the documentation by this early Egyptologist.
  • Robert Browning was a clergyman? Erasmus Wilson?
  • And what do the early investigations of the EEF have to do with the credible support of your fantasy?
The rest of your most recent contribution is yet another recital of the mantra that you have reiterated numerous times.

Various elements of your argument have been addressed on virtually a point-by-point basis. And credible documentation has been provided that demonstrates that your premise is sorely lacking in related/valid historical/archaeological support.

In the light of the above and your apparent inability to produce credible research that would support your fantasy, it may be best to let this topic fade into a well-deserved obscurity.

.


#30    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:27 PM

View PostSwede, on 30 June 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

1) Yet again, your close-reading skills would appear to be in need of improvement. Of course an uniformed individual is entitled to comment. However, when such comments are not supported by in-depth, qualified, and well-argued data (Swede #27), the credibility of such comments is notably compromised.

2) Your inferences in regards to the Egypt Exploration Fund (EEF), founded in 1882 and soon renamed the Egypt Exploration Society (EES), may be rather exaggerated.
  • During the 19th century, and based upon the socio-cultural factors of the time, explorations based upon Biblical references were not uncommon. Nor, for that matter, are they necessarily uncommon today (e.g. BAR).
  • The second and third excavations conducted by the EEF included a certain Flinders Petrie. You may be familiar with the significance of the documentation by this early Egyptologist.
  • Robert Browning was a clergyman? Erasmus Wilson?
  • And what do the early investigations of the EEF have to do with the credible support of your fantasy?
The rest of your most recent contribution is yet another recital of the mantra that you have reiterated numerous times.

Various elements of your argument have been addressed on virtually a point-by-point basis. And credible documentation has been provided that demonstrates that your premise is sorely lacking in related/valid historical/archaeological support.

In the light of the above and your apparent inability to produce credible research that would support your fantasy, it may be best to let this topic fade into a well-deserved obscurity.

.

In order not confuse other UM users who might be interested I will reply on - Crop Circles just one sign of Revelation - a seperate UM topic which seems to be what you are commenting on.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users