Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
greywolfe

Leylines (UK) - My findings

30 posts in this topic

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 This book was first published in 1997 so some of what he wrote about may be out of date but his work over many years, particularly on his circular alignments or leys, is still valid as a proposal worth careful consideration.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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.