Heavens' Henge

Current topics

Re: Heavens' Henge

Postby jon » 7:40 am

What they don't explain is how the 'elite' knew about sound and how to build the correct structures and how they could control the masses and get them to do the work of building them before they were built so they could control them. Or something like that.



It would be interesting to compare the logic of this idea to other hypotheses about the monument. One of the problems is that people tend to get fixed ideas about what their version of Stonehenge is. When challenged to supply evidence or a logic for their views, things can get very heated. This happened very recently on the Portal.

There's a famous phrase (alleged to have been said by Ghandi): “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”. The ideas shown (partly) in the Principle appear to have moved into the “then they fight you” stage.

Sometimes you can get the argument to a position that, whatever the response is, the argument will be won. Does anyone know if there is a term which describes the tactical move of taking pretend offence at the way a question in phrased in order to avoid responding to it?

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=6043&forum=4&start=100

All the best



Jon
jon
 
Posts: 108
Joined: 8:51 am

Re: Heavens' Henge

Postby hvered » 9:14 am

Avoiding responding to a question by 'taking offence' probably comes under 'cognitive dissonance'. Being confronted by an argument that contradicts your beliefs can cause quite acute distress if you realise your own view might be wrong after all. So you cannot allow yourself to be drawn into a Q and A.
hvered
 
Posts: 855
Joined: 10:22 pm

Re: Heavens' Henge

Postby hvered » 9:31 am

The researchers take the view that structures had been altered at various times in order to regulate the accoustics,
e.g. "There is no other explanation for why the stones were shaped this way, unless it was to enhance the effect of sound". That is certainly debatable...

According to Graham Robb, people communicated the length of France by calling across fields. This 'telephone system' was a bit random but fast, this way of transmitting news could easily outrun the postal (coach-and-horses) network.
hvered
 
Posts: 855
Joined: 10:22 pm

Re: Heavens' Henge

Postby macausland » 10:07 am

Hvered

'According to Graham Robb, people communicated the length of France by calling across fields. This 'telephone system' was a bit random but fast, this way of transmitting news could easily outrun the postal (coach-and-horses) network.'

I read once that in harvest time in Bulgaria they used to employ women to sing. They would get up into a tree and their voices could travel over three miles.

Apparently the Albanians passed messages about German troop movements in a similar way from mountain tops.
macausland
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 3:17 pm

Re: Heavens' Henge

Postby Boreades » 11:39 am

jon wrote:Does anyone know if there is a term which describes the tactical move of taking pretend offence at the way a question in phrased in order to avoid responding to it?

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=6043&forum=4&start=100


A few terms occur to me.

1) "Are you looking at me?" or "Getting your retaliation in first"
i.e. I've realised the discussion is slipping away from me, so some pub-style distractions are deployed.

2) Some form of Ad hominem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

3) "If you really loved me, you wouldn't say that"

Either way, it seems to be an emotional reaction. I'm sure we've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but usually in a face-to-face situation, where it's more of an unconscious response. Online, where people do have time to stop and look at what they're typing, one might assume it's more of a conscious response.

There are plenty of websites that categorises the various forms of Logical Fallacies.
e.g.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/index.html

I suspect my thoughts on whether the response is emotional, conscious or unconscious might be a form of fallacy. By distraction or irrelevance?
Boreades
 
Posts: 2081
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Heavens' Henge

Postby spiral » 9:12 am

Playing possum.
spiral
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 8:10 pm

Re: Heavens' Henge

Postby jon » 7:06 am

I suspect my thoughts on whether the response is emotional, conscious or unconscious might be a form of fallacy. By distraction or irrelevance?


Thanks Boreades & Spiral. I haven't come across this method in a debate before so wasn't sure how to deal with it.

I've been asked to give a presentation on Stonehenge at the RILKO conference (late May). Looking forward to that!
jon
 
Posts: 108
Joined: 8:51 am

Re: Heavens' Henge

Postby macausland » 10:20 pm

hvered

'The researchers take the view that structures had been altered at various times in order to regulate the accoustics,
e.g. "There is no other explanation for why the stones were shaped this way, unless it was to enhance the effect of sound". That is certainly debatable...
'

Here's a very interesting talk on youtube regarding acoustics and ancient stone circles including Stonehenge.

He starts off with somebody who could boil water with sound and finishes up with stone circles in South Africa.

Lots of talk about Annunaki etc but who knows. Anyway his main idea relates to acoustics, ancient structures and energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiVROBhwHUM
macausland
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 3:17 pm

Re: Heavens' Henge

Postby hvered » 10:38 am

A fascinating talk, macausland (I'm about half-way through). The stones certainly resonate in his demonstration. Did you agree with the premise that the thousands of structures were all connected with gold mining? I was sort of reminded of hut circles on Dartmoor but these are on a far grander scale. I wondered if there were trading links between southern Africa and Egypt but presumably this would entail a different approach.
hvered
 
Posts: 855
Joined: 10:22 pm

Re: Heavens' Henge

Postby macausland » 12:51 pm

I'm not sure what to make of his ideas. He has obviously done a lot of original research on the subject and I've done nothing. I just sit and watch what others do I'm afraid.

He demonstrates with his rock chimes that they produce sounds at a variety of frequencies. In fact there was a newspaper article recently about a stone age 'xylophone' from East Africa that was being exhibited somewhere. They claimed that it was about two thousand years old. I think they are called lithophones and are popular in Vietnam and other countries in Asia.

He also mentions the discovery of ancient tunnels, very deep, which show that people were mining thousands of years ago.

When he then claims the gold was perhaps taken into space by extra terrestrials I find my attention wandering a bit. I may be wrong of course but I prefer to keep my feet and beliefs on the ground until speculation becomes hard fact.

As for the stone circles, sound, and energy I think advances in science are perhaps going in this direction.

Hospitals use ultrasound on a daily basis not only for diagnostic purposes but also for curing certain conditions, such as kidney stones.

The military is heavily involved in this area with sound and light in the form of lasers. I believe sound and light are merely energy in different forms.

Could it be that these stone circles were tapping into the earth's gravitational field? The energy could perhaps be sent down into a gold mine to blast the rock like a giant kidney stone machine?

Solid matter does respond to frequencies directed at it. The most famous example is perhaps the road bridge in the US which started to vibrate before collapsing because it started to resonate at the frequency that kept it all together. A bit more spectacular than a soprano zapping wine glasses with a high C or whatever they use.

Could these stone circles make use of gravity or whatever they are supposed to use in this way? Nicola Tesla produced electricity from the air by using balloon held wires which directed energy down to receiving stations. He was then able to transmit the electricity wirelessly and at one point illuminated a small town. His problem was that he wanted to provide the energy for free. I believe his backer was J P Morgan who had other ideas.
macausland
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 3:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Index

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 134 guests