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