Extract TwelveLooked at with different eyes, this explanation is almost weird. These stones are manifestly arranged by human hands.
If that is your a priori viewpoint. But there really is no definitive way of distinguishing. Nor would the Cheesewring's relationship to the Michael Line decide the case. If the line went directly through the structure it would be argued that the line had been selected with that in mind – and the line does have a measure of wiggle room, so this is difficult to refute absolutely. If the Line went close to it then the argument would be “close is a miss”.
From a strictly mercantile point of view the important factor would be, “Can the Cheesewring be seen from the next megalithic structure on the Michael Line?” to which the circular argument then becomes, “It depends whether
that feature is natural or man-made.”
It always depends on the pattern. Consider this “megalithic structure”:
Again it entirely depends on the eye of the beholder. In isolation St Michael's Mount is just an ‘ordinary’ tidal island. But if it has already been established that ‘tidal islands’ are themselves rare and that this tidal island marks the start of, or at any rate is clearly visible from, the Michael Line, then one would have to say, at the very least, that nature has been 'coincidental'.
But then what of this strikingly similar body:
which is Mont St Michel. Are we to shrug and commend nature once more? And were we to throw this into the mix
which is Burgh (Michael) Island would this evoke, “Well that doesn’t much look like either St Michael’s Mount or Mont St Michel.” Which is true but only at the expense of, “But it does look remarkably similar to a couple of other things on the Michael Line, e.g.
Burrowbridge Mump (with its St Michael’s Tower) a singularly impressive hill on a flat plain. Though not so singular as to be in sight of an equally odd hill rising out of an even flatter plain:
St Michael's Tor, Glastonbury. Surely, surely, nature cannot carry on being both so bountiful and so coincidental.