Sunday, 31 August 2014

A Challenge

On various forums, for the past year or so, I have been asking what the point of knowing what happened in the past was. Until recently, it seemed that nobody had an answer. This played no small part in the reasoning for re-organising this blog last month.

However, Chris Johnson came up with something that challenged my point of view:

Jon, you asked this challenging question about what is the point of researching Stonehenge a few weeks ago and it got me thinking.

I do believe that this type of research is very important these days when our society is asked to make huge decisions on the basis of insufficient factual information and with limited resources. It is important because of what we can discover about process and methods and motives, the weighing of evidence and the construction of a plausible narrative that can be acted upon.

To give some examples, think of global warming, genetic modification of crops, the situation in Ukraine, the rise of IS, etc. On a lower level, In my professional life the question of making substantial investments without the luxury of "objective truth" is a regular necessity. The archaeologists should have much of importance to teach us all.


This seems an especially good argument. Although there may be a limited benefit in keeping the structures, there is perhaps a greater benefit in knowing why certain types of structure were built: In particular if the narrative of the past does help our understanding of how our societies react to threats and opportunities.

But whilst this seems a very good argument for the social benefit of knowing what monuments were for, it doesn't make a case for keeping monuments in a pristine condition.



Normally if something special is found it is almost always preserved; so the risk of it being lost decreases. But sometimes special things get broken up just because they are thought to be worth more that way. This often happens when the 'establishment' is not capable of reacting quickly enough to threats.



So an open question: If the choice presented itself, which of the following choices has more benefit?
  1. Being certain you know what a structure was for, but significantly increase the risk of losing it and/or its archaeological trace as a result.
  2. Being certain that a structure will be preserved but significantly increasing the risk that people will never know what made it special to the people of the past.

If anyone thinks that the risk of losing what exists (to future archaeological investigation) outweighs the potential benefit of knowing what happened at that place, I would be really interested to know why. If there are any contributors who have read the book, this really is quite an important question.

Jon



Saturday, 2 August 2014

Stonehenge: An introduction to Geocentrism

This blog covers some of the thinking behind the methods used to develop the geocentric theory of Stonehenge. To make it a bit more readable, I have removed many of the posts that I felt didn't add anything. This blog is now closed to new comment.

Saturday, 10 May 2014

Rilko Conference: 31 May

The RILKO Conference takes place at the end of this month: I will be closing the conference.


www.rilko.net/EZ/rilko/rilko/page31.php

Saturday 31st May - Rudolf Steiner House - London 10.00am for 10.30 to 8.00pm £35.00 - £30.00 RILKO members.
Conference leaflet at: http://www.rilko.net/EZ/rilko/rilko/doclibrary/RILKO_2014_Conference_Leaflet.pdf 

Book on-line at:  http://www.rilko.net/EZ/rilko/rilko/page32.php

  

RILKO Conference - Phone 07956 341578 for further information.
Speakers include:
Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince The Real Leonardo da Vinci: Not the Messiah - But a Very Naughty Boy
Spilling the beans on twenty years of joint research

Sylvia Francke The Mysteries of Chartres Cathedral 
Ancient Mystery knowledge running through Platonic inspiration

Robert Harris Great Pyramids of Giza - Cast Like Concrete
Reconstituted limestone also found on the Rio Tinto River - Was Plato correct 

Jon Allen
Geometry: Past -
Present - Future - An Architect's Perspective
Twenty years of practical application of geometry - From Pythagoras to the present day 

Gary Bilcliffe and Caroline Hoare Awakening the Web of Albion
The middle axis line of Great Britain - Mystical leys and networks of light

Jonathan Morris Stonehenge - Pre-Celtic Geocentric Universe
A contemporary solar-based technology virtually identical to a design within Stonehenge - A complete surprise!!




Monday, 9 December 2013

The Principle

Here's the trailer for the film about recent discoveries in cosmology.

The trailer references Stonehenge (at 2 minutes in). But only the film contains the full Stonehenge Sequence; a short "show and tell" of what Stonehenge was for. The producers used the sequences developed in Heavens' Henge, which is described in much more detail in Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic Universe.

The Stonehenge Sequence was developed by BUF Compagnie, Paris ("Total Recall", Life of Pi")

Thursday, 31 October 2013

Was Stonehenge an engineering project?

I came across this quote on the Goodreads site:

Programmers are isolated. They sit in their cubicle; they don't think about the larger picture. To my mind, a programmer is not an engineer, because an engineer is somebody who starts with a social problem that an organization or a society has and says, "OK, here's this problem that we have- how can we solve it?" The engineer comes up with a clever, cost-effective solution to address that problem, builds it, tests it to make sure it solves the problem. That's engineering.

Stonehenge is often described as an engineering project because it has features which have hallmarks of some sort of functional use. If our ancestors were engineers, and places such as Stonehenge were engineering monuments, then the reason for building this type of monument should start with a problem (or problems) that our ancestors were looking to solve. 

In Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic Universe, Stonehenge represents a geocentric Universe. It, and many earlier monuments, appear to be the solution to a problem: A problem so worrisome that it may have started many similar projects.

Saturday, 21 September 2013

Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic Universe (Expanded Edition)


New version published 21-22/09/2013:
156 pages, 114 illustrations and 243 notes cross-referencing to 46 reference works on Stonehenge (it's much more heavyweight than the original booklet version).   

Available on Amazon, only over equinox 2013: for £3.99 (including delivery in UK):  
Amazon.co.uk: Solving the Neolithic Universe Expanded Edition (about £9.99)
Amazon.com: Solving the Neolithic Universe Expanded Edition (about $12.99)



Thursday, 1 August 2013

Lifting heavy irregular objects Part 1


Thought for a bit of fun, I'd would look at an alternative method of lifting very heavy blocks of stone (up to the maximum of a block at Stonehenge):

One method uses a frame stack with tapered pallets. The pallet should be big enough to lift the first stages without putting too much load onto the edge of the insertion hole:


Each pallet is lifted using wing levers: These need to be stabilised against a post to prevent racking. You load up the edges with rocks until it starts to lift, a couple of guys either end then slowly force the wings down using their own bodyweight (so that the stone lifts by the height of a pallet) and a new pallet is inserted:
 

The pallets need to have their end joints shaped to avoid racking in the late stages of the lift:



Process needs about 12 people to get the job done quickly, but a few more would be handy. Each load and unload would take about an hour or perhaps less, so a stone could be raised in a few days. A similar method, using exactly the same kit, can be used to raise blocks vertically.

The above system to scale using calculated sizes and a factor of safety of about two.