Hi Rich,
>Looks like you have stirred up something of a hornets nest with your Time
Team post
I don't thnk this is a bad thing. I haven't subscribed to britarch, and
I've heard nothing on how it's going. I must admit I'm a little curious,
but not enough to take on more incoming mail. I trust that the contributors
will sort things out, exposing anything fraudulent IF and where it exists.
>i have been following the interesting discussions on the Irish Stones list
concerning Lunar calendars, cross-quarter days etc for some time so
>know that you are a free-thinker. In fact, i agree with your notion of
cross-quarter "windows",
Thank you. You are the first to pick up on the notion. Why don't you do so
on I.S.? (I could use some help with the math!!)
>Your posts are always welcome on wells-and-spas, and frequently stimulate
(i haven't had the chance to chase that reference on
energetic water but will get back to you at some point).
Again, thanks... I'll try to be less inflamatory in future, although again,
maybe it's not a bad thing...
>Maybe the people who have advised you have their own agenda for disliking
the programme that is not founded in fact.
Maybe. But I find this difficult to believe. The people in question are
very "factual" types from a tradition of empirical science. I have firm
and ongoing disagreements with them over their unacceptance of subjectivity
and intuition in science. Science has long had a tradition of heated
debates. It thrives on them...
>However, it is a shame therefore that you felt the need to wade in with
unfounded statements about Time Team. For instance....
>> Yes, I was serious. No I don't have any facts, nor do I have the time
to investigate these people. I watched it once, some time ago, and got a
very strong sense that I had been correctly advised (I vagely remember a
report that they had actually fabricated part of an earthwork, though).
My statement IS FOUNDED, -in intuition as stated (ie "strong sense").
>i accuse you, sir, of being closed minded on this matter. How can you
criticise others for being brainwashed by TT
I don't think that I did. It was my intent to WARN against this happening
and that there MAY be some truth to the allegations...
I accuse you, sir, of being closed minded in thinking, like my advisors,
that there is no place for intuition in science.
>> PS Here's a thought,... If the sword was genuine, how did it get there?
Think about it... What's most likely? Who would have access to it?
>Any number of people would have access to it. And certainly it was buried
within the past decade, thus ruling out the Victorian Reverend. But you
have zero evidence to suppose that it was Time Team themselves.
True. I was asking, not accusing...
>Hence, it is equally likely that the landowner did it, or me for that
matter!
What would be the motive? Did TT try to find out who did it? If yes, with
what result? If no, Why not?
>> Agreed: the site was a hoax. Who would have what motive to go to such
lengths?
>Again, no evidence = unfounded accusations.
Again, -a question, not an accusation. Whoever you think I'm accusing is
apparantly who YOU think has the motive...
I would think that the land owner has more motive, and is therefore more
suspect (alone or in conspiracy), than you. Those who are angry with me, I
suspect, also have something to gain from the deception (proportional to the
degree
of anger...)
In the interests of a holistic science and the discovery of truth....
- Phil
PS I am glad to see a that there is a growing distaste for the way that
archaeologists tend to treat human remains as artifacts (Andy McLellan/John
Lock). This has long been a major objection of mine to the profession.
Now, "Eat the Ancestors"? Great idea! Much more organic than putting them
in jars!!
|