At 08:12 PM 7/16/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Paul Barford <[log in to unmask]> wrote (in <003501c34b6e$5d639940$600
>a63d9@Standard>) about 'Stonehenge Moat Hypothesis', on Wed, 16 Jul
>>It must join the ranks of other "what ifs" like the possibility
>>Stonehenge MIGHT have been built with the help of little green men from
>>the planet Zog, Merlin the wizard or by Beaker-touting guys with foreign
>>accents and Swiss teeth.
>I think that's provocative. I don't know the probability of the moat
>hypothesis being true, but it is obviously much higher than those of LGM
>The Swiss gentleman was obviously a representative of the banks that
>financed the project.
>Regards, John Woodgate,
Thank you John and Paul.
"Provocative" is OK. It is welcome and encouraged as are all comments.
As for LGM, they (or their equivalent) are almost certainly out there. It's
a pretty big universe with more possibilities than we can imagine. There
may be LGM who do not believe we exist.
There seems to be no reason to think that LGM had anything to do with
building of Stonehenge.
Foreign accents and Swiss teeth: It has been suggested by others, and I have
no problem with, that the technology that went into Stonehenge, being
unprecedented in Britain, was likely imported (suddenly) from someplace
where such technology was well developed. While there are many similarities
with previous monuments there are also striking differences. It almost
seems a merging of two traditions.
The moat hypothesis: There are many similarities between the design of the
surrounding Ditch and the requirements of a moat on that particular site -
more than should be expected by mere coincidence. There are (as Paul and
others point out) some predicted parts whose existence or non-existence has
yet to be discovered. If there were no missing parts, this would not be
called an hypothesis.
Lack of evidence of water is the main problem at the moment. Paul offers
suggestions of how it may be determined whether or not water has ever been
present (snails etc.). So far, it is not known.
The hypothesis has dealt only with the internal conditions. There are
external indications that water may have flowed to the site via trench from
the watershed. Will post something on that as soon as time permits. It is
far from proof but points to a definite possibility, which is all there is
at the moment.
Again, it is an hypothesis. It needs to be tested. It offers a logical
explanation of many of the observed features of the Ditch which is what
hypotheses do. Hopefully, future investigation will show if it is correct