Print

Print


John Woodgate wrote about my comments on the "Stonehenge originally had a
moat" theory:
> I think that's provocative.
Ummm, yes of course it is ! - but then no more so than anything else I write
on this discussion list
>  I don't know the probability of the moat hypothesis being true, but it
> is obviously much higher than those of LGM or Merlin.
is it? I think you missed the point.

I wrote:
> 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 ...
Why are either of these invalid as "what ifs"?

There is a general consensus among those who study such things that there
very probably is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe, and among
those lifeforms there might be some who have achieved the ability to
traverse space. If we accept that, then surely it is indeed possible that
the earth was visited at least once by extra-terrestrials (and just as
likely that this was in the past as in the present or future). why are you
so adamant to rule out the possibility and on what grounds can you do so?
And if they did, then these visitors may well produce precisely the effects
which von Daniken and his followers suggest. I have no trouble with that
part of the Daniken thesis as a "what if" proposition and [being more open
minded than some others have accused me of today on this list] am willing to
consider it. What then becomes problematic is the so-called ":evidence"
which is used by these people to show that this did indeed happen and the
manner of argumentation used.  In particular the argument that "it looks
like a spaceman/ rocket/ life-support pack/ landing strip' and especially
"all this is too much to be a coincidence" coupled with the allegation that
"the archaeologists are unable to satisfactorily explain these phenomena"
[we understand: "to me because using my layman's common sense I do not
believe what the eggheads write and see things they are too blind to see"].
These are precisely the same arguments used in the moat hypothesis website.

I would also dearly love to know what lies behind the odd tale in Geoffrey
of Monmouth about the transportation of the Giants Dance to Salisbury Plain.
There has been much speculation and some of these ideas are interesting
"what ifs" too, but difficult to reconcile with what we know about much of
the rest of Geoffrey's text.

Before I am further misunderstood, I do not suggest that little green or
grey men from Zog or anywhere else DID have a hand in putting one stone on
top of two others in a ring here, nor that an Arthurian Merlin waved a wand
and achieved magical teleportation. I was using these as examples to make a
point.

Paul Barford