Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
molder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Quote ' At this, the diameter [of the Sarsen Circle] would be 29.7m (97.4 feet)'
>
> I don't know where your getting this from but the above figures are not correct.
>
> Sarcens diameter 97 feet 6 inches. And this Burl writes p.52 agrees with John Aubrey 'with his 32 yards 1/2'

Jim

I’m sorry to say that this observation verges on abject pedantry. You’re objecting to a difference of one inch in well over one thousand inches from a calculation based upon a nominal length of the megalithic yard given by Thom at 829mm derived from 2.72 feet.

Thom wrote, “It will appear that the megalithic yard is 2.72 feet.” with a range of plus or minus 0.003 feet. This puts the megalithic yard between 828 and 830mm - presumably at one standard deviation.

You appear not to have grasped the implications of the hypothesis. It’s perfectly correct to observe, as a matter of simple arithmetic, that were the megalithic yard 829mm (2.72 feet), as Thom declared, then the diameter would be 97.4 feet, ex hypothesi. However, were the megalithic yard 32.67 inches (829.8mm) then the diameter would be 97 feet 6 inches.

So, maybe you should be observing that, given the dimensions provided for the diameter, the megalithic yard at the Sarsen Circle would not be Thom’s nominal 2.72 feet, or 829mm, but 829.9mm (32.673 inches or 2.723 feet).

Thus, the consequence of the hypothesis is that, given the diameter is 97.5 feet, the megalithic yard as found at the Sarsen Circle would be closer to 83cm than 829mm.

In the same way, you can work out what the megalithic yard would be at the Aubrey Ring by dividing whatever diameter you favour by 105. Based on Cleal et al, this would be 828.8mm.

So, it can be seen that the values for both circles fall within the tolerances given by Thom. Thus, the result of applying the hypothesis to Stonehenge is fully consistent with Thom’s megalithic yard.

Furthermore, if it be given that the gaps at all stone circles were intended to be an integer number of the stated perimetric unit it is possible to determine the length of the megalithic yard used at each site. As observed, the range is far greater than Thom declared.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Megaliths: A Circumferential Unit and the Division of the Megalithic Yard 1550 gjb 29-Aug-19 18:17
Re: Megaliths: A Circumferential Unit and the Division of the Megalithic Yard 105 molder 05-Sep-19 05:18
Re: Megaliths: A Circumferential Unit and the Division of the Megalithic Yard 77 gjb 05-Sep-19 16:11
Re: Megaliths: A Circumferential Unit and the Division of the Megalithic Yard 95 molder 06-Sep-19 04:47
Re: Megaliths: A Circumferential Unit and the Division of the Megalithic Yard 74 gjb 06-Sep-19 18:42
Re: Megaliths: A Circumferential Unit and the Division of the Megalithic Yard 77 molder 06-Sep-19 21:09
Re: Megaliths: A Circumferential Unit and the Division of the Megalithic Yard 321 gjb 07-Sep-19 00:26
Re: Megaliths: A Circumferential Unit and the Division of the Megalithic Yard 71 molder 10-Sep-19 03:44
Re: Megaliths: A Circumferential Unit and the Division of the Megalithic Yard 325 gjb 10-Sep-19 11:47


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.