As for the best efforts of archaeologist’s like Petrie, they are invaluable chronicles of some of the finer details of the precision and alignment’s, and I have great faith in his measurements and visual representations. But I have to consider the limitation of his and others opinions of that time and older, when I look at their perspective not being informed by the full spectrum of possibilities in advanced technology of today.
And further, I also have to consider the relative value of the great respect these experts of old would garner. A couple hundred years ago, having done extensive travel to be able to have first hand witness to many of these megalithic sites would be an extremely rare experience, making their opinions highly valued. Their views would remain unchallenged by most academics, given the very few who could claim such a wide and traveled experience. And this leads to popular agreement for periods of time sufficient to make challenging them a reckless pursuit.
But in contrast to today, anyone can spend an afternoon googling images and video’s and gain that highly prized degree of perspective in very short order. So much of the value of older opinions can be duplicated quite easily today, and with just a superficial comprehension of the advancements of present day tech, it creates a much better perspective for analysis of any of these works.
So I have a hard time comprehending the seeming confidence of opinion here considering the sources, especially when their fundamental value can really only be measured by how they might logically and reasonably explain what we see with our own eyes.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05-Jan-20 21:11 by Open mind.