MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Mega-Talk (Megalithic)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 47, 48, 49, 50  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Folks who live in London can be forgiven for being so ignorant of the day-in and day-out habits of cows in the country. Us folk in the sticks (with straw in our hair) tend to notice what cows are doing. Like, if it's going to rain, they lie down. Then after it's been raining, they get up again. We don't usually go round lifting them back up again, they do it all by themselves! Proper job.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Country folk, like northerners, are a bit thick. If you look at recumbent cows, they have their feet tucked up under their bodies. And can rise from such a recumbent position with no bother. But in order to shoe them, each leg has to be removed from under them. This is, if not impossible, very difficult. It is easier to tip 'er on e' side, dang all four, and shove's her up daisy fashion. I've used yokel-speak to make it easier for you both to understand.

If I were you two, I'd stick to intergalactic electro-magnetism and leave this kind of thing to the grown-ups.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Did you know that cows can't stand on three legs?


Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That's a horse, you pillock.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Arr yes, we get lots of horses with horns round 'ere.
But usually they are white, and they've only got one horn.



Brown ones with two horns are a bit more unusual.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Here's a hilarious piece of archaeo-speak culled from the Megalithic Portal today:

Old Oswestry has been described as the finest example of an Iron Age hill fort in the Marches, Shropshire, mainly because of its highly elaborate defences. This is perhaps out of necessity - the hill upon which Old Oswestry sits is unusually low for an iron age hill fort and so it may have been necessary to have more complex ramparts.


Here's a pic:



So, apparently, the Iron Age Brits chose for their "finest hill fort" somewhere that was so crap defensively they had to build really complex ramparts. Fookin thick, weren't they?
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Old Oswestry local council isn't impressed by the site either.

They are planning to build new houses right up to the edge of the site. Clearly, this is the way forward, and the Old Oswestry local council is setting the precedent for how things should be done.

Like, there's all that spare land next to Stonehenge, doing nothing, and close to where the new A303 dual carriageway will be built. Ideal for new housing!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

More unintentional comedy from the Megalithic Portal

Intensive geophysics and test pit show Big Ground Mound close to Stanton Drew to be natural but 'it is not simple to explain in ... how such a large mound with such a flat top came to be there, and it could still be considered to be part of the Stanton Drew landscape, especially as the Main Avenue points towards it.'
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Megalithic Portal has an article on Puddock's Well, a self-styled holy well, which is near Nymet Tracey in the middle of Deon's 'nemeton country' half-way between Okehampton and Crediton. The word puddock, also written paddock, puddick etc., apparently means 'frog' which would go with the marshy terrain.

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=37112

The Nymet places are mostly on the A3072 main road, on the western approach to Copplestone. Not much in the way of sacred groves or whatever nemets are supposed to be but the view from google earth shows Nymet Tracey and the other nymet villages cluster along or around the St Michael Line.

The Cornish word Emmet is used to refer to tourists, incomers, people passing through so I wondered if nemet/nemeton might be one of those words that grew out of a mis-spelling, i.e. an emet became a nemet like nadder became an adder?
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There's a henge there as well.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I have just finished a very odd book called The Trojan War of 650 BC by Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett. More perhaps on this later but one thing that did come out of it was the following:
1. Apparently Google Earth allows you to find the height above sea level of anywhere in the world.
2. But when you target a manmade structure, eg the Empire State Building, it gives you the height-above-sea-level of the ground on which the building stands, not the top of the building.
3. So far not surprising.
4. But when you target something which is manmade but not a building eg Silbury Hill, the figure that comes out is the natural substructure not the top of the 'hill'.
5. So if we didn't know it before we'd know, thanks to Google Earth, that Silbury Hill is man-made.
6. So can someone who knows how to operate Google Earth please start re-examining everything we are interested in, possibly starting with Glastonbury Tor.
7. You can have the weekend off.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But when you target something which is manmade but not a building eg Silbury Hill, the figure that comes out is the natural substructure not the top of the 'hill'.


How does Google Earth determine what is man made and what is not man made?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well, this is the point. Google Earth uses, I assume, some sort of ground-penetrating radar that automatically reports how high any point on the earth's surface is. This radar is configured to ignore bricks-and-mortar because nobody counts buildings as contributing to height-above-sea-level.

But, it would seem, this same radar also identifies (and ignores) the loosely compacted soil of artificially constructed mounds, because it automatically registers it as 'a building'. All we have to do is find places where the Google Earth figure is significantly lower than the Ordinance Survey figure and presto we have identified an artificial hill.

Ishmael, since you are a dab hand with Google Earth, shine it on Silbury Hill and see if the authors' claims are correct. Just for starters.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Google Earth and the OS map both have the same height for Silbury Hill... 187 metres. But Glastonbury Tor is only 130 metres on Google Earth whereas it's 158 metres according to the OS, a difference of a hundred feet.

Silbury is recognised as being artificial. Glastonbury Tor isn't.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Well, this is the point. Google Earth uses, I assume, some sort of ground-penetrating radar that automatically reports how high any point on the earth's surface is.


I rather doubt it.

I expect Google Earth uses a database chock full of the latest, official survey data. That's all the magic to it.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 47, 48, 49, 50  Next

Jump to:  
Page 48 of 50

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group