User Answers

STONEHENGE: THE LATEST FROM CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE

OK....remember that late night trip yesterday to Wally World for Doritos and Mr. Pibb? Well, I also saw the March 2011 issue of Scientific American with a glitzy cover about the "Neuroscience of Resilience" and a blue brain surrounded by a kind of red plasma. But that wasn't what ultimately commanded my attention, for glancing at the table of contents I discovered an article by William Underhill called "Putting Stonehenge in its Place."

Well, to make a long article short, the piece was actually quite interesting. For one thing, it details recent discoveries of human remains around the site, one of which - a human male from the Mediterranean - dates to approximately 2300 BC. In fact, there are several such recent discoveries around the monument, and this has led to a new - and predictably, very old - theory: that the site was some sort of ancient "Lourdes", a religious center frequented by people from afar seeking healing. Other archaeologists are probing the entire site around Stonehenge and one of them has discovered evidence that there are other, older sites, perhaps buried under the surrounding landscape, which would make the famous English henge the center of a complex of some sort.

Ok...granted, the site may have been a place of pilgrimage and perhaps religious healing. But is this the best that archaeology can do: dress up its favorite explanation for every ancient site - that they are "religious centers" - in new clothes? I looked in vain in the Scientific American article for any mention of Alexander Thom, the famous Oxford engineer who discovered the megalithic yard by investigating British and Norman French megalithic sites. I looked in vain for any mention of Sir Norman Lockyear's astronomical alignments work. And of course, need it be said that there was no mention of the site's peculiar placement on the global grid?

The article only brings home to me once again that "science" and in particular the "science" of archaeology is bound and determined to ignore the obvious results from members of its own community, when those results challenge is shop worn, and dare I say it, outdated paradigms. The only religion here is the religious faith and dogmatism with which the current paradigms are defended and enunciated.

12 thoughts on “STONEHENGE: THE LATEST FROM CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE”

  1. Yes always the argument that our ancestors were religious crazed junkies as if they had nothing else to do. It looks like so called science has taken over from religion or join with them portraying our ancestors as stupid and ignorant if the truth be told they used their minds more than we do today and like always a structure served more than one purpose so scientist should throw out all their dogmas and try and seek out the truth.

  2. There is no consensus among archaeologists that the ‘megalithic yard’ ever existed, it’s not been ignored, but debated many times, and in many journals. My own research suggests that the perceived ‘accuracy’ seen in the layout of many Neolithic and Bronze Age structures is likely to have been derived from the use of simple peg and string survey methods, employing simple geometric principles. When we look at small and very accurate geometric motifs on contemporary artifacts (such as the ‘Bush Barrow Lozenge’), we see exactly the same geometric principles were used.

  3. I think the the vehemence with which establishment science defends the obviously idiotic ideas they hold forth, like every unfamiliar object is for “religious purposes,” goes way beyond just the fear of change. If you look at the last few hundred years, there is an abundance of evidence which points to a dedicated campaign to suppress a few key areas of knowledge.

    Simple ego and pigheadedness is not sufficient to explain the congruity of focused intent across such a variety of different fields. It is an organized campaign, at least at the highest levels. It is as strongly enforced by the religious power structures as by scientists.

    It was the contrast between this kind of “scientific investigation,” and the work of people like John W. Campbell, Frank Edwards, and Andrew Tomas which got me started into the world of “alternative” (i.e. “real”) knowledge. If one has one’s brain on and functional, sooner or later one has to start getting the feeling that there is something wrong with the “standard explanations” for almost everything. Then, once one starts looking deeper, the rabbit hole is never ending. The extent of lies and deceit is truly astonishing.

  4. There’s always been that question of who and how those big old rocks got
    stacked up the way they are. I’ve seen a lot of television speculation, and
    this or that PhD with his grad students in tow trying to duplicate what the old
    guys did. That is, just how did those stones get moved and placed?

    Dr. Farrell, I’m reading your “Cosmic War” right now and when I got to chapter
    four I was blown over with the idea of 36 foot tall giants. By the way, you did
    a great job with Quayle’s material,

    If I remember correctly there were two tribes of blue eyed, blond giants in
    Europe. One tribe or population stayed around Germany (and later whooped
    up on the Romans) and the second group migrated to the British Isles.

    Did I read right that at least some of those became the Celts? And isn’t that where stonehenge is? Several of those twenty foot guys might not have had
    so much trouble hefting around those blocks. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of
    giants as a possible explanation for the creation of the structure.

    I looked for Stephen Quayle’s book and found it. It’s just a bit pricey. Great job on all your books. _________Capt. Kent

  5. Well first of all the only people who can afford to do a pilgrimage are very rich people who own a lot of slaves and property. Everyone else has their noses to the grindstone or the cradle.This has been true since at least 3000 BC.I have studied anthropology for years. As for the healing part I really doubt that as well. Knowing that ancient humans are basically the same as modern humans, I’ll bet that they had to pay a bundle of jewels or gold or salt to make a pilgrimage there to the “Healers” to get healed. My daughter and son-in-law just came back from there and said it was very impressive. It seems to me to be a very accurate calendar. So that after the harvest people would make liquor, have a big party and dance and drum for weeks. The kids brought back some stones from the vicinity of “The Henge” and I made wire wrapped jewelry from the tiny pebbles.Everyone liked it so all I can say is in the absence of facts myths abound.

    1. @Mary,

      Oh, yawn, it doesn’t sound like you’ve read any single JP Farrell book.

      “Harvest”?

      1. Given the near party scene behavior waving it around displayed by
        Iranians with some reactor quality uranium they had purified, I rather
        suspect that the Farrell and harvest pagan type assessments are
        not totally incompatible, HOWEVER did anyone see that nasty
        movie Halloween III where the druid scheme to do a mass human
        sacrifice involved some high tech use of a bluestone from Stonehenge
        and star alignments and the whole nine yards?

        I can imagine there would be some “harvest” celebration if
        something like that came off, harvesting human flesh…..

        1. @Christine

          Stonehenge as energy vampire–well that’s an idea I hadn’t read. (Could be the reverse too, a deviced psychotronically operated by a mass gathered there.) I don’t think those are the possible meanings of “harvest” in Mary’s statement.

          What any of this has to do with Iranians’ actions after having refined nuclear material remains unclear; there’s been no mass party like what you describe.

  6. Out of curiosity Farrell, do you have any opinions as to what the original function(s) of Stonehenge might have been?

  7. Buddy Allen Simco

    I recall reading, about 40 years ago, A book by Dr. Gerald Hawkins, entitled: Stonehenge Decoded. Dr. Hawkins postulated that the site, among other purposes, was a giant astrolabe; he concluded that on the spring equinox the sun rose directly over the Heel Stone as viewed from a particular corridor.

    As a casual observer at the time, I was trying to reconcile this with statements by Immanuel Velokovsky (Worlds In Collision) re: disruptive celestial mechanics in the form of intruding celestial bodies – Venus, with spin in an opposite direction of the other planets, etc., vis-a-vis a Terra pole shift of a few degrees, and how, IF correct – given the time-frame referenced of 3,500 BCE, that the initial alignments of Stonehenge could not be as they are today… considering the time Dr, Hawkins calculated the first stones were aligned (blue stones? aubrey stones?), A small tidbit to file and consider.

    The above background is noted because about 20 years later, a public television program (PBS?) did a program with a camera crew traveling to England to verify Dr. Hawkins’ statement that the sun did rise precisely over the Heel Stone at Stonehenge, as was one of Hawkins’ original conclusions.

    The weather at the time of the taping was cloudy. A week prior to the spring equinox the moderator of the television program interviewed a professor of astronomy at a London University. The professor remarked (with vigor) that the fact of the matter is that the sun never has risen above the Heelstone at Stonehenge, as Hawkins wrote, and furthermore it never will! Case closed.

    Despite the inclement weather, the film crew set up on the day of the spring equinox and, a few minutes prior to the critical time, the clouds/mist cleared and the sun did indeed rise directly as per the alignment described by Dr. Hawkins, as transcribed by the video.

    A lesson, for me, regarding arrogance and experts. At the end of the day, all pull on pants one leg at a time.

    Just a thought. And thank YOU, Dr. Farrell, for your thoughts and opinions. An intelligent oasis in an expanding desert of meaningless sound/word bites.

  8. I don’t think it is at all surprising that Lockyear’s discoveries weren’t mentioned. I do believe as you do. There is much resistance to change in the archaelogical community. It’s like they can’t handle being proven wrong, as if it undermines their credibility. I don’t look at it in that manner. It is conjecture and sometimes conjecture isn’t quite correct. There may be elements of truth in some but unless somebody actuall witnessed these times and events or they were carefully documented, establishing what, where, when and why can be a daunting task. Consider Hawass’ ideas. I think he may be right about somethings but other things I think he is way off base, purposely or not.

  9. Ah yes the “pilgrimage” variation. By that argument, if I happened to die at Stonehenge when I visited as a tourist in 1998 and my body was buried there, then I’d be a pilgrim to those who might find my remains in a thousand years.

    I know that there are tidbits of contradiction to be gleaned from publications like Scientific American, but it can be pretty exhausting to wade through so much conventional thinking that really never explains the source of many things. (eg the organization needed to build Stonehenge and Silbury Hill.)

Comments are closed.