Dr. Garry Denke's Claim Markers*** Circling/Over Artifacts

North Western Europe Neolithic stone circles, henges, barrows, and causewayed camps' first purpose were coal exploration sites, being the remains of diggings that yielded no coal. Stones were placed in the smaller test holes, the 'stone circles', because they would silt in much faster than the deeper coal test trenches, the 'henges, barrows and causewayed camps, having no need of markers, due to their larger size. This is how the Stone Age miners recorded where not to dig in exploration for coal again, at such depths where none was previously found. No maps or coordinates were available to them in comparison to the tools used by explorationists today to record dug and abandoned sites. Given the greater quantity of 'stone circles' on the landscape, in relation to the other methods, the 'stone circling' mining exploration technique was the most popular, for it required much less digging work, and time, to evaluate potential coal bearing sites. The different patterns observable today are the result of various Neolithic coal mining exploration techniques, being the four general types mentioned. However, at some of the coal 'stone circles' exploration sites, such as Avebury, ancient miners did actually go back to retest their coal prospects sometimes, digging again in different places and depths, being convinced that a second try would yield the much needed coal, in spite of past failure. At Avebury, for instance, evidence suggests the ancient miners went back using a different technique on another go around, resulting in a 'henge' with two 'stone circles'. But alas, no coal at the populated, energy poor, Avebury. Centuries later many of these prehistoric mining exploration sites were utilized for various purposes that are well known, which anthropologists and archaeologists study in great detail, however no one has developed a comprehensive and conclusive underlying reason for these coal exploration sites in North Western Europe. This is partly because no anthropologist or archaeologist suggested, knew of, or presented any evidence of coal stone being used for any purpose in the Neolithic, and coal's actual first usage as simple campfire fuel remained hidden. Lack of evidence resulted in limiting its primary use to smelting metals, which prehistorically is untrue. The "Stone Age Coal Mining Theory" is based on the color difference of a black rock (coal) and a white rock (limestone), which currently Stonehenge anthropologists and archaeologists maintain are the same, the Theory chalking in the missing record, in black and white, of the exploration, production, and earliest usage of coal in North Western Europe. First evidence of black coal and white limestone being known in Neolithic time was discovered by the German historian, antiquarian, and Doctor Garry Denke (1622-1699), inventor of the core barrel, who cored the circular Stonehenge Mound Ditch located 100 meters (109 yards, 328 feet) E-SE of Heelstone. Roughly 58,967 kilograms (130,000 pounds) 42 cubic-meters (1,476 cubic-feet) of black Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Westphalian Crosskeys Coal and pale-yellow Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Namurian Millstone Grit rammed in a 113 meters (~369 feet) circumference ditch in white Late Cretaceous (Santonian) Seaford Chalk outcrop around a high mound pile of white Early Carboniferous (Arundian) High Tor (Birnbeck) Limestone had been found. Because Crosskeys black coal does not outcrop naturally at Stonehenge, its presence with pale-yellow Millstone Grit in the bottom-half of this man-made ditch around a white High Tor (Birnbeck) Limestone reef-like mound situated on a seaward sloping hill suggests Stonehenge was a geologic mining school built during that ancient quest for campfire fuel in energy poor North Western Europe's cold climate unforested areas. The main problem with the generally accepted first cause 'sun worship' theories of anthropologists and archaeologists is this: sun-filled winter days were, and still are, freezing cold during the day time; their so-called 'sun god' had let them down. The Stone Age Coal Mining Theory adheres to the fact that "Coal is a Stone" claiming that it was their hottest 'fire god' that never let the Neolithic people down, especially on sun-filled freezing cold winter days in the Stone Age.

Stonehenge Mound circled by Millstone Grit and Westphalian Coal
http://homepages.enterprise.net/sisman/PHOTOs/StoneH1.jpg
(Foreground E-SE Stonehenge Mound and Background is Stonehenge)

The Mound Ditch Coal is from South Wales Coalfield's Crosskeys
http://www.xkeys.freeserve.co.uk/geology/coalfield.gif
(Stonehenge Altar Stone from Red, Stonehenge Mound from Blue, Stonehenge
Grit from Pale-Yellow at Rim, and Stonehenge Coalstone from Black at Rim)

Neolithic Coalfield Quest for Campfire Coal in North Western Europe
http://www.anima.demon.co.uk/img/megalithdist.gif
(Non-Productive Coal Stone Sites in Blue)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ross.cuthbertson/geol_sw/map%20uk%20coal.jpg
(Productive Coal Stone Sites in Black)

Today Explorationists Just use Maps to Record Non-Productive Sites
http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~jtoro/Petroleum/petroleum_figs/game/fig3.jpg
(Clear Circles having Quarter-circle Pegs are Non-Productive Sites)

The Stone Age Coal Mining Theory first exposed South Wales Coalfield rim as the hot play for Neolithic coal stone open-pit miners who gathered coal for campfire fuel. There are no pre-Neolithic or Neolithic stone circles, henges, barrows, or causewayed camps on or along the sides of this basin's outer rims. Why is that? The answer is there was no need to explore the rim because bituminous coal is along an easy to see narrow 'road' between black coal and white limestone. This area could quite possibly be the original discovery area of 'old black magic' itself, the first coal ignited with a wood fuel campfire built on a coal seam by chance. There has to be some reason the white Mississippian Limestone, Old Red Sandstone, black Carboniferous Coal, and pale-yellow Pennsylvanian Grit were brought to Stonehenge from this area in South Wales, don't you think? According to the Doctor, who examined the Old Red Sandstone Altar Stone and gathered samples by pale and horse, at Stonehenge, and from along South Wales' pale-yellow Millstone Grit circular rim road, counterclockwise in 1656, with black Coal to his left, and white Lime to his right; "To find coal here," he said, "Just follow the pale 'Grit' road, follow the pale 'Grit' road, follow the pale 'Grit' road..."****

South Wales Coalfield Limestone to Stonehenge tonnage/date Estimates
~400 tons from South Wales Coalfield to Stonehenge Counterscarp in ~31st century BC
~300 tons from Stonehenge Counterscarp to Stonehenge Mound in ~27th century BC
~19 tons from Stonehenge Mound (Counterscarp) to Heelstone Ditch in ~21st century BC
a) 1/4 of Counterscarp Limestone (~100 tons) still in place (see labeled "Counterscarp" in photo).
b) 3/4 of Counterscarp Limestone cored remnants (~tstm) still in place under the rebuilt topsoil.
c) 56 Coal Fire Pits (the 56 Aubrey Holes) of coated bottom cored remnants (~tstm) still in place.
d) *Stonehenge Mound is 3/4 of relocated Counterscarp Limestone (~281 tons) (to left of "Drainage Trench").
e) **Heelstone Ditch bottom-half rammed fill (~19 tons) is Counterscarp Limestone from Stonehenge Mound.

Identical fossils of the South Wales Coalfield's periphery limestone at Stonehenge

01) Aclisina
02) Aviculopecten
03) Bellerophon
04) Caninia cornucopiae
05) Chondrites
06) Cleiothyridina roissyi
07) Composita
08) Conocardium
09) Delepinea (Daviesiella) destinezi
10) Euphemites
11) Girvanella
12) Hapsiphyllum (Zaphrentis) konincki
13) Linoproductus
14) Megachonetes papilionaceous
15) Michelina grandis
16) Mourlonia
17) Murchisonia
18) Palaeosmilia
19) Plicochonetes
20) Rhipidomella michelini
21) Schellwienella cf. S. crenistria
22) Straparollus
23) Syringopora
24) Zoophycos

South Wales Coalfield Grit/Coal to Stonehenge tonnage/date Estimates
Stonehenge Mound Ditch ~113 m (~369 feet) circle circumference length ~21st century BC
Stonehenge Mound Ditch ~42 m^3 (~1,476 cubic-feet) Grit/Coal volume ~21st century BC
Stonehenge Mound Ditch ~58,967 kg (~130,000 pounds) Grit/Coal weight ~21st century BC
a) Crosskeys Coal circling Stonehenge Mound is Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Westphalian coal.
b) Millstone Grit circling Stonehenge Mound is Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Namurian sandstone.
c) *Stonehenge Mound itself is Early Carboniferous (Mississippian) Arundian limestone and the artifacts.

3/4's of once full circled Counterscarp used as Claim Markers
http://www.orionbeadling.net/CSCARPelev.jpg
*Gold, Silver, Brass, Iron, Wood, Stone artifacts in Stonehenge Mound.
**Gold, Iron, Wood, Stone artifacts under Heelstone wings carving.
***Discovered by Dr. Garry Denke, inventor of the core barrel.
****Grit was his horse's name, his pale hung from Grit's bridle.
http://www.freewebs.com/garrydenke

Iron (ferromagnetic) was first detected at Stonehenge Mound and under Heelstone wings by Denoco Inc.'s Schonstedt Model GA-22 Magnetic Locator in 1984, confirmed again by Denoco Inc.'s Schonstedt Model GA-52C Magnetic Locator in 1994, not by Ancient Monuments Laboratory in 1994 (unpublished). The claim markers*** for the gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, stone, artifacts, were discovered by Dr. Garry Denke using a coring tool, his core barrel invention of 1656. They are Carboniferous rocks, Upper and Lower: Stonehenge Whitestones, Gritstones, and Coalstones; in the quantities and locations listed above.

Gold, Silver, Brass, Iron, Wood, Stone, Artifacts

Anthropologists and archaeologists claim that Dr. Garry Denke discovered neither the ark of the covenant nor its 4 iron wheels at Stonehenge, such gold ark and iron wheels buried directly below Heelstone's flying eagle wings carving facing southwest (SW) at Stonehenge. Anthropologists and archaeologists also claim that he discovered neither Upper Carboniferous rocks nor Lower Carboniferous rocks at Stonehenge whose geological names and descriptions are shown below. His claim markers*** circling/over artifacts following***

The Seven (7) Rock Types at Stonehenge (3 'New'***)

1) Stonehenge White Chalk - The outcrop sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Late Cretaceous Period, Santonian Age, calcium carbonates. The Late Cretaceous Period outcrop sedimentary rocks comprise the first (1st) local in situ construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 85 million years old. These stones are called Seaford Chalk Formation rocks.
2) Stonehenge Whitestones*** - The oldest limestone sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Early Carboniferous (Mississippian) Period, Arundian Age, calcium carbonates. The Early Carboniferous (Mississippian) Period limestone sedimentary rocks comprise the first (1st) foreign construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 340 million years old. These stones are called High Tor (Birnbeck) Limestone Formation rocks.
3) Stonehenge Bluestones - The volcanic rocks (oldest geologically) at Stonehenge are the Ordovician Period intrusive igneous diabases (dolerites), and extrusive igneous felsites (rhyolites) and tuffs (basic). The Ordovician Period igneous rocks comprise the second (2nd) foreign construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 470 million years old. These stones are called Ordovician Volcanic rocks.
4) Stonehenge Coshestons - The oldest sandstone sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Silurian-Devonian Period micaceous sandstones. The Silurian-Devonian Period sandstone sedimentary rocks comprise the third (3rd) foreign construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 417 million years old. These stones are called Old Red Sandstone Formation rocks.
5) Stonehenge Sarsens - The youngest sandstone sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Oligocene-Miocene (Tertiary) Period silicates. The Oligocene-Miocene Period sandstone sedimentary rocks comprise the fourth (4th) foreign construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 24 million years old. These stones are called Reading Formation rocks.
6) Stonehenge Gritstones*** - The sandstone grit, conglomerate, limestone, shale, and coal sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian), Namurian Age, silicates, calcium carbonates, and carbons. The Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Period sandstone grit, conglomerate, limestone, shale, and coal sedimentary rocks comprise the fifth (5th) foreign construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 320 million years old. These stones are called Millstone Grit Formation rocks.
7) Stonehenge Coalstones*** - The bituminous coal sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Period, Westphalian Age, carbons. The Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Period bituminous coal sedimentary rocks comprise the sixth (6th) foreign construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 310 million years old. These stones are called Crosskeys Coal Measures rocks.

And finally anthroplogists and archaeologists claim that Dr. Garry Denke discovered neither the gold table of Moses nor the gold altar of Aaron located with the balance of remaining artifacts inside Stonehenge Mound, at 100 meters (109 yards, 328 feet) east-southeast (E-SE) of such Heelstone flying eagle wings carving facing southwest (SW) at Stonehenge. No one is sure why anthropologists and archaeologists make such claims with no evidence to back them up. Perhaps they will someday. "Until then... G'day."****

Further Reading

1) Denke, G.W. 1973. Stonehenge Phase I: An Openpit Coalfield Model; The First Geologic Mining School (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) GDG, 73: 1-56.
2) Denke, G.W. 1975. Invertibrate Paleontology of the High Tor Limestone (Lower Carboniferous) and the Upper Senonian Chalk (Late Cretaceous) of Stonehenge. (Arizona State University) GDG, 75: 1-7.
3) Denke, G.W. 1977. Possible Source Areas of the High Tor Limestone (Early Mississippian) Fill of the Aubrey Holes and Heel Stone Ditch in Europe. (Arizona State University) GDG, 77: 1-24.
4) Beus, S.S. 1984. Fossil Associations in the High Tor Limestone (Lower Carboniferous) of South Wales. (Northern Arizona University) Journal of Paleontology, 58: 3; 651-667.
5) Denke, G.W. 1984. Mid-Dinantian (Waulsortian Facies) High Tor Limestone: The First Stones Transported to Stonehenge from the South Wales Coast. (Arizona State University) GDG, 84: 1-4.
6) Denke, G. 1984. Magnetic and Electromagnetic Surveys at Heelstone, Stonehenge, United Kingdom. (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) GDG, 84: 5-42.
7) Lees, A. and Miller, J. 1985. Facies variatian in Waulsortian buildups, Part 2; Mid-Dinantian buildups from Europe and North America. (Revised) Geological Journal, 20: 159-180.
8) Geologist, Denke, G. 1986. The Paleontology of Stonehenge, England. (Arizona State University) GDG, 86: 1-3.
(State of Texas, County of Stonewall)

A proper scientist?

The geological data is intriguing, Mr. Denke - thanks. Were you hoping to raise an issue for discussion?

The geological data is intriguing, Mr. Denke - thanks. Were you hoping to raise an issue for discussion?

Yes. Has anyone other than Garry Denke seen the limestone, grit and coal at Stonehenge?
(see first post for locations)

Stonehenge SUMMER SOLSTICE 2004

Following are some names of the many Stonehenge investigators who failed to published the presence of Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit and Carboniferous Black Coal at the Stonehenge monument. The geologic outcrop at Stonehenge is Cretaceous White Chalk, just in case you forgot. Reason for their failure? None of these Stonehenge investigators knew about them. So the point is, why not go see for yourself what they missed, at the Stonehenge SUMMER SOLSTICE 2004 (now that you know their exact locations, and rough amounts)

http://www.bentley-kemp.com/Weston/stonehenge/images/stnhng%20pansheep_jpg.jpg

Aiding in the celebration, so that all may see such missed Stonehenge rocks at night, is English Heritage, who has generously granted the Public free parking and free admission beginning 2200 hours (10:00 p.m.) Sunday 20th June on Father's Day night. So go if you can, it is defintely an extended weekend event. Join the midnight party round the 32.5 tons of Black Coal circling big roundtop mound along A-344 [100 metres (109 yards, 328 feet) E-SE of 04:58 Sunrise Heelstone]. The Black Coal in that Pale Grit covered trench is right under your two (2') feet.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/default.asp?wci=MainFrame&URL1=http%3A//www.english-heritage.org.uk/default.asp%3FWCI%3DNode%26wce%3D8551%26nolog%3Dtr ue

REPORT ON THE EXCAVATIONS AT STONEHENGE DURING THE SEASON OF 1923
William Hawley
(1851-1941)
Antiquaries Journal. J., 5
1925
21-50
(No Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit or Carboniferous Black Coal published therein)

STONEHENGE
R.J.C. Atkinson
(1920-1994)
PENGUIN BOOKS
in association with Hamish Hamilton
1956
ISBN 0140136460
(No Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit or Carboniferous Black Coal published therein)

STONEHENGE in its landscape - twentieth-century excavations
Rosamund M J Cleal, K E Walker, and R Montague
with major contributions by
Michael J Allen, Alex Bayliss, C Bronk Ramsey, Linda Coleman,
Julie Gardiner, P A Harding, Rupert Housley, Andrew J Lawson,
Gerry McCormac, Jacqueline I McKinley, Andrew Payne,
Robert G Scaife, Dale Serjeantson, and Geoff Wainwright
ENGLISH HERITAGE
1995
ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 10
ISBN 1850746052
(No Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit or Carboniferous Black Coal published therein)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY . 92
Science and Stonehenge
Edited by
BARRY CUNLIFFE & COLIN RENFREW
Published for THE BRITISH ACADEMY
by OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1997
ISBN 0197261744
(No Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit or Carboniferous Black Coal published therein)

HENGEWORLD
Mike Pitts
C
CENTURY . LONDON
2000
ISBN 0712679545
(No Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit or Carboniferous Black Coal published therein)

PENN GRIT / PENN COAL

Stonehenge Phase I: An Openpit Coalfield Model; The First Geologic Mining School

Round about 5,000 years ago ancient South Wales coal miners transported approximately 800,000 pounds (241 cubic-metres; 8,510 cubic-feet) of South Wales "Carboniferous Limestone" (see Map below, No. 22 therein) to a South sloping hill on Salisbury Plain for the purpose of constructing an Openpit Coalfield Model of their roughly circular 'sacred boundary' South Wales Carboniferous Limestone outcrop (modeled Counterscarp Bank at Stonehenge), their roughly circular South Wales "Millstone Grit" outcrop (see Map below, No. 20 therein), and their roughly circular (centre basin) South Wales "Coal Measures" outcrop (see Map below, No. 19 therein), coating the bottom of their 56 "Coal Measures" firepits (modeled 56 Aubrey Holes at Stonehenge) with the perimetre 'sacred boundary' Carboniferous Limestone. (Note the ancient South Wales coal miners had no arial photographs 5,000 years ago believing the white stone circled their South Wales Coalfield home)

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg/South-Wales-map-1300.jpg

Today the South Wales Coalfield is mapped and well known. It is a very large basin which measures some 90 miles on its east-west axis and about 16 miles wide. The rocks of this basin belong to the Carboniferous System. This can readily be divided into three main formations; Carboniferous Limestone, the Millstone Grit, and the Coal Measures. Because of the round basin-like shape, the Carboniferous Limestone, being the oldest of the formations, forms a thin outer rim. Inside this is the Millstone Grit, with the Coal Measures being the youngest formation filling the centre of the basin. The lower coal seams rise to the surface towards the edges of the basin. Because the inclination towards the centre is much steeper on the south and east boundaries, the working of coal in more recent times was confined to the north and west edge of the coalfield. As a result, the South Wales Coalfield was later developed on an extensive scale by the Iron Masters of North Glamorgan and Monmouthshire.

In the Stone Age, Before the wheel, Coalfire was king...

The remains of an ancient African barbecue suggest our ancestors had learned to control fire nearly 1.5 million years ago. Using a new method to analyse heated bone, researchers from the Transvaal Museum in Pretoria, South Africa, and Williams College in Williamstown, Pennsylvania, have pushed back the first instance of controlled fire use by a million years. The researchers analysed burned bones collected in South Africa's Swartkrans region in 1998. Some bones appeared to have been heated to higher temperatures than others. Hearth fires can attain temperatures nearly 300 degrees Celsius higher than brush fires. For this reason, scientists suspected the bones were evidence of early fire use. Now, a technique called electron spin resonance analysis proves that the bones must have been heated to intense campfire temperatures in order to reduce so much of the material to pure carbon. One of two pre-human species living in the area at that time, Australopithecus robustus and Homo erectus, likely cooked the bones. The next-oldest evidence of fire use, in Zhoukoudian, China, is 400,000 to 250,000 years old. In comparison, Stonehenge Phase I, is 5,000 years old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3557077.stm

1) Denke, G.W. 1973. Stonehenge Phase I: An Openpit Coalfield Model; The First Geologic Mining School (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) GDG, 73: 1-56.
2) Denke, G.W. 1975. Invertibrate Paleontology of the High Tor Limestone (Lower Carboniferous) and the Upper Senonian Chalk (Late Cretaceous) of Stonehenge. (Arizona State University) GDG, 75: 1-7.
3) Denke, G.W. 1977. Possible Source Areas of the High Tor Limestone (Early Mississippian) Fill of the Aubrey Holes and Heel Stone Ditch in Europe. (Arizona State University) GDG, 77: 1-24.
4) Beus, S.S. 1984. Fossil Associations in the High Tor Limestone (Lower Carboniferous) of South Wales. (Northern Arizona University) Journal of Paleontology, 58: 3; 651-667.
5) Denke, G.W. 1984. Mid-Dinantian (Waulsortian Facies) High Tor Limestone: The First Stones Transported to Stonehenge from the South Wales Coast. (Arizona State University) GDG, 84: 1-4.
6) Denke, G. 1984. Magnetic and Electromagnetic Surveys at Heelstone, Stonehenge, United Kingdom. (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) GDG, 84: 5-42.
7) Lees, A. and Miller, J. 1985. Facies variatian in Waulsortian buildups, Part 2; Mid-Dinantian buildups from Europe and North America. (Revised) Geological Journal, 20: 159-180.
8) Geologist, Denke, G. 1986. The Paleontology of Stonehenge, England. (Arizona State University) GDG, 86: 1-3. (State of Texas, County of Stonewall, Deed Records, Volume 393, Page 851-853)

Perhaps we need a separate forum for serious researchers to post extracts from their latest papers. People who wish to start a thread based on one can then link it through to the appropriate subject-based discussion forum.

Actually, what I want to know is what you hope to achieve by posting this here?
I mean, rock type is kind of interesting, but of little point on a discussion forum unless you have something to say about it.
Furthermore, I note many of the referenced papers are his own, over a long period of time, which again brings up the question os why are you posting this here?

Although the use of limestone is interesting, because of its whiteness and use of white in various other stone circles and monuments of that era. Such as 3 henges in north Yorkshire that were found to have a coating of white mineral on the surface of the mounds. exactly why is open to speculation, but it might have helped its use as an observatory, or else been important in a ritual colour sense.

Do rocks Burn in Circles?

The Neolithic discovery of 'magic rocks which burn' in circular South Wales Coalfield gave rise not only to Stonehenge being built, but to the Neolithic stone circles and henges built throughout Western Europe.

Neolithic News Flash... Rocks Burn In Circles...

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/photos/GowerSWcoalfield.JPG

The news of 'magic rocks which burn in circles' spread like wildfire...

:)

Actually, what I want to know is what you hope to achieve by posting this here?
I mean, rock type is kind of interesting, but of little point on a discussion forum unless you have something to say about it.
Furthermore, I note many of the referenced papers are his own, over a long period of time, which again brings up the question os why are you posting this here?

Although the use of limestone is interesting, because of its whiteness and use of white in various other stone circles and monuments of that era. Such as 3 henges in north Yorkshire that were found to have a coating of white mineral on the surface of the mounds. exactly why is open to speculation, but it might have helped its use as an observatory, or else been important in a ritual colour sense.

Hi Guthrie!

Could you be so kind as to name the three (3) henges in north Yorkshire that were found to have a coating of white mineral on the surface of their mounds?

That is very interesting.

Do you know of any other henges having the South Wales Coalfield white Carboniferous Limestone circling their outermost portion(s) other than Stonehenge?

Thank you!

:)

Garry

Hello, Garry!
Wonderful to hear from you.
I just thought I'd give these nice people some of your links to save you the bother.

http://groups.msn.com/ArkArchaeology
http://groups.msn.com/Geomagnetism
http://groups.msn.com/Paleomagnetism
http://groups.msn.com/StonehengeWhitestones
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ArkArchaeology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Geomagnetism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleomagnetism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StonehengeWhitestones
Enjoy!

Hello, Garry!
Wonderful to hear from you.
I just thought I'd give these nice people some of your links to save you the bother.

http://groups.msn.com/ArkArchaeology
http://groups.msn.com/Geomagnetism
http://groups.msn.com/Paleomagnetism
http://groups.msn.com/StonehengeWhitestones
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ArkArchaeology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Geomagnetism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleomagnetism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StonehengeWhitestones

Enjoy!

Hi eburacum!

MSN is absolutely wonderful, Yahoo!, it definitely saves time.

Thank you!

:)

Garry

Do rocks Burn in Circles?The Neolithic discovery of 'magic rocks which burn' in circular South Wales Coalfield. . . . Neolithic stone circles and henges built throughout Western EuropeI wonder why these writers feel so compelled to keep tossing in the adjective "Neolithic."

"Neolithic" is simply the final millennia of the stone age -- all human societies that had not discovered metallurgy. The hardest, strongest substance they had to work with was stone. Nonetheless, the "Late Neolithic" people had fired ceramics, woven fiber, stonemasonry, animal husbandry, cultivated crops, and ultimately the first cities, which were built of stone.

In other words, the very earliest "civilizations" overlapped the "Neolithic" period. The wonder of finding henges and other presumably ceremonial stone works at Neolithic sites is tempered by the fact that at other Neolithic sites people had built small cities using stone technology.

It's not like the pre-Indo-European inhabitants of Europe were "barbarians." If they had not been overrun and marginalized by two or three waves of Indo-European invaders in the closing millennia B.C.E., there's no reason to believe that they would not have eventually built cities and progressed into the Bronze Age, as the indigenous people of Latin America managed to do before the Indo-Europeans belatedly overran their civilizations.

In fact, we have evidence of one pre-Indo-European true Bronze Age civilization in Europe: the Etruscans. For all we know they may have been the descendants of the people who built those henges.

I cant remember the name, it was on TV a few weeks ago, I caught the last half of the program. It was near the Penines, in an area with limestone sink holes.

AS for rocks that burn, the only ones I have heard of is one kind, which has an outcrop in California, I have a friend visiting nearby who'll hopefully bring back a sample. Otherwise, your left with porous rocks saturated with petroleum and carbonaceous residues and materials.

In fact, we have evidence of one pre-Indo-European true Bronze Age civilization in Europe: the Etruscans. For all we know they may have been the descendants of the people who built those henges.

If that's true, then the pre-Indo-Europeans won out in the long run. One of the Etruscan republics eventually became Imperial Rome. Needless to say, Roman-derived culture and languages still dominate much of the World.

Stonehenge SUMMER SOLSTICE 2004

Following are some names of the many Stonehenge investigators who failed to published the presence of Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit and Carboniferous Black Coal at the Stonehenge monument. The geologic outcrop at Stonehenge is Cretaceous White Chalk, just in case you forgot. Reason for their failure? None of these Stonehenge investigators knew about them. So the point is, why not go see for yourself what they missed, at the Stonehenge SUMMER SOLSTICE 2004 (now that you know their exact locations, and rough amounts)

http://www.bentley-kemp.com/Weston/stonehenge/images/stnhng%20pansheep_jpg.jpg

Aiding in the celebration, so that all may see such missed Stonehenge rocks at night, is English Heritage, who has generously granted the Public free parking and free admission beginning 2200 hours (10:00 p.m.) Sunday 20th June on Father's Day night. So go if you can, it is defintely an extended weekend event. Join the midnight party round the 32.5 tons of Black Coal circling big roundtop mound along A-344 [100 metres (109 yards, 328 feet) E-SE of 04:58 Sunrise Heelstone]. The Black Coal in that Pale Grit covered trench is right under your two (2') feet.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/default.asp?wci=MainFrame&URL1=http%3A//www.english-heritage.org.uk/default.asp%3FWCI%3DNode%26wce%3D8551%26nolog%3Dtr ue

REPORT ON THE EXCAVATIONS AT STONEHENGE DURING THE SEASON OF 1923
William Hawley
(1851-1941)
Antiquaries Journal. J., 5
1925
21-50
(No Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit or Carboniferous Black Coal published therein)

STONEHENGE
R.J.C. Atkinson
(1920-1994)
PENGUIN BOOKS
in association with Hamish Hamilton
1956
ISBN 0140136460
(No Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit or Carboniferous Black Coal published therein)

STONEHENGE in its landscape - twentieth-century excavations
Rosamund M J Cleal, K E Walker, and R Montague
with major contributions by
Michael J Allen, Alex Bayliss, C Bronk Ramsey, Linda Coleman,
Julie Gardiner, P A Harding, Rupert Housley, Andrew J Lawson,
Gerry McCormac, Jacqueline I McKinley, Andrew Payne,
Robert G Scaife, Dale Serjeantson, and Geoff Wainwright
ENGLISH HERITAGE
1995
ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 10
ISBN 1850746052
(No Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit or Carboniferous Black Coal published therein)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY . 92
Science and Stonehenge
Edited by
BARRY CUNLIFFE & COLIN RENFREW
Published for THE BRITISH ACADEMY
by OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1997
ISBN 0197261744
(No Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit or Carboniferous Black Coal published therein)

HENGEWORLD
Mike Pitts
C
CENTURY . LONDON
2000
ISBN 0712679545
(No Carboniferous White Limestone, Carboniferous Pale Grit or Carboniferous Black Coal published therein)

PENN GRIT / PENN COAL

I cant remember the name, it was on TV a few weeks ago, I caught the last half of the program. It was near the Penines, in an area with limestone sink holes.
Thank you.
AS for rocks that burn, the only ones I have heard of is one kind, which has an outcrop in California, I have a friend visiting nearby who'll hopefully bring back a sample. Otherwise, your left with porous rocks saturated with petroleum and carbonaceous residues and materials.
Coal burns.

A Deconstruction of Stonehenge Pseudoscience

My first inclination is to believe that Denke (this one, not the dead one) is simply a pseudoscientist. This is based, first, on the fact that he is spamming message-boards throughout the Internet with the exact same posts, all of which are ambiguous as best in regards to what he's really trying to say.

Second, Denke (note, I’m referring to the sciforums member and not the long-deceased Denke unless otherwise stated) makes several wild statements. "Wild" in that they don't appear to have a direct point, but of the indirect ones that might be inferred, he's either stating that traditional science is wrong, misguided or purposely conspiring to cover up or conceal information.

Denke talks of ancient miners the failure of anthropologists and archaeologists to acknowledge coal use of Neolithic times. In addressing this, I'd ask Denke what is the "evidence" that he cites as suggesting "ancient miners went back to using a different technique on another go around…?" I'd also point out that in dating Stonehenge, a residual bit of CuCO3 was excavated (Gowland, 1902) at 7ft on a sarsen, indicating the presence of a copper or bronze implement of some sort. While it appears accepted that the earliest features at Stonehenge are certainly of the Neolithic period, the henges and walls, if not the Stonehenge Ditch, are probably of early Bronze Age or a period of transition between. It's clear that the methods that the builders used to create the megaliths were stone and wood and not metallic.

But to suggest that the site was a coalmine is reaching a bit. Indeed, there is more evidence to suggest that the site originated as a gather spot for pastoralists as a means of coming together, redistributing wealth, and preparing for the winter months (Peake, 1945); a corral, if you will. The evolution of the site might suggest, if comparison could be made with Greek religion of the same period, that necessity created rituals that became religion. Stonehenge has a clear altar and boundaries that separate the sacred from the secular, much like the tenemos of Greek sanctuaries.

In answering Denke's claim that anthropologists and archaeologists have never explored or acknowledged coal as a fuel source in lithic periods, I'd point him to Théry, et al (1996). In this paper, the authors describe lignite coal fragments found in a hearth, which had likely origins in nearby outcroppings. But I will concede that without evidence to suggest that coal was a reason for Stonehenge, archaeologists aren't likely to do more than speculate on the idea. Perhaps Denke has more evidence than the geologic strata?

Which brings me to the criticism of Denke's suggestion that anthropologists and archaeologists ignore the geology of the area and, therefore, miss the true reason of Stonehenge. It seems more likely that the above scientists and researchers don't refer to the outcroppings and scarps in the works Denke cites because they have little or no relevance on their work. The source eludes me, but I knew without visiting the site that Stonehenge resides on carboniferous limestone/chalk. Doubtless it was mentioned in one or more of the texts that I've read that discuss the site.

The most telling comments that Denke makes in his "work" is in regard to those he provides about Dr. Denke (the original) and the discovery of the "ark of the covenant" and it's "4 iron wheels at Stonehenge" as well as "the gold table of Moses" and the "gold altar of Aaron." I couldn't tell if he was saying that anthropologists and archaeologists were concealing the facts of this "evidence" or.. . ?

Perhaps Denke has a good idea with investigating the idea of coal use in the vicinity of Stonehenge or that it was integral to the overall purpose of the site, but he misses the mark with this statement, "Because Crosskeys black coal does not outcrop naturally at Stonehenge, its presence [...] suggests Stonehenge was a geologic mining school built during that ancient quest for campfire fuel in energy poor North Western Europe's cold climate unforested areas."

A "mining school?" Come on Denke, give us more to go on than what you have! Some real citations might help as well. Who states crosskeys black coal is found where it was and that it is in situ? What does GDG stand for? I couldn't find this journal.

Based on: the amount of spam Denke has done across many, many boards on the Internet; the fact that he cites no real sources; that he criticizes mainstream science whilst using the Internet medium instead of peer-reviewed journals; and the ambiguous remarks about supernatural icons of Christianity found (or not?) at the site, I vote that this entire thread be merged with his other two and moved to the Pseudoscience forum.

References:

Gowland, W. (1902). The recent excavations of Stonehenge with inferences as to the origin, construction and purpose of that monument. Man. Vol 2, pp 7-11

Peake, H. (1945). The earliest structure at Stonehenge. Man. Vol 45 (Jul-Aug), pp. 74-78.

Théry I., Gril J., Vernet J. L., Meignen L. and Maury J. (July 1996). Coal used for Fuel at Two Prehistoric Sites in Southern France: Les Canalettes (Mousterian) and Les Usclades (Mesolithic). Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol 23, Iss 4, pp 509-512.

What does GDG stand for? I couldn't find this journal.

Just did a search for it. Most of the results under CDG were engineering-related, with a few links to caving clubs - but nothing which looked like a scientific journal. :confused:

Its either something obscure or not a journal at all. That he lists it with papers associated with his name and two different universities that don't have graduate programs in geology is interesting. Arizona State doesn't even have an undergrad geology department.

Then when I thanked him for starting this thread, perhaps the best part of my post was the question mark(?) after "proper scientist".

Heh... the guy's been spamming the internet almost since the internet began... I wouldn't be surprised if he bugged the hell out of everyone in FidoNet in the 80's :)

He ultimately relates stonehenge to biblical prophecy and supernatural artifacts of biblical mythology and attempts to use science to support supernatural hypotheses. Pseudoscience at its finest.

Do Not Fly on Ark Excavation Day!

http://www.technopagans.co.uk/H18.JPG

Exodus’ 4 winged gold ark (Rev’s ‘throne’) and Ezekiel’s 4 iron wheels are under Heelstone’s 2 flying eagle wings overhanging open ground. Heelstone’s lion head (top) is weathered-damaged, but its huge calf head (under right wing), wounded man face (under left wing), and 2 eagle wings (centering them), are still visible from the 7 stone archway. Rammed in the bottom-half of Heelstone’s 30m (100ft) circumference ditch is Carboniferous white stone (fossiliferous limestone) from South Wales. 3/4's of the ‘missing’ Counterscarp (Stonehenge’s outermost bank) is such Carboniferous white limestone, ~19 tons of it, the balance being Stonehenge Mound itself, ~281 tons. Located 100m (328ft) E-SE of Heelstone is such piled white limestone Stonehenge Mound resting on more artefacts over Cretaceous white chalk. The Mound and its artefacts are encircled by ~65 tons of Carboniferous black stone (fossiliferous coal) and Carboniferous pale grit (basically sandstone) from South Wales. Rammed in the bottom-half of its 113m (369ft) circumference ditch is such Carboniferous black coal and pale grit. Exodus’ gold table, gold altar, etc. (the balance of Exodus 37-40 ‘missing’ artefacts) are inside Stonehenge Mound. The white elders (older fossils) in such Carboniferous white limestone of 1/4 Counterscarp bank, 3/4 Stonehenge Mound - Heelstone Ditch bottom-half, differentiate these rocks from Stonehenge’s natural outcrop; Cretaceous white chalk, because it contains much younger fossils. Many of these fossils were originally quite large, easily identified before their fragmentation, caused by moving and crushing them. Stonehenge Heelstone Sculpture having 2 wings centering 4 beasts (described above), 24 white elders (identifying fossils) surrounding them in its ditch, and the 10000 x 10000 (1000s of 1000s) of white chalk fossils (younger identifiers), all located over/around Exodus’ 4 winged gold ark (Rev’s ‘throne’), total 6 wings (2 above GL, 4 below GL). Denoco Inc. (DI) 1984 geophysical surveys and English Heritage (EH) Ancient Monument Laboratory (AML) Archaeometry Branch (AB) 1994 geophysical surveys of Heelstone’s rectangular artefact anomaly show centering almost exactly plumb (directly below) the midpoint of Heelstone’s 2 wings overhanging such open ground. The rate of change of deviation from vertical of the Southwest (SW) leaning Heelstone since burial of Exodus’ 4 winged gold ark (Rev’s ‘throne’) below its 2 wings has been been calculated, and is 10cm (4in) per ~2000yrs. This is assuming that the artefact was centered perfectly plumb with the midpoint of Heelstone’s 2 wings at the time of burial. If it was, then this centering vertical plane alignment of the 2 wings above GL and 4 wings below GL would, from DI's 1984 and EHAMLAB’s 1994 geophysical surveys, make the calculation of 5cm (2in) per ~1000yrs for Heelstone movement valid. If it was not, then such rate of change of deviation from vertical would be invalid, unless the survey results are simply off center themselves. In any case, Exodus’ 4 winged gold ark (Rev’s ‘throne’) is not directly under Heelstone’s base, its 4 wings are under open ground directly below Heelstone’s overhanging 2 wings, offset by 10cm (4in). So the Heelstone does not have to be moved to retrieve Exodus’ 4 winged gold ark (Rev’s ‘throne’) rectangular artefact, whose long axis parallels the 4 Station Stones’ rectanglular long axis located SW of it, according to the 1984 and 1994 geophysical surveys. Watch the magnetic reversal (polar flip) on excavation day, at exhumation hour, of the Stonehenge Heelstone artefact. Remember to shut down your computer(s) on such day, magnetic reversals damage electronics, even surge protectors, and planes, automobiles, satellites, etc.

http://www.eumetsat.de/en/area2/image/may98/images/satellites.jpg

Do Not Fly on Ark Excavation Day!

LOL now that's sad AND funny. I plan to have every device plugged in and on and I'll be driving along a highway at 80 while on my cell phone that day. Just to prove you wrong! Oh and I'll make sure to be near an airport!

Exodus’ 4 winged gold ark (Rev’s ‘throne’) and Ezekiel’s 4 iron wheels are under Heelstone’s 2 flying eagle wings overhanging open ground.

And you know this because....?

Watch the magnetic reversal (polar flip) on excavation day, at exhumation hour, of the Stonehenge Heelstone artefact.

Polar magnetic reversals take decades not minutes... there won't be a sudden "flip" where one day the compass reads north, the next south. Moreover, there's no indications of any catastrophic problems associated with previous reversals. Indeed, there were no computers, planes, automobiles, etc. during previous reversals, so there is know empirical way for you state, "magnetic reversals damage electronics." If you truly are a "geophysicist" then you would know this.

One things for sure: I was right about the psuedoscientist bit! This guy has Norval beat! :cool:

Actually you will not be able to do any of those things, blackholesun, save
and except for keeping every device plugged in, because G's everywhere....

E=(hc^5/G)^1/2
4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2 = [(6.6260687 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s)
(2.4216061 x 10^42 m^5/s^5)/(6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2)]^1/2
4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2 = 4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2
[rsu 3.9 x 10^-8]

E=c^5/Gv
4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2 = (2.4216061 x 10^42 m^5/s^5)/
(6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2)(7.4008894 x 10^42 /s)
4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2 = 4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2
[rsu 3.9 x 10^-8]

E=hc^3/Gm
4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2 = (6.6260687 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s)
(2.6944002 x 10^25 m^3/s^3)/(6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2)
(5.4563026 x 10^-8 kg)
4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2 = 4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2
[rsu 3.9 x 10^-8]

E=h(Gd)^1/2
4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2 = (6.6260687 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s)
[(6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2)(8.2089591 x 10^95 kg/m^3)]^1/2
4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2 = 4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2
[rsu 3.9 x 10^-8]

G=c^3/mv
6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2 = (2.6944002 x 10^25 m^3/s^3)/
(5.4563026 x 10^-8 kg)(7.4008894 x 10^42 /s)
6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2 = 6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2
[rsu 3.9 x 10^-8]

G =wc^4/E
6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2 = (4.0507625(38) x 10^-35 m)
(8.0776087 x 10^33 m^4/s^4)/(4.9038802 x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2)
6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2 = 6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2
[rsu 3.9 x 10^-8]

G=c^4/F
6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2 = (8.0776087 x 10^33 m^4/s^4)/
(1.2106066 x 10^44 kg-m/s^2)
6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2 = 6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2
[rsu 3.9 x 10^-8]

G=c^5/P
6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2 = (2.4216061 x 10^42 m^5/s^5)/
(3.6293075 x 10^52 kg-m^2/s^3)
6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2 = 6.6723641 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2
[rsu 3.9 x 10^-8]

etc. (shortened to conserve bandwidth)

Graviton triggers the polar flip.

And you know this because....?

Hi SkinWalker - Because it was recorded by the geophysical surveys, and it is known from literature, Exodus’ 114cm,45in x 69cm,27in x 69cm,27in four-winged gold ark (Rev's 'throne') and Ezekiel's four iron (ferromagnetic) wheels are currently located under the Stonehenge builders' rejected Heelstone, centered below the four beasts above it, surrounded by the 24 four elder(s) species of fossils (Carboniferous) around it, and the millions of species of younger fossils (Cretaceous) below it. Furthermore, 100m (328ft) east-southeast (E-SE) of Heelstone, at Stonehenge Mound, it was recorded by the geophysical surveys, and it is known from literature, Exodus' 229cm,90in x 229cm,90in x 137cm,54in brasen altar containing Exodus' 37-40 balance of artefacts (gold table, gold altar, etc.) are currently located inside Stonehenge Mound (Carboniferous), centered below its apex, surrounded by the ~32.5 tons of bituminous coal species of fossils (Carboniferous) around it, and the millions of species of younger fossils (Cretaceous) below it.

Polar magnetic reversals take decades not minutes... there won't be a sudden "flip" where one day the compass reads north, the next south. Moreover, there's no indications of any catastrophic problems associated with previous reversals. Indeed, there were no computers, planes, automobiles, etc. during previous reversals, so there is know empirical way for you state, "magnetic reversals damage electronics." If you truly are a "geophysicist" then you would know this.

No SkinWalker - It is true magnetic reversals are ongoing processes, however the quoted theory, one of many, is slightly flawed. All such theories will be tested by the EHAML-WANT (English Heritage, Ancient Monuments Laboratory - Wessex Archaeology, National Trust) 1) Gold Ark Experiment, to be conducted shortly. The EHAML-WANT 1) Gold Ark [with balance 1) brasen altar, 2) gold table, 3) gold altar] Experiment will trigger the next polar flip, such flip lasting less than 1hr,60min in time, beginning with decreasing candelas 36hr,2160min before exhumation, and ending with increasing candelas 36hr,2160min after exhumation, of EHAML-WANT 1) Gold Ark, throughout the universe of many. It is true this is a wildcat prospect http://www.freewebs.com/garrydenke but the exploration geophysics is completed and it is time to commence excavation operations. Garry W. Denke, Geologist/Geophysicist, Denoco Inc. of Texas, Wildcat Station, P.O. Box 866488, Plano, Texas 75086-6488 USA (972) 422-8268 Office, (972) 423-6337 Fax, (940) 521-1667 Mobile

What's the citation to the geophyisics literature (since none shows up in casual searches through common databases to the field)?

Why would the removal/excavation of a large rock cause a "polar flip?"

What does superstitious mythology from human past have to do with geophysics?

Why isn't the description you claim resides in said mythology simply a spurious correlation to heelstone? Did Exodus mention Stonehenge?

When is this alleged excavation supposed to take place (again, casual search in popular databases of anthropology and archeology don't reveal it)?

Will you eat crow and acknowledge that you are but a pseudoscientist when (or if) the heelstone is excavated and no magical/supernatural bullshit occurs?

And the point of all those useless numbers is?

Exactly. Nothing will happen.

What's the citation to the geophyisics literature (since none shows up in casual searches through common databases to the field)?
http://seg.org/publications/tle
Why would the removal/excavation of a large rock cause a "polar flip?"
superforce = c^4 / G
c = superpower / superforce
superpower = c^5 / G
What does superstitious mythology from human past have to do with geophysics?
no superstition in identical measurements
Why isn't the description you claim resides in said mythology simply a spurious correlation to heelstone?
identical measurements
Did Exodus mention Stonehenge?
yes stone(s)
When is this alleged excavation supposed to take place (again, casual search in popular databases of anthropology and archeology don't reveal it)??
whenever EHAML-WANT's to
Will you eat crow and acknowledge that you are but a pseudoscientist when (or if) the heelstone is excavated and no magical/supernatural bullshit occurs
no magic/supernatural involved

And the point of all those useless numbers is?
.

Exactly.

.

Nothing will happen.
0/0

You're in need of some schoolin' boy. You can't make up math like that!

no magic/supernatural involved

Then why is this thread in the Pseudoscience forum?

Garry,(i dont mean to be rude!) but did you get 800 score in Analytical Writing of GRE?i mean come on! how could anyone write so much so fast?...

Suggestion: In data mining we are often taught about why data is there but we cannot take it into our heads:Poor Data Visualization techniques! ...sorry if this wastes the thread time.my apologies.
bye!

Then why is this thread in the Pseudoscience forum?
Because my three (3) religions are 'ism'

1) Geomagnetism
2) Uniformitarianism
3) Paleomagnetism

Waiting on the 'current' time as updated from 2002
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html

The Seven Graviton Values 1998

1) mass... (hc/G)^1/2 = 5.4563026(39) x 10^-8 kg
2) length... (hG/c^3)^1/2 = 4.0507625(38) x 10^-35 m
3) time... (hG/c^5)^1/2 = 1.3511889(41) x 10^-43 s
4) current... e/(hG/c^5)^1/2 = 1.1857530(90) x 10^24 A
5) temperature... (hc^5/G)^1/2/k = 3.5518626(82) x 10^32 K
6) substance... M/(hc/G)^1/2 = 1.6605387(31) x 10^-27 kmol
7) intensity... (hG/c^5)^1/2/sr = 1.9720204(06) x 10^-45 cd

The Two Graviton Angles 1998

1) solid angle... steradiant = 6.8517999(97) x 10^1 sr
2) plane angle... radiant = 1.3703599(97) x 10^2 rad

The Universe of Graviton 1998

001) irradiance constant i. = 4.5211591(52) x 10-122 s^3/kg
002) radiance constant i.= 3.0978078(26) x 10-120 s^3-sr/kg
003) radiant volume constant = 1.3554094(15) x 10^-113 m-s^2/kg
004) measurement volume = 6.6467654(65) x 10^-104 m^3
005) graviton volume constant = 1.2181812(31) x 10^-96 m^3/kg
006) luminous efficacy = 3.7229937(53) x 10^-96 cd-sr-s^3/kg-m^2
007) electric current volume = 1.3838190(49) x 10^-93 m^2/A
008) luminous energy = 1.8257115(55) x 10^-86 cd-sr-s
009) electric charge volume = 4.1485851(42) x 10^-85 m^3/A-s
010) molar volume = 4.0027765(33) x 10^-77 m^3/kmol
011) moment of inertia = 8.9530708(38) x 10^-77 kg-m^2
012) graviton fluidity = 1.0031235(26) x 10^-70 m-s/kg
013) measurement area = 1.6408677(14) x 10^-69 m^2
014) electric moment = 6.4900363(91) x 10^-54 A-s-m
015) graviton capacitance = 5.234567901... x 10^-48 A^2-s^4/kg-m^2
016) magnetic moment = 1.9456639(62) x 10^-45 A-m^2
017) luminous intensity = 1.9720204(06) x 10^-45 cd
018) graviton frequency i. = 1.3511889(41) x 10^-43 s
019) luminous flux = 1.3511889(41) x 10^-43 cd-sr
020) graviton moment = 2.2102186(33) x 10^-42 kg-m
021) inductance constant = 3.4877980(18) x 10^-39 kg-m^2/A^2-s^2
022) absorption-emission = 2.4763819(58) x 10^-36 s/kg
023) graviton wavelength = 4.0507625(38) x 10^-35 m
024) Planck constant = 6.6260687(65) x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s
025) relative expansion = 2.8154241(58) x 10^-33 /K
026) electric resistivity = 1.0456155(41) x 10^-30 kg-m^3/A^2-s^3
027) unified substance = 1.6605387(31) x 10^-27 kmol
028) kinematic viscosity = 1.2143880(58) x 10^-26 m^2/s
029) inverse electric current = 8.4334589(42) x 10^-25 /A
030) Boltzmann constant= 1.3806502(93) x 10^-23 kg-m^2/s^2-K
031) thermal resistance = 9.7866124(96) x 10^-21 s^3-K/kg-m^2
032) graviton molality = 3.0433405(93) x 10^-20 kmol/kg
033) elementary charge = 1.6021764(62) x 10^-19 A-s
034) primary radiation = 5.9552136(16) x 10^-17 kg-m^4/s^3
035) specific heat = 2.5303770(42) x 10^-16 m^2/s^2-K
036) magnetic flux q. = 2.0678336(42) x 10^-15 kg-m^2-sr/A-s^2-rad
037) magnetic flux = 4.1356672(77) x 10^-15 kg-m^2/A-s^2
038) electric permittivity = 1.2922425(96) x 10^-13 A^2-s^4/kg-m^3
039) magnetic exposure = 2.9363775(58) x 10^-12 A-s/kg
040) electric constant = 8.854187817... x 10^-12 A^2-s^4-sr/kg-m^3
041) magnetic pole strength = 4.8032041(96) x 10^-11 A-m
042) Newton constant = 6.6723641(43) x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2
043) density of states = 2.0392015(07) x 10^-10 s^2/kg-m^2
044) S-B primary constant = 1.3897143(30) x 10^-9 kg/s^3-K^4
045) radiant distribution constant = 3.335640952... x 10^-9 s/m
046) graviton mass constant = 5.4563026(39) x 10^-8 kg
047) molar Planck constant = 3.9903126(87) x 10^-7 kg-m^2/s-kmol
048) magnetic constant = 1.256637061... x 10^-6 kg-m/A^2-s^2-sr
049) electric conductance = 3.8740458(43) x 10^-5 A^2-s^3/kg-m^2
050) conductance q. = 7.7480916(72) x 10^-5 A^2-s^3-rad/kg-m^2-sr
051) magnetic permeability = 8.6102258(15) x 10^-5 kg-m/A^2-s^2
052) fine-structure constant = 7.2973525(36) x 10^-3 /rad
053) second radiation constant = 1.4387752(29) x 10^-2 m-K
054) dielectric constant = 1.4594705(05) x 10^-2 /sr
055) gravitational momentum = 1.6357583(80) x 10^1 kg-m/s
056) relative permeability = 6.8517999(97) x 10^1 sr
057) inverse fine-structure = 1.3703599(97) x 10^2 rad
058) impedance of vacuum = 3.767303134… x 10^2 kg-m^2/A^2-s^3-sr
059) molar gas constant = 8.3144720(88) x 10^3 kg-m^2/s^2-kmol-K
060) spin angle constant = 9.3894326(23) x 10^3 sr-rad
061) i. conductance q. = 1.2906403(83) x 10^4 kg-m^2-sr/A^2-s^3-rad
062) von Klitzing constant = 2.5812807(61) x 10^4 kg-m^2/A^2-s^3
063) inverse gravitational mass = 1.8327429(14) x 10^7 /kg
064) Faraday constant = 9.6485341(30) x 10^7 A-s/kmol
065) speed of light in vacuum = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s
066) graviton energy constant = 4.9038802(52) x 10^9 kg-m^2/s^2
067) Josephson primary = 2.4179894(88) x 10^14 A-s^2/kg-m^2
068) Josephson q. = 4.8359789(67) x 10^14 A-s^2-rad/kg-m^2-sr
069) electric displacement = 3.9552465(66) x 10^15 A-s/m
070) absorbed dose = 8.987551787… x 10^16 m^2/s^2
071) luminous density = 2.7467669(26) x 10^17 cd-sr-s/m^3
072) gravity displacement = 4.4930470(15) x 10^18 kg-s/m^2
073) molar mass constant = 3.2858629(17) x 10^19 kg/kmol
074) magnetic potential = 1.0209601(87) x 10^20 kg-m/A-s^2
075) thermal conductance = 1.0218040(21) x 10^20 kg-m^2/s^3-K
076) electric current constant = 1.1857530(90) x 10^24 A
077) luminance constant = 1.2018155(94) x 10^24 cd/m^2
078) luminous flux density = 8.2346000(82) x 10^25 cd-sr/m^2
079) Avogadro constant = 6.0221419(79) x 10^26 /kmol
080) gravitational field = 1.3469816(08) x 10^27 kg/m
081) electric potential = 3.0607616(38) x 10^28 kg-m^2/A-s^3
082) electric conductivity = 9.5637446(19) x 10^29 A^2-s^3/kg-m^3
083) Celcius temperature = 3.5518626(82) x 10^32 K
084) graviton wave number = 2.4686709(99) x 10^34 /m
085) mass flow rate constant = 4.0381492(72) x 10^35 kg/s
086) molar energy = 2.9531863(13) x 10^36 kg-m^2/s^2-kmol
087) surface concentration = 1.0119881(80) x 10^42 kmol/m^2
088) graviton frequency = 7.4008894(66) x 10^42 /s
089) superforce constant = 1.2106066(96) x 10^44 kg-m/s^2
090) luminous intensity i. = 5.0709414(41) x 10^44 /cd
091) angular velocity = 1.0141882(87) x 10^45 rad/s
092) electric flux density = 9.7642024(91) x 10^49 A-s/m^2
093) radiant intensity = 5.2968673(52) x 10^50 kg-m^2/s^3-sr
094) graviton field strength = 2.2187308(44) x 10^51 m/s^2
095) superpower constant = 3.6293075(70) x 10^52 kg-m^2/s^3
096) magnetic flux density = 2.5204148(03) x 10^54 kg/A-s^2
097) thermal conductivity = 2.5224979(53) x 10^54 kg-m/s^3-K
098) magnetic field strength = 2.9272342(65) x 10^58 A/m
099) absorbed dose rate = 6.6515877(33) x 10^59 m^2/s^3
100) graviton surface density = 3.3252544(33) x 10^61 kg/m^2
101) electric field strength = 7.5560134(90) x 10^62 kg-m/A-s^3
102) measurement area i. = 6.0943364(99) x 10^68 /m^2
103) dynamic viscosity = 9.9688619(97) x 10^69 kg/m-s
104) molar concentration = 2.4982658(70) x 10^76 kmol/m^3
105) surface tension constant= 2.9885896(41) x 10^78 kg/s^2
106) electric charge density = 2.4104603(51) x 10^84 A-s/m^3
107) angular acceleration = 7.5058954(07) x 10^87 rad/s^2
108) thermal transfer = 6.2272175(40) x 10^88 kg/s^3-K
109) electric current density = 7.2263783(36) x 10^92 A/m^2
110) luminous efficacy i. = 2.6860104(16) x 10^95 kg-m^2/cd-sr-s^3
111) graviton density constant = 8.2089591(81) x 10^95 kg/m^3
112) measurement density = 1.5044911(77) x 10^103 /m^3
113) radiant density constant = 7.3778445(74) x 10^112 kg/m-s^2
114) radiance constant = 3.2280892(03) x 10^119 kg/s^3-sr
115) irradiance constant = 2.2118221(59) x 10^121 kg/s^3
etc. 9^9 (387,420,489) combinations/equations

(shortened to conserve bandwidth)

i. is inverse, q. is quantum

Ism it Pseudoscience?

:confused:

Garry, (i dont mean to be rude!) but did you get 800 score in Analytical Writing of GRE? i mean come on! how could anyone write so much so fast?...

Suggestion: In data mining we are often taught about why data is there but we cannot take it into our heads: Poor Data Visualization techniques! ...sorry if this wastes the thread time. my apologies.
bye!

superforce = c^4/G
c = superpower/superforce
superpower = c^5/G

http://perso.club-internet.fr/molaire1/e_superforce.html

We were there gathered and hoping to show you all of the Carboniferous rocks, circling/over the artifacts. No worries though, all of the Welsh born Stonehenge rocks are to be moved back to Wales:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3830547.stm

Instead we visited the good Doctor Robyn Lewis who staked the official claim on behalf of all fellow druids, all bards and all the Welsh compatriots. Archdruid of Wales made no claim to our artifacts:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040614/stonehenge.html

Discoveries sparked it. Glacial transport disproven. So much for the Judd, Kellaway, Hawkins, Williams-Thorpe, et al, glacial transport. Thomas, Atkinson, Greene, Scourse, et al, would be proud.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/?view=usa&sf=toc&ci=0197261744

Here is the good Doctor's requested list of Welsh rocks that need to go back to Wales. They are in the way of the excavation of our gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone artifacts anyway. Archdruid of Wales, the good Doctor Robyn Lewis, has offered to pay for their removal, as agreed, making this a low cost excavation:

http://groups.msn.com/ArkArchaeology/shoebox.msnw

1) Stonehenge Whitestones - The oldest limestone sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Early Carboniferous (Mississippian) Period, Arundian Age, calcium carbonates. The Early Carboniferous (Mississippian) Period limestone sedimentary rocks comprise the first (1st) Welsh construction material used by the Stonehenge builders from Wales. This material is approximately 340 million years old. These stones are called High Tor (Birnbeck) Limestone Formation rocks. They are Welsh and need to go back to Wales.

2) Stonehenge Bluestones - The volcanic rocks (oldest geologically) at Stonehenge are the Ordovician Period intrusive igneous diabases (dolerites), and extrusive igneous felsites (rhyolites) and tuffs (basic). The Ordovician Period igneous rocks comprise the second (2nd) Welsh construction material used by the Stonehenge builders from Wales. This material is approximately 470 million years old. These stones are called Ordovician Volcanic rocks. They are Welsh and need to go back to Wales.

3) Stonehenge Coshestons - The oldest sandstone sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Silurian-Devonian Period micaceous sandstones. The Silurian-Devonian Period sandstone sedimentary rocks comprise the third (3rd) Welsh construction material used by the Stonehenge builders from Wales. This material is approximately 417 million years old. These stones are called Old Red Sandstone Formation rocks. They are Welsh and need to go back to Wales.

4) Stonehenge Gritstones - The sandstone grit, conglomerate, limestone, shale, and coal sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian), Namurian Age, silicates, calcium carbonates, and carbons. The Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Period sandstone grit, conglomerate, limestone, shale, and coal sedimentary rocks comprise the fourth (4th) Welsh construction material used by the Stonehenge builders from Wales. This material is approximately 320 million years old. These stones are called Millstone Grit Formation rocks. They are Welsh and need to go back to Wales.

5) Stonehenge Coalstones - The bituminous coal sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Period, Westphalian Age, carbons. The Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) Period bituminous coal sedimentary rocks comprise the fifth (5th) Welsh construction material used by the Stonehenge builders from Wales. This material is approximately 310 million years old. These stones are called Crosskeys Coal Measures rocks. They are Welsh and need to go back to Wales.

Here Here to the good Doctor, the Archdruid of Wales!

Garry Denke

ps. See that zion, this redig is financed.

Where are you going with all of this? I don't think anyone sees your point.

i think Merlin laid down stonehenge

Interesting information about Stonehenge,especially 470 million years old part.But why do you add,they are Welsh and need to go back to Wales...??Please Clarify. And also please give a direction to this thread?...thanks.

bye!

yes, what is this thread actually about?!?! and what are the random babbleings about eagles. coal and stone henge, what do the satelites have to do with it? someone please explain

Exactly!!! hahaahahahahahaahahahah....LOL....:D i have no idea seriously...I scroll this chunk without realizing the intent.Please Clarify Direction and POint of this Thread...!!

bye!

Interesting information about Stonehenge, especially 470 million years old part. But why do you add,they are Welsh and need to go back to Wales...?? Please Clarify. And also please give a direction to this thread?... thanks. bye!

These rocks get to stay zion, so what is the big deal?

1) Stonehenge White Chalk - The outcrop sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Late Cretaceous Period, Santonian Age, calcium carbonates. The Late Cretaceous Period outcrop sedimentary rocks comprise the first (1st) English construction material used by the Stonehenge builders of England. This material is approximately 85 million years old. These stones are called Seaford Chalk Formation rocks. They are English and belong in England.

2) Stonehenge Sarsens - The youngest sandstone sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Oligocene-Miocene (Tertiary) Period silicates. The Oligocene-Miocene Period sandstone sedimentary rocks comprise the second (2nd) English construction material used by the Stonehenge builders of England. This material is approximately 24 million years old. These stones are called Reading Formation rocks. They are English and belong in England.

Unless of course Marlborough wants the Sarsens back;
Save and Except: the Heelstone of Hampshire County.

Stonehenge Heelstone Sculpture

In 22 separate excavations, for which the detailed records are published, a total of "over 11,500 stone fragments were recorded" at Stonehenge (PROCEEDINGS AT THE BRITISH ACADEMY . 92, SCIENCE AND STONEHENGE, Cunliffe & Renfrew, 1997, pages 258-9), representing all of its different lithologies. Approximately 4,000 sarsen chips, including "a total of 3,760 sarsen fragments", and "sarsen sand from the area", excavated by Lieutenant-Colonel William Hawley (REPORT ON THE EXCAVATIONS AT STONEHENGE DURING THE SEASON OF 1923, W. Hawley, 1925, pages 21-50), from a single location within ten (10) meters of the Heelstone, in the Avenue between the Heelstone and the Slaughter Stone, "do strongly suggest that a stone was either dressed or broken up in the vicinity" (STONEHENGE, Cleal, Walker, Montague, 1995, page 290), in front of the Heelstone carvings.

In 1975, Arizona State University (ASU) GLG 324 Petrology-Petrography class analised the Cainozoic Reading Formation sarsen samples provided by Professor Richard Atkinson from the London Basin, the Hampshire Basin, and from each of the sarsens at Stonehenge. The ASU 1975 GLG 324 Petrology-Petrography class determined through optical mineralogy and geochemical analysis that the source area of the Palaeogene-Oligocene age heavy mineralogy Heelstone was from the Hampshire Basin located to the south of Stonehenge, and all of the rest of the Neogene-Miocene age lighter mineralogy sarsens at Stonehenge were from the London Basin to the north of Stonehenge. It was from this first detailed analysis by ASU in 1975, and the subsequent works of H. Howard 1982; A petrological study of the rock specimens from excavations at Stonehenge, 1979-1980, in M.W. Pitts, 1982, 104-24, where the Heelstone carvings fragment chips from its sculpture were determined. In short, the piles of sarsen chips and sarsen sand at the sarsen Heelstone, "do strongly suggest that a stone was either dressed or broken up in the vicinity" (STONEHENGE, Cleal, Walker, Montague, 1995, page 290), in front of the Heelstone Lion head, Calf head, Man face (clockwise), and Eagle wings (centering) carvings:

http://www.freewebs.com/garrydenke

Bibliography:

REPORT ON THE EXCAVATIONS AT STONEHENGE DURING THE SEASON OF 1923
William Hawley
Antiq. J., 5
1925
21-50
Hele Stone, sarsen chips,
and sarsen sand

STONEHENGE
R.J.C. Atkinson
PENGUIN BOOKS
in association with Hamish Hamilton
1956
ISBN 0140136460
INDEX 221
Carvings, prehistoric,
43-7, 91-3, 139-40, 178-9, 208-9
Heel Stone,
29-30,68-9, 70, 76, 105, 173, 203

STONEHENGE in its landscape; Twentieth-century excavations
Rosamund M J Cleal, K E Walker, and R Montague with major contributions by
Michael J Allen, Alex Bayliss, C Bronk Ramsey, Linda Coleman, Julie Gardiner,
P A Harding, Rupert Housley, Andrew J Lawson, Gerry McCormac, Jacqueline I McKinley,
Andrew Payne, Robert G Scaife, Dale Serjeantson, and Geoff Wainwright
ENGLISH HERITAGE
1995
ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 10
ISBN 1850746052
INDEX 603, 608
carvings, prehistoric
30-3, Plate 7.2
Heelstone (Stone 96),
25, 26, 166, 269, 270, 271, 272

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY . 92
Science and Stonehenge
Edited by
BARRY CUNLIFFE & COLIN RENFREW
Published for THE BRITISH ACADEMY
by OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1997
ISBN 0197261744
INDEX 351, 355
carvings, prehistoric
5, 29, 35, 150, 338
Heelstone (Stone 96)
15, 16, 28, 155

HENGEWORLD
Mike Pitts
C
CENTURY . LONDON
2000
ISBN 0712679545
INDEX 402, 403
Stonehenge
carvings
8, 26, 265-6, 296-7, 27, 266
Heelstone
8, 96, 135, 139, 145-50, 154, 229, 266, 275, 7, 138, 146, 230

And still, nobody knows where the hell you're going with this nonsense! One thing's for sure.... you've been watching too much science fiction.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2971&stc=1

Garry Denke,
Wales didn't exist when those rocks were excavated, in fact the whole country I believe wasn't even known as a whole country since it was split into small clans.

To suggest a rock should be returned to Wales because it was taken from Wales in a time when Wales didn't exist is ludicrious. Thats like suggesting that water in the south pacific should be returned to the Arctic.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2971&stc=1
Yes...

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2971&stc=1

:)

***Stonehenge in its landscape; Twentieth-century excavations, Rosamund MJ Cleal, KE Walker, and R Montague, ENGLISH HERITAGE, 1995, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 10, ISBN: 1850746052, Pages 321-322, Figure 183-183 continued, Lieutenant-Colonel William Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 of 9ft wide 33ft long WA3607 broad cut scroll trench to underneath Heelstone. Map of C6 cross-section at Page 269, Figure 156. Note: C6 cross-section at Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued, shown reversed.***

Question No. 1.
Concerning the mapping of easternmost Posthole at A (the 4th blackened circle on most Stonehenge maps), located 18ft due west of the Heelstone's west side; Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and blacken in on any map a posthole, such as the easternmost Posthole at A, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such easternmost Posthole at A does not exist? (see Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 in above publication: Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued)

Question No. 2.
Concerning the mapping of Heelstone's western elder circular ditch 9ft missing portion (the thinnest darkened portion on most Stonehenge maps), located 13ft west-southwest of the Heelstone's west side; Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and darken in on any map a ditch, such as Heelstone's western circular ditch 9ft missing portion, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such elder circular ditch portion does not exist? (see Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 in above publication; Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued)

Question No. 3.
Why is the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench not mapped honoring the detailed sample descriptions of the original C6 cross-section creators, Lt.-Col. William Hawley and Robert Newall, on most Stonehenge maps? (see Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 in above publication: Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued)

Same original C6 cross-section at Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum:
http://www.aboutbritain.com/SalisburyMuseum.htm?RefID=1504297

--

6th Century BC Heelstone Scroll Trench
Stonehenge in its landscape; Twentieth-century excavations, Rosamund MJ Cleal, KE Walker, and R Montague, ENGLISH HERITAGE, 1995, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 10, ISBN: 1850746052, Pages 321-322, Figure 183-183 continued, Lieutenant-Colonel William Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 of 9ft wide 33ft long WA3607 broad cut scroll trench to underneath Heelstone. Map of C6 cross-section at Page 269, Figure 156. Note: C6 cross-section at Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued, shown reversed. Lydian lion electrum coins (7) in WA3607 scroll trench, 1 recovered. Described in daily Journal No. 4 at Stonehenge on 19th May 1923. Remaining artifacts along and at 12ft bottom of Inigo Jones' Stone-Heng Restored scroll trench East of coined Heelstone elder circular ditch (missing). Gold ark (2.5c-1.5c-1.5c), gold table (2c-1c-1.5c), gold altar (1c-1c-2c), gold candlestick, gold breastplate, gold ephod, gold censer, and brass laver, all, inside brass altar (5c-5c-3c) located beneath Hawley's Helestone lion head, calf head, man face, and eagle wings (pictured below). Jones' brass altar (5c-5c-3c) top side at 7.5ft augered depth. Scrolling trench 9ft wide 33ft long description from Stonehole B (WA3606) to 12ft below Heelstone 96 (Stonehole 163) surface: BEGINNING at mapped Stonehole B (WA3606), THENCE deepening Northeast, THENCE cutting Easternmost Posthole at A (missing), through C6 cross-section right triangle at southwest side, and Heelstone elder circular ditch (missing), THENCE East pass Stonehole 97 disturbance at northern side to beneath Hawley's Helestone lion head, calf head, man face, and eagle wings. Artifacts below Denoco Inc.'s ATT refraction seismic station No. 96 (sledgehammer source) recorded at Stonehenge on 1st April 1985. Salisbury Museum and above publication maps contour 33ft long broad cut scroll trench short by 25ft showing WA3607 only 8ft long. Robert Newall's 1923 scroll trench map contour short of Hawley's cross-sections and scroll trench East side under Heelstone (embedded 4.5ft). Three 1985 refraction seismic lines confirm Hawley's cross-sections and 9ft wide 33ft long scroll trench length and depths. Denoco Inc.'s ATT two north-south lines traverse WA3607 scroll trench width, and one east-west cross line ties along its length. English Heritage's AMLab 75 Ohm-m^2/m 1994 resistivity survey (above publication: Figure 261; Page 500) traceplot of raw resistivity data confirms ATT refraction seismic recordings. Upload of coined 6th Century BC Heelstone Scroll Trench 1984 magnetic-electromagnetic (EM-GPR) and 1985 refraction seismic maps and cross-sections to follow shortly.

For MSN users:
http://groups.msn.com/stonehengewhitestones
http://groups.msn.com/arkarchaeology
http://groups.msn.com/stonehengegeologyandgeophysics
http://groups.msn.com/geomagnetism
http://groups.msn.com/paleomagnetism

For YAHOO users:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengewhitestones
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkarchaeology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengegeologyandgeophysics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/geomagnetism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleomagnetism

For FORUM users:
http://www.garrydenke.com/stonehenge.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/garrydenke
http://www.webspawner.com/users/garrydenke/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke
http://www.garrydenke.bravehost.com

Discussion at this forum appreciated.

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist
Denoco Inc. of Texas
Wildcat Station, P.O. Box 866488
Plano, Texas 75086-6488
Tel: 972-422-8268
Fax: 972-423-6337
Cell: 940-521-1667

http://www.garrydenke.com
GarryDenke@garrydenke.com
http://www.denocoinc.com
GarryDenke@denocoinc.com

Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and blacken in on any map a posthole, such as the easternmost Posthole at A, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such easternmost Posthole at A does not exist?

Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and darken in on any map a ditch, such as Heelstone's western circular ditch 9ft missing portion, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such elder circular ditch portion does not exist?

Why is the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench not mapped honoring the detailed sample descriptions of the original C6 cross-section creators, Lt.-Col. William Hawley and Robert Newall, on most Stonehenge maps?

Without having ready access to the literature you cite, (Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage), it would be hard for most members of this forum to comment on your questions. We simply cannot see the diagrams you're referring to. Is there one you can link to or perhaps scan and put on the net?

But one thing that strikes me as relevant in other archaeological sites as new data are examined is this: older data and site plans are revised and even discounted for their inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and flaws in methodology as time allows for more detailed analyses and new data provides new inferences.

The diagrams I have include stone holes and Aubrey holes, but no post holes, though the texts I have mention them. The thing I don't see mentioned in the texts I have is "Heelstone scroll trench." Could you elaborate? Are you saying that the English Heritage publication (Rosamund et al, 1995) describes a 6 th century BCE trench at the heelstone and lists the artifacts you included?

If not, what is the source for these artifacts as listed?

The above publication is copyrighted, and out of print, but available through interlibrary loan at any public library. If one is so inclined comparison of the C6 cross-section cited in the above English Heritage 1995 publication, to the Hawley and Newall original 1923 map published in 1925, is available at most universities (at Southern Methodist University of Dallas for certain) in The Antiquaries Journal, 1925, published by Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, in Volume 5, at Page 21 preceeding, Plate IX. Nice photograph (black and white) in The Antiquaries Journal, 1925, in Volume 5, at Page 25 preceeding, Plate X, same in the above English Heritage 1995 publication, et al, including Stonehenge Complete by Christopher Chippindale, all 3 editions. But save and except for the C6 cross-section showing the detailed sample descriptions of the subject scrolling trench, none of the maps or photgraphs show it: because; Hawley and Newall did not excavate it completely so as not to disturb the Stonehole B (WA3606) area any further northeast of the scrolling trench origination (WA3607) area. Why? The subject scrolling trench was so large and deepening so rapidly to the northeast-east toward the west side of Heelstone, that if they had excavated it completely to the northeast-east, none of the features in its path would have been left to photograph, and present (sound familiar?), at the annual Report on the Excavations at Stonehenge reading, which occurred on 19th June 1924 covering the season of 1923. Basically, they were told to stop short and illustrate their to date findings, save and except for the large scrolling trench. Unfortunately, the Office of Works blocked any more excavation of the northeast-east scrolling trench, from Stonehole B (WA3606) to the Heelstone, and history has left us with the Hawley and Newall correctly drafted maps, incorporating dashed lines for undefinite features, and solid lines for definite features (see The Antiquaries Journal, 1925, published by Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, in Volume 5, at Page 21 preceeding, Plate IX.), and, of course, all of the misleading maps which followed in the solid lined Stonehenge publications. Thus, the historical question as to why the subject trench was neither fully excavated nor mapped any further than the northeast line of WA3607 is answered, the artistic question is is anyone here interested in expressing it artistically using our seismic refraction contour map as a basis, and the scientific question is when is the next seismic refraction survey going to be conducted over it because the first one is twenty (20) years old, and outdated. I think we should complete the excavation of 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench began by William Hawley and Robert Newall through artistic expression of it, based upon all the above facts of the matter, and any more facts that may be acquired.

Note: the English Heritage publication (Rosamund et al, 1995) names 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench as the "later [most recent] trench", WA3607 on its west end, unumbered on its east end, the same later [most recent] trench scrolling further northeast than the map at Page 269, Figure 156, proven by Hawley's 1923 cross-section C6 of its detailed sample descriptions shown at Pages 321-322; Figure 183-183 continued, located further northeast than the WA3607 solid line contour.

I've actually ordered that English Heritage publication via InterLibrary Loan at UTA, but I'm curious about the moniker "scroll trench." Is it so named because of the nature of the trench or the nature of the site? Was the trench shaped in a 'scrolling' fashion, rather than the customary rectilinear trench?

Also, while the publications are, indeed, copyrighted, it would be within fair use to scan an image for the purposes of academic study and discussion. If you were to publish your own paper regarding this, you would simply obtain rights from the publication(s) to use the original graphics as points of discussion within your own paper. In fact, that too, might be covered under fair use, since it would be considered a critique of previous academic work.

The antiquaries journal will be more difficult for me to get, you say they have it at SMU?

***I've actually ordered that English Heritage publication via InterLibrary Loan at UTA, but I'm curious about the moniker "scroll trench." Is it so named because of the nature of the trench or the nature of the site? Was the trench shaped in a 'scrolling' fashion, rather than the customary rectilinear trench?***

It is not round, it is not straight, it is curved, bowed, like a scroll. The term "scroll trench" derived from the curve of a loosely or partly rolled parchment scroll or the curved head of a bowed stringed musical instrument was chosen to differentiate it from the elder circular Heelstone ditch which it completely cuts through as it scrolls East.

For FORUM users:
http://www.garrydenke.com/seismic.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/garrydenke
http://www.garrydenke.bravehost.com
http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke
http://www.garrydenke.com/stonehenge.htm

***Also, while the publications are, indeed, copyrighted, it would be within fair use to scan an image for the purposes of academic study and discussion. If you were to publish your own paper regarding this, you would simply obtain rights from the publication(s) to use the original graphics as points of discussion within your own paper. In fact, that too, might be covered under fair use, since it would be considered a critique of previous academic work. The antiquaries journal will be more difficult for me to get, you say they have it at SMU?***

In the Hamon Arts Library Collection (on the Hillcrest side of SMU).

http://www.smu.edu/cul/hamon/collections/collections.htm

Go through the double glass doors, first bookshelves to your left.
Doors are opposite front desk, Antiquaries Journal books are tan.

For MSN users:
http://groups.msn.com/stonehengewhitestones
http://groups.msn.com/arkarchaeology
http://groups.msn.com/stonehengegeologyandgeophysics
http://groups.msn.com/geomagnetism
http://groups.msn.com/paleomagnetism

For YAHOO users:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengewhitestones
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkarchaeology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stonehengegeologyandgeophysics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/geomagnetism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleomagnetism

Garry:

With regard to the notion of a "scroll trench," the only source of information that supports it to the extent that you describe appears to be you. You also haven't supplied data to corroborate a "scroll trench" at the WA 3607 context that matches your description.

What is at the WA 3607 context is a ston hole, too small to have been a previous hole for the Heelstone. Hawley stated that he only excavated a small section of the trench, which was 9 feet wide and "down to solid chalk" –around 4 feet in depth. That's quite a bit shy of the "12 foot depth" you attribute to the this "scroll" trench. At this point, I'm assuming "scroll" is a term you've attached to the trench of antiquity that extends, according to Hawley, from the "no. 2 stone hole" to the Heelstone after making a turn a few feet from the stone hole. At any rate, Hawley stopped 10 feet short of the Heelstone "for fear of weakening the foundation of the stone."

The dates of 7th and 6th centuries BCE that you apply to this feature (WA 3607) are also a bit dubious. While it is possible that the feature goes back as far as the Neolithic –even the Mesolithic- there is no reason to conclude that it was as created as early as 7th or 6th century. Indeed, it seems likely that the feature dates to after the main Stonehenge ditch, which can be dated to go back as far as 4410 ±60 BP, but before the Heelstone ditch, according to the excavations of Hawley. So the trench was etween the 3rd & 2nd milleniums. and early 2nd millenium so the trench has been around a bit longer than the middle of the 1st millenium.

The Heelstone itself is considered to be a Phase I feature by Atkinson (1956) and the posthole at "A" at around 2600 BCE of the same phase. Modern phasing, as outlined in Rosamund (1995), place the posthole at "A" in phase 2 with the same date, while the Heelstone is moved to 3a with a date around 2550 BCE (3rd millenium) with the arrival of the Bluestones.

But the part of your initial post that makes the least sense is the reference to several artifacts. There is no mention of a "Lydian electrum coin" in either Hawley's work or Rosamund. Such a coin could have been minted in the late 6th century BCE, though most numismatists hold that the middle 5th century BCE was the time when they first began to appear. But regardless of when a coin could have been minted, a Lydian coin of even the 5th century BCE would have been an unlikely artifact for the Salisbury Plain in the same century. The sorts of trade routes required to transport it there just didn't exist until later, though there is some evidence of long distance trade since amber shows up in Mesopotamia at an early date. Even still, a find of a genuine Lydian electrum coin of the 5th century wouldn't directly imply that it was deposited at Stonehenge soon after its mint. I found a 1963 dime in my change at a soda machine just today, yet I'm reasonably sure that the machine was stocked one or two times since then!

I won't even bother with the rest of the artifacts –the table, altar, candlestick, breastplate, etc. all of gold. Again, there aren't any documented finds at any of the Stonehenge excavations that match these artifacts –certainly not within the tiny Heelstone excavation done by Atkinson. In fact, there's no evidence that these artifacts even exist beyond your own imagination, I'm sorry to say.

I was also unable to find any mention of the bas relief figures you indicate to exist on the Heelstone. No lion head, calf head, man face, etc. Though it is a well-weathered rock and I'm sure I could pick out all sorts of figures if I looked long enough.

But back to the original three questions you posted:

1) Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and blacken in on any map a posthole, such as the easternmost Posthole at A, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such easternmost Posthole at A does not exist?

Your question here isn't valid since the cross-sections are of different azimuths in figure 183 of Rosamund than the azimuth between Posthole "A" and the Heelstone, which would be the cross-section azimuth needed to show an intersection of "A" with feature WA 3607. That's the feature that runs between stone hole no. 2 and the Heelstone, 9 feet wide and as much as 4 feet deep. The post hole on plate IX of Antiquaries vol. 5 that is within WA 3607 most likely exceeds 4 feet in depth. The photo that is in both Antiquaries and Rosamund (fig. 184, p. 324) clearly show the excavated postholes as well as WA 3607 and the 3rd century trench from WA 3606 to just 10 feet shy of the Heelstone. Posthole "A" clearly exists!


2) Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and darken in on any map a ditch, such as Heelstone's western circular ditch 9ft missing portion, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such elder circular ditch portion does not exist?

But the Heelstone ditch clearly does exist. The feature WA 3607 and the 3rd century BCE trench, which you erroneously refer to as the 6th century BCE "scroll trench," cuts across the Heelstone ditch, but the Heelstone ditch is there and is well represented in magnetometer and resistivity surveys, both of which can be found in the appendices of Rosamund et al.

3) Why is the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench not mapped honoring the detailed sample descriptions of the original C6 cross-section creators, Lt.-Col. William Hawley and Robert Newall, on most Stonehenge maps?

First, we've established that there is absolutely no evidence to lead us to conclude that a date for the trench of antiquity that begins at context WA 3607 and heads toward the Heelstone dates earlier than the 2nd millenium BCE.

Second, I'd guess that the reason for omission in maps of various texts is relevance. Publishers of various works don't see the need to represent it on a map, particularly if their work isn't calling upon its data. But I'd be inclined to agree with you that it should be better represented since I think it’s a feature that could stand a little more scrutiny. Hawley had two hypotheses regarding the function of this trench:
a) workmen cut a wide trench to the Heelstone with the intent of taking it down after removing the stone in the "no. 2" hole, but decided not to and left it.
b) they moved the stone from the "no. 2" hole, making it the Heelstone and used the trench to facilitate the move.

Hawley found the second hypothesis to not be a tenable one, and I'd have to agree: the "no. 2 stone hole" is smaller than the Heelstone. There is also a third hypothesis and that is that the trench served as a ramp to erect the Heelstone itself –sort of a "middle" ground hypotheses between Hawley's two. It seems likely enough to me, and if it could be studied or demonstrated elsewhere on another Bronze Age site, then it could give insight into the labor methods of the culture. This, in turn, could give insight into the levels of complexity of the culture and how that complexity arose, making use of social, political, and resource capitals.

Overall, Garry, I think you're making a lot out of nothing, though I have you to thank for improving my knowledge of Bronze Age culture in Great Britain, particularly with regard to Stonehenge. To that I give you my gratitude.

For those that are wondering why this thread is even in the Pseudoscience sub-forum, I'd like to point out that Denke has posted several threads on sciforums in the past and many more throughout the internet in general regarding the fact that the Ark of the Covenant is buried under the Heelstone and that its release will cause global cataclysm. Hopefully, he's beyond that since he didn't mention it, but his casual mention of the gold artifacts seems a precursor of more to come from him.

To Garry: I was interested when you were examining the use of coal in the Bronze Age and your hypothesis that Stonehenge was a site for coal mining, while a very wild speculation, was interesting. What ever happened to this line of investigation?

References:

Atkinson, RJC (1956). Stonehenge, London

Hawley, W. (1925). Report on excavations at Stonehendge during the season of 1923. Antiquaries, vol. 5, 21-50.

Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage

Now that SkinWalker has the Rice University copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" and access to many UTA scanners SkinWalker may simply scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322 "for the purposes of academic study and discussion". If SkinWalker does not scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was right about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website; if SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was wrong about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website. It is my hope that SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) proving me wrong about sciforums.com. According to the Rice University and UTA Libraries the copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" is still checked out to one 'SkinWalker' (a fraudulent name).

I've actually ordered that English Heritage publication via
InterLibrary Loan at UTA, but I'm curious about the moniker "scroll trench." Is it so named because of the nature of the trench or the nature of the site? Was the trench shaped in a 'scrolling' fashion, rather than the customary rectilinear trench?

Also, while the publications are, indeed, copyrighted, it would be within fair use to scan an image for the purposes of academic study and discussion. If you were to publish your own paper regarding this, you would simply obtain rights from the publication(s) to use the original graphics as points of discussion within your own paper. In fact, that too, might be covered under fair use, since it would be considered a critique of previous academic work.

The antiquaries journal will be more difficult for me to get, you say they have it at SMU?

Now that SkinWalker has the Rice University copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" and access to many UTA scanners SkinWalker may simply scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322 "for the purposes of academic study and discussion". If SkinWalker does not scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was right about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website; if SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was wrong about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website. It is my hope that SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) proving me wrong about sciforums.com. According to the Rice University and UTA Libraries the copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" is still checked out to one 'SkinWalker' (a fraudulent name).

Garry:

With regard to the notion of a "scroll trench," the only source of information that supports it to the extent that you describe appears to be you. You also haven't supplied data to corroborate a "scroll trench" at the WA 3607 context that matches your description.

What is at the WA 3607 context is a ston hole, too small to have been a previous hole for the Heelstone. Hawley stated that he only excavated a small section of the trench, which was 9 feet wide and "down to solid chalk" –around 4 feet in depth. That's quite a bit shy of the "12 foot depth" you attribute to the this "scroll" trench. At this point, I'm assuming "scroll" is a term you've attached to the trench of antiquity that extends, according to Hawley, from the "no. 2 stone hole" to the Heelstone after making a turn a few feet from the stone hole. At any rate, Hawley stopped 10 feet short of the Heelstone "for fear of weakening the foundation of the stone."

The dates of 7th and 6th centuries BCE that you apply to this feature (WA 3607) are also a bit dubious. While it is possible that the feature goes back as far as the Neolithic –even the Mesolithic- there is no reason to conclude that. Indeed, it seems likely that the feature dates after the main Stonehenge ditch, which can be dated to go back as far as 4410 ±60 BP. That's only the 3rd century BCE at maximum.

The Heelstone itself is considered to be a Phase I feature by Atkinson (1956) and the posthole at "A" at around 2600 BCE of the same phase. Modern phasing, as outlined in Rosamund (1995), place the posthole at "A" in phase 2 with the same date, while the Heelstone is moved to 3a with a date around 2550 BCE (3rd century) with the arrival of the Bluestones.

But the part of your initial post that makes the least sense is the reference to several artifacts. There is no mention of a "Lydian electrum coin" in either Hawley's work or Rosamund. Such a coin could have been minted in the late 6th century BCE, though most numismatists hold that the middle 5th century BCE was the time when they first began to appear. But regardless of when a coin could have been minted, a Lydian coin of even the 5th century BCE would have been an unlikely artifact for the Salisbury Plain in the same century. The sorts of trade routes required to transport it there just didn't exist until later. Even still, a find of a genuine Lydian electrum coin of the 5th century wouldn't directly imply that it was deposited at Stonehenge soon after its mint. I found a 1963 dime in my change at a soda machine just today, yet I'm reasonably sure that the machine was stocked one or two times since then!

I won't even bother with the rest of the artifacts –the table, altar, candlestick, breastplate, etc. all of gold. Again, there aren't any documented finds at any of the Stonehenge excavations that match these artifacts –certainly not within the tiny Heelstone excavation done by Atkinson. In fact, there's no evidence that these artifacts even exist beyond your own imagination, I'm sorry to say.

I was also unable to find any mention of the bas relief figures you indicate to exist on the Heelstone. No lion head, calf head, man face, etc. Though it is a well-weathered rock and I'm sure I could pick out all sorts of figures if I looked long enough.

But back to the original three questions you posted:

1) Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and blacken in on any map a posthole, such as the easternmost Posthole at A, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such easternmost Posthole at A does not exist?

Your question here isn't valid since the cross-sections are of different azimuths in figure 183 of Rosamund than the azimuth between Posthole "A" and the Heelstone, which would be the cross-section azimuth needed to show an intersection of "A" with feature WA 3607. That's the feature that runs between stone hole no. 2 and the Heelstone, 9 feet wide and as much as 4 feet deep. The post hole on plate IX of Antiquaries vol. 5 that is within WA 3607 most likely exceeds 4 feet in depth. The photo that is in both Antiquaries and Rosamund (fig. 184, p. 324) clearly show the excavated postholes as well as WA 3607 and the 3rd century trench from WA 3606 to just 10 feet shy of the Heelstone. Posthole "A" clearly exists!


2) Does anyone think it is right, or wrong, to solid line contour and darken in on any map a ditch, such as Heelstone's western circular ditch 9ft missing portion, cut away entirely by the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench, when such elder circular ditch portion does not exist?

But the Heelstone ditch clearly does exist. The feature WA 3607 and the 3rd century BCE trench, which you erroneously refer to as the 6th century BCE "scroll trench," cuts across the Heelstone ditch, but the Heelstone ditch is there and is well represented in magnetometer and resistivity surveys, both of which can be found in the appendices of Rosamund et al.

3) Why is the subject 6th century BC Heelstone scroll trench not mapped honoring the detailed sample descriptions of the original C6 cross-section creators, Lt.-Col. William Hawley and Robert Newall, on most Stonehenge maps?

First, we've established that there is absolutely no evidence to lead us to conclude that a date for the trench of antiquity that begins at context WA 3607 and heads toward the Heelstone dates past the 3rd century BCE.

Second, I'd guess that the reason for omission in maps of various texts is relevance. Publishers of various works don't see the need to represent it on a map, particularly if their work isn't calling upon its data. But I'd be inclined to agree with you that it should be better represented since I think it’s a feature that could stand a little more scrutiny. Hawley had two hypotheses regarding the function of this trench:
a) workmen cut a wide trench to the Heelstone with the intent of taking it down after removing the stone in the "no. 2" hole, but decided not to and left it.
b) they moved the stone from the "no. 2" hole, making it the Heelstone and used the trench to facilitate the move.

Hawley found the second hypothesis to not be a tenable one, and I'd have to agree: the "no. 2 stone hole" is smaller than the Heelstone. There is also a third hypothesis and that is that the trench served as a ramp to erect the Heelstone itself –sort of a "middle" ground hypotheses between Hawley's two. It seems likely enough to me, and if it could be studied or demonstrated elsewhere on another Bronze Age site, then it could give insight into the labor methods of the culture. This, in turn, could give insight into the levels of complexity of the culture and how that complexity arose, making use of social, political, and resource capitals.

Overall, Garry, I think you're making a lot out of nothing, though I have you to thank for improving my knowledge of Bronze Age culture in Great Britain, particularly with regard to Stonehenge. To that I give you my gratitude.

For those that are wondering why this thread is even in the Pseudoscience sub-forum, I'd like to point out that Denke has posted several threads on sciforums in the past and many more throughout the internet in general regarding the fact that the Ark of the Covenant is buried under the Heelstone and that its release will cause global cataclysm. Hopefully, he's beyond that since he didn't mention it, but his casual mention of the gold artifacts seems a precursor of more to come from him.

To Garry: I was interested when you were examining the use of coal in the Bronze Age and your hypothesis that Stonehenge was a site for coal mining, while a very wild speculation, was interesting. What ever happened to this line of investigation?

References:

Atkinson, RJC (1956). Stonehenge, London

Hawley, W. (1925). Report on excavations at Stonehendge during the season of 1923. Antiquaries, vol. 5, 21-50.

Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage

Now that SkinWalker has the Rice University copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" and access to many UTA scanners SkinWalker may simply scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322 "for the purposes of academic study and discussion". If SkinWalker does not scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was right about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website; if SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was wrong about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience website. It is my hope that SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) proving me wrong about sciforums.com. According to the Rice University and UTA Libraries the copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" is still checked out to one 'SkinWalker' (a fraudulent name).

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ4379
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/hixclient.exe?_IXDB_=compass&_IXSR_=mk3&_IXSS_=%2524%2bwith%2ball_unique_id_index%2bis%2b% 2524%3dOBJ4379%26_IXNOMATCHES_%3dgraphical%252fno_ matches%252ehtml%26_IXMAXHITS_%3d1%26_IXDB_%3dcomp ass%26_IXFIRST_%3d1&_IXFIRST_=1&_IXMAXHITS_=1&_IXSPFX_=graphical/full/lg&_IXimg=k127625.jpg&submit-button=summary

BTW the 3rd millennium BCE is not the 3rd century BCE, and AML's 1994
magnetometer and resistivity surveys only show where Hawley, Newall,
Atkinson, Piggott, and Stone excavated deep in 1923, 1953, and 1956.

Well... it was after 1:00 am :)

According to the Rice University and UTA Libraries the copy of "Rosamund Cleal; K E Walker; R Montague; Michael J Allen (1995). Stonehenge In Its Landscape: Twentieth-Century Excavations. London : English Heritage" is still checked out to one 'SkinWalker' (a fraudulent name).Actually, the ILL came from Trinity University -in San Antonio I think.
if SkinWalker does scan Figure 183 (Page 321-322) then I was wrong about sciforums.com being a Pseudoscience websiteSciforums does, indeed, have a Pseudoscience forum. This is it. But I somehow doubt that the entire reputation of sciforums rests on whether or not I scan a copy of the figure in question. I'm curious why you didn't do so, but I'll be happy to do it if the glass replacement works out on my scanner. Otherwise, I'll see about doing it at some point this week when I return the book -it's too heavy to lug around the campus at present.

But have you given some consideration to what I said about the azimuths of the cross sections? I'll also scan the photo that depicts the post holes along with the WA 3607 context excavation.

Please accept my apologies about the millenium/century screw-up... it was quite late and I finally spent about two hours looking over the material. I could blame it on caffeine deprivation, but I'll just say I was sloppy instead.

What, though, do you attribute your assignment of 7th & 6th century dates to the "scroll trench?" Particularly when it's clear that both the trench and the ditch must have been in place around the time of the Bluestone arrival.

Why do you suggest that there are artifacts recovered (or in situ) that haven't been documented?

AML's 1994
magnetometer and resistivity surveys only show where Hawley, Newall,
Atkinson, Piggott, and Stone excavated deep in 1923, 1953, and 1956.You mentioned another survey -why would that one yield yield different results? What is the citation for the survey results? What is the value of GPR over magnetometer and resistivity in this case?

Figure 183 part a (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/SH_Fig183_a.jpg)
Figure 183 part b (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/SH_Fig183_b.jpg)

Site plan of the Causeway section of Stonehenge (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/SH_Causeway2.jpg)- shows excavations of Hawley and Atkinson.
Figure 184 photograph (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/SH_Fig184.jpg)- depicting the actual excavation units including the postholes and the partial excavation of the Heelstone trench, which crosses the Heelstone ditch.

Actually, the ILL came from Trinity University -in San Antonio I think.
Sciforums does, indeed, have a Pseudoscience forum. This is it. But I somehow doubt that the entire reputation of sciforums rests on whether or not I scan a copy of the figure in question. I'm curious why you didn't do so, but I'll be happy to do it if the glass replacement works out on my scanner. Otherwise, I'll see about doing it at some point this week when I return the book -it's too heavy to lug around the campus at present.

But have you given some consideration to what I said about the azimuths of the cross sections? I'll also scan the photo that depicts the post holes along with the WA 3607 context excavation.

Please accept my apologies about the millenium/century screw-up... it was quite late and I finally spent about two hours looking over the material. I could blame it on caffeine deprivation, but I'll just say I was sloppy instead.

What, though, do you attribute your assignment of 7th & 6th century dates to the "scroll trench?" Particularly when it's clear that both the trench and the ditch must have been in place around the time of the Bluestone arrival.

Why do you suggest that there are artifacts recovered (or in situ) that haven't been documented?

You mentioned another survey -why would that one yield yield different results? What is the citation for the survey results? What is the value of GPR over magnetometer and resistivity in this case?

Figure 183 part a (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/SH_Fig183_a.jpg)
Figure 183 part b (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/SH_Fig183_b.jpg)

Site plan of the Causeway section of Stonehenge (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/SH_Causeway2.jpg)- shows excavations of Hawley and Atkinson.
Figure 184 photograph (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/SH_Fig184.jpg)- depicting the actual excavation units including the postholes and the partial excavation of the Heelstone trench, which crosses the Heelstone ditch.

O N . 1, 2, 3, . Y E A H !
S C I . F O R U M S
I S . S A V E D !

3 question Text map Figure 156,
at Page 269, was Not scanned.

http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/MAP_12.5percent.gif
http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/CenterMAP_25percent.gif
http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/MAP_25percent.gif
http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/CenterMAP_50percent.gif
http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/XsectionC6_183_321.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/XsectionC6_183_322.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/XsectionC6_1923photo.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/garrydenke/XsectionC6_1995map.jpg

(Buy you lunch next time you're in Plano)

Thank you SkinWalker! :)