Thursday, 7 February 2013

The Stonehenge Avenue

By Robert John Langdon

I have noticed this photo by Ariel-cam (http://www.aerial-cam.co.uk/gallery-one.html) appearing on a few blog sites over the last few weeks.

The Avenue - from the air
The Avenue

What has not been identified is the 'bleeding obvious!'

There seems some debate by 'archaeologists' to the origin of these features.  Mike Parker-Pearson and the Time Team special in 2008 (as shown here) believe the stripes to be 'natural' from a periglacial phase of an ancient ice age, which they have not dated.  The reason for this lack of dating is that although clearly the stripes are just under the surface of the topsoil, the last glaciation was not to have affected this part of England as it stopped some 100 miles or so away in the Bristol channel.  So if these stripes were from the last ice age then the geologists would need to admit that the entire history of the ice ages that affected Britain is unknown and has been a concoction of academic lies.

Cart Tracks on raised edges of the Avenue - stonehenge
Enlarge view of the left ditch section
The simple fact is that when the builders dug out the ditch on either side of the Avenue, they placed the spoil on the side of roadway as seen on both these photographs, giving a concave affect to the edges of the road.  This same affect is seen in the ditch that surrounds Stonehenge - which should be not surprise to anyone as they are the same builders. But clearly, unnoticed by the 'experts' the cart tracks cut through this spoil.

So the cart tracks have to be man made - end of story!!

It really does not require a genius to work that one out, yet we have these so called 'experts' ignoring the facts once again. I have already reported in a previous article of a prehistoric children's cart found at the same time as my hypothesis predicts the building of the Avenue:

http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.com/2012/03/toys-r-us-5500bce.html

This picture just confirms my theory and helps date the monument more accurately.

RJL



15 comments:

  1. Robert you write,
    “when the builders dug out the ditch on either side of the Avenue, they placed the spoil on the side of roadway as seen on both these photographs”

    The ditch, Robert, is in the chalk bedrock (white in the photo). The “spoil”, Robert, is made of soil (brown in the photo). This “spoil” has nothing to do with any “digging by the builders”. Sheer flight of logic, Robert! You're grasping for stones once again!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      The ditch would have consisted of top soil (Brown) and then a sandy subsoil consisting of chalk, sand silt and clay - as it was part of an ancient river bed.

      This sub-soil is detailed in Section One of the book and the documentary that accompanies it on this blog site. To reach the solid chalk as you suggest, you would need to go down another 4m according to the British Geological Society.

      The pure white you perceive to see in the photo is therefore misleading. Furthermore, when you remove and scatter this deposit through throwing, it erodes the whiteness even more - as clearly seen on the photo.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Robert,

      The ditch is clearly cut in chalk bedrock. The chalk bedrock in the photo is covered only slightly by top soil (a point you made in another post). It wont have been covered more at earlier times. Probably less. The “spoil” digging the ditch would mainly consist of WHITE chalk. And that chalk (whether in the “spoil” piled along the side or in the ditch surface) would have weathered and darkened the same. We should not therefore see any difference between the chalk in the ditch and the purported chalk on the side. If you are suggesting along the sides we have different soil material from the ditch, the question then is what happened to the chalk dug out the ditch?

      You are fantasizing again!

      Kostas

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Kostas

      The ditches are NOT cut into the chalk bedrock - if you wish to research the BGS free and online borehole database and show evidence of which boreholes show solid unbroken chalk within a metre of the surface in this area to support your observation, please do so. If not you need to accept you are mistaken.

      RJL

      Delete
    5. Robert realized the error of his sway and refuted himself ...

      Delete
    6. Robert,
      It does not matter what we call the chalk bed where the stripes are dug in. My argument stands in any case. While your argument seeks to deflect and avoid responding. But I have to take your non-response as admission you are wrong. It's the best we can hope from you!
      Kostas

      Delete
    7. Kostas

      You do not have an argument!!

      "The ditch is clearly cut in chalk bedrock" I have given you the opportunity to 'scientifically' prove your point - but you failed to respond with a single borehole showing evidence.

      "We should not therefore see any difference between the chalk in the ditch and the purported chalk on the side" - clearly you're another academic who has never dug a ditch, but still believes they have the ability to comment on the process. You will find my friend that any white pure chalk will be scattered with the clay and sand that is also in the ditch, it will then weather over the next 1000+ years and if that does not take away the colour the feet and cart tracks you see in the ground will crush any chalk to a discoloured mush.

      The only thing that will remain is a hillock you see on both sides, containing more sand and clay as the chalk (which is soluble) washes away if sufficiently grounded to a powder.

      RJL

      Delete
    8. Robert,

      Can we dispense with word-play? The chalk bed of my argument IS the chalk bed so visible in the photo! My argument stands as argued!

      Where is YOUR evidence the scant pieces of chalk seen along the Avenue ditches came from the bitches' “spoil”? You have to invent a whole lost civilization of boat people to explain any of this. I only need to invoke simple true Nature!

      Kostas

      Delete
    9. Kostas

      You have successfully dispensed with logic, evidence and facts - congratulations!!

      RJL

      Delete
    10. Robert,

      I asked “Where is YOUR evidence the scant pieces of chalk seen along the Avenue ditches came from the ... “spoil”?”

      You said, “You have successfully dispensed with logic, evidence and facts”.

      You are projecting again Robert!

      Kostas

      Delete
    11. Kostas

      "The simple fact is that when the builders dug out the ditch on either side of the Avenue, they placed the spoil on the side of roadway as seen on both these photographs, giving a concave affect to the edges of the road. This same affect is seen in the ditch that surrounds Stonehenge"

      I just can't wait for your explanation on how or why these concave moulds appear on the Avenue and around the Stonehenge moat.

      RJL

      Delete
    12. Robert,

      The 'facts on the ground' do not prove such concave piles along the Avenue ditches were the result of human activity.

      The most logical position to take here is to be openly skeptical. And not to jump into logical convulsions driven by some mad desire.

      Kostas

      Delete
    13. Kostas

      Welcome to the 'just so happens' club!

      It 'just so happens' that two concave mounts are on the edge of the Avenue parallel to the ditch, which 'just so happens' to have lost the fill from the digging of the ditch. Which in itself is not strange at all because it 'just so happens' that the same kind of concave bank exists around the ditch of Stonehenge, which again proves nothing as it 'just so happens' that this spoil also 'vanished into thin air' as well and what you see is natural.

      With that kind of logic you would make a good archaeologist Kostas or are you MPP in disguise?

      RJL


      Delete
    14. Robert,

      Actually, the dirt piles along the Avenue as well as the 'stripes' do have simple natural explanation. But I wont bother explaining that to you again! Read my previous posts in your own blog.

      I only want to make the point, unexplained facts on the ground do not imply 'human agency'.

      Logically, it 'just does not happen' like that, Robert!

      Kostas

      Delete