I have just sent off yet another letter to Mike Pitts of the CBA who produces a bi-monthly magazine called 'British Archaeology'. This is not the first time that I have written to Mike nor no doubt the last, but none to date have ever been published - which I can only attribute to the 'controversial nature' of my findings and hypothesis. If I am incorrect in my conclusions 'everybody' who has access to a computer can challenge me openly in debate here on this web site which has been done over the past two years with over 1000 comments being posted - one would imagine that the readership of 'British Archaeology' magazine (like me who are charged me £27 a year to read the magazine) would publish each article online so that they can be read and challenged if the facts are wrong- but they don't, so what are they hiding from?
|"Censored Archaeology for all true believers"|
I read with great fascination your article in the Sept/Oct issue of the CBA magazine - what is this definitive proof going to be that ended this 260 year old mystery? But sadly it soon became apparent that the article was going to be based on unqualified scientific evidence which gave way to a collection of poor judgements and mindless speculation.
Patch marks are not new to Stonehenge and have been seen many times before, but your article portrayed this common event as a great discovery. The reality of these marks are not, as you have suggested, a clue to the completion of the stone circle, but an indication that the monument was never designed to be a circle in the first place. If you look carefully at past 'patch marks' that have been more extensive and pronounced, you will notice a row of 'Z' holes around the present outer ring of sarsen stones - these marks are the exact same size and shape as the marks shown in your article.