A couple of months ago, I offered my services to assist the BBC with their fanciful programme Atlantis and so I sent the producers a copy of my book which shows in detail the true story of Atlantis - which in my humble opinion was a thousand times more interesting that the dribble they served up over prime time TV.
Needless to say they did not get back to me even to thank me.!!
I openly offer the same gesture to the current producers of the lasted diabolical 'documentary' hidden away on a Thursday evening on BBC Channel Two called Operation Stonehenge - what lies beneath? (I do wounder when they say 'what lies beneath' are they making reference to the soil or the politics of the site as both are not uncovered but glossed over?) I have omitted the names of the contributors to save there embarrassment in the future.
So lets go through the programme one segment at a time and let's look at the claims and see what really 'lies beneath'??
Seven Minute of 'waffle' over 10% of the programme and the first piece of evidence - the 'totem pole like' objects that are ten thousand years old and have baffled 'experts' since their discovery in the 1966.
They are over three foot wide and they have been placed in a hole with a flat bottom - archaeologists don't seem to understand the difference between a 'post hole' and a 'stake hole'. I would suggest as part of archaeology student degrees - we sent them out and dig a few holes, so they in the future can appreciate the difference?
For a totem pole - you would not go for something more narrow with a spike on the end to stop it moving around in the wind?. The ONLY reason you place a flat bottomed stake in the ground is to dissipate any weight that may be on top.
We are then taken to Vespasian Camp near Stonehenge were they have found signs of occupancy dating back ten thousand years like the 'totem poles' of Stonehenge.
Sounds quite straight forward - but take another look from a different angle.
You have about 60 inches of various soil in that picture - if you know the Stonehenge site you will also know that the soil where those 'totem poles' are and the Avenue and most recently the A344 - that was dug-up, has only about 18 inches of top soil before the chalk layer.
The clue to this site is visible in the picture with the poor student is up to his knees in it - water! Even today with our lower groundwater levels that trench is flooding and they have not even reached the chalk bedrock!
This is because they are in an ancient river bed and the so called 'cobbled surface' and the flint and bone findings are the remains of what fell to the bottom of the river 10,000 years ago and not a settlement picture here.
Now at ten minutes in with a sixth of the program over we get probably the most ridiculous 'reenactment' I've seen for a long time - the original cavemen chasing aurochs through a forest with spears and a bow - a remake of 1 million years BC? so were is Raquel Welch then?
The first problem with this scene is that they are dressed in animals skin - clearly no one has told the BBC props department that woven cloths were invented some six thousand years earlier in a France town about 200 miles to the South of Stonehenge, that is a migration rate of about thirty-three metres a year at a time when both France and Britain was one landmass - but hey, its good TV ?
We are then given a lesson on how people used to hunt in the past with the classic line "we are in a time capsule, nothing has changed in ten thousand years"
Not too far South in North Africa the Sahara Desert we see today was a Rain Forest with elephants, lions and hippo's - but back here in Britain nothing has changed in ten thousand years - absolute nonsense.
The landscape today is nothing like ten thousand years ago - the valleys these aurochs were supposedly hunted would have been a river like the ditch the same professor was digging earlier - we know this because these valleys are full of sand and pollen analysis shows that it was surrounded by thick forest not the light wood the nutty professor walk down telling people that nothing has changed.
Then we have pink flint!
Apparently, our ancestors know of just green, black and blues - so pink is magical and so they built Stonehenge!!
Again we have found cave painting some thousands of years before the pink magic flint - where they used and mixed various colors - so not only did these people around Stonehenge lose their cloths they lost the ability to mix colours and paint!
After 18 minutes we got our first new discovery - A wooden Long Barrow as found in mainland Europe. This was strange as they had just shown us a graphic with Doggerland disappearing cutting off the last known footbridge and this wooden 'European' (as we have loads in Britain) 'Long Barrow' appearing some 2000 years later.
|Lets be honest - could be anything!|
The problem with this 'unque finding' is that it can not be dated - they are guessing its date as no carbon dating has been obtained. Moreover, looking at the post holes on the ground it could be any shape and the moat/ditch is inconstant and too far away from the walls.
Here is a picture from of a real 'European Long House' which looks similar:
These are wooden houses from Brzesc Kujawski site - these have ditches down the sides of wooden structure, but the ditches are close and these are not 'Long Barrows' these are houses and there is a good reason they are that shape - but you need to read my book for that information. Also all long barrows (in Britain) or on sides of hills - this one is not!
The programme then made a huge assumption that just does not either make sense of has any archaeological finding to support the claim - "around 9000 years ago mainland Europe underwent a social and technological revolution Neolithic Era. Characterised by farming and permanent settlement the new culture and it's ideas expanded west finally crossing into Britain in 4000 BC .. bringing Long Barrow Burial Tombs"
The problem is that it's just not true!
If you look at the distribution of Long Barrows they are in the West France, Denmark, Norway and Russia and nothing in the middle - so what archaeologists have done is to call the wooden mud houses of eastern europe 'Long Barrows' to fit the hypothesis!!
Can they not see a Hall is a lot different to a stone Long Barrow and why would you change both design and materials if you don't need too?
And the dates are wrong!
The Long Barrow (Houses of Eastern Europe came thousands of years AFTER the Megalithic Culture who made the Long Barrows in Britain and Ireland and also Carnac - St Michael s Mount has carbon dating evidence inside of 6000BC. .And remember Carnac is only about 500 miles from Britain (closer than Scotland) at a time the landmass was still connected.
Now the programme moved onto 'causeway enclosures' and warfare and the progamme looked at Robin Hood's Ball and how this and Crickley Hill were formed as a boarder across the country (as there is none in the north) to show the war like situation which invaded the country, proven by a couple of bodies with arrow wounds or blows to the head and 400 arrow heads (perhaps it was a football game that got out of hand?).
Again they twisted of the truth - I'm sure that some people did in fact die in conflict, but the 'causeway enclosures' are not defensive sites! To prove the case if you travel north to Avebury you find another causeway enclosure - Windmill Hill. We know by the size and construction of Avebury (and there is another just down the road with even bigger ditches called Old Sarum, if you are going to build a 'defensive monument' you would have much larger ditches than the causeway camp ditches.
But why build a causeway camp when you have Avebury with larger ditches??
If Avebury is later then has peace broken out in this land? (someone should have told them about the Romans coming!) - for the design of Avebury, Old Sarum and Durrington Walls do not have the natural 'defensive ditches' on the inside - there are on the outside assisting any aggressors!
And why build a ditch and not a moat - like the Normans?
And if your armed with spears and arrows what protection is a ditch - you shoot over it?
Wouldn't it be easier to build a stockade of wood than dig ditches - the Romans did??
So were the builders of these massive monuments and undertakings stupid??
No - the idea that any of these monuments (and that include 90% of so called Iron Age forts (nice name but inaccurate) - it's a fantasy not supported by any substantial evidence.
The main reason these structures could not be fortifications is because they HAVE NO NATURAL WATER SUPPLY - so you just wait outside for a couple of days the the inhabitants would surrender through thirst!!
Then the programme moved to Norfolk to show just how industrious our ancestors were and how far they brought the flints. Now this is a clear case of what I call 'Little Britain' it is a saying I use when showing the limited mentality of archaeologists currently. The 'experts' are happy to suggest a link from Stonehenge to Grimes Graves some 180 miles and Presceli to Stonehenge (210 miles) with the Bluestones again not a problem - but to link the Stone Monuments of Britanny or Normandy to Stonehenge on a regular basis - impossible, and only achievable through slow migration.
The interesting and unanswered question about grimes graves is the fact that someone (probably before the children and women with there antlers picks) dug through not one, not two, but three levels of flint to get to the flat flint layer - why?? The simple pits at the top only went down to the first flint layer!
Finally something worth watching, next aspect of the programme was about trepanation, now I wrote about this so years ago and was informed that I was mad as this was done after death to a skull just like defleshing. Well fortunately, modern medicine has caught me up and they can now prove that these operations were done on the living as they can detect new growth after the operation. Sadly, although the programme did tell us about skull operations they did not tell you about the amputations that have been found in France (Little Britain mentality again!!) just 240 miles away which shows a greater degree of surgical knowledge and procedure than Trepanation.
This is a shame, as if they included it, they would have had to rewrite the nonsense that was reported about how they operated without antiseptic or sedation. As to attempt to do this type of operation with dirty tools in a mud hut with unclean surgeon AND SURVIVE is complete nonsense. The France amputee was elderly and showed signs of recovery - but the most important reason they didn't report the case is because the body was carbon dated to 4900 BC and would have shown the programmes dates to be shambolic and inaccurate, as they suggested surgery was part of the Neolithic agriculture revolution - which is nonsense!
The rest of the programme then looks at strange 'blips in the landscape including this area which was once an airport - lots of blips on this area, but no they are temples of worship or the portable toilet??
|Stonehenge 1928 with military barracks on the blips?!|
Ok, well the first six minutes - one tenth of the programme goes over the nonsense of the last programme including the brilliant hypothesis that pink flint from the local pond was the reason our ancestors built Stonehenge - as they had no clothes to wear and a few feathers in their head, that made them look like the lost tribe of the Cherokee Nation and therefore pink is 'magical'.
Then we fly over Durrington Walls - better known for the site next door called Woodhenge. According to the commentary these were 'products' of hierarchies wishing to show their authority over the region?
Now lets take some time out here - as this kind of nonsense has taken over serious science in favour of pure speculation.
What hierarchy? - there is not one piece of evidence for any hierarchical system in this time period and it will be three to four thousand years until we get any written record from the Romans of how these society worked - and a lot can change in just a few hundred years as the Romans found out to their cost!!
All you know from Durrington Walls is that it was built with massive manpower - whether that was slavery or freewill in open to debate, yet the commentary has decided for us, without any evidence - this is not science this is pure speculation!
Now the helicopter showed the ditch under the ground of Durrington Walls, but failed to explain how it was built in an attempt to fool the viewer that they 'understood' the processes going on here 'in the landscape' - which is a complete lie!
Anyone who views the site would ask a few fundamental question that the program did not even attempt to answer:
Why is the bank of this site on the outside rather than the inside make it more 'secure'? - remember this site was 'showing authority' in the area? The mind set of archaeologists today are 'fixated' in the history of the recent past - hence Red Indians, Slavery and Normans with their castles that dictated the 'feudal system' over the country - yet this is 4000 years earlier.
Why is the ditch so far away from the bank? - we saw this yesterday with the so called Long Barrow House! One would imagine if the ditch was for the bank then it would have been easier to remove the spoil to the closest area?
Why is the massive bank (which would have been 30m wide and 7m high) missing in the SE near the River Avon? And excavations suggest it may have never there in the first place, and if it does its much smaller and shallow that the Northern side.
|Cross section of Durrington Walls showing the slope within the site|
Why did they build the site on a 'dry valley' with a big dip in the middle? when there is perfectly good flat land less than 50m away were they built Woodhenge.
If Woodhenge is important to the site (and a show of hierarchy), why was it not built inside? They have found a smaller version of Woodhenge inside but not within the huge earth banks, but on the part not covered.
Until these 5 basic questions are answered, to speculate that "these were 'products' of hierarchies wishing to show their authority over the region?" is pure nonsense.
Then after ten minutes we get to the stone that built Stonehenge - where the programme goes into a complete flight of fantasy!!
"It must be odd in the late Neolithic to just discover them(Sarsen Stones), why are they there, where have they come from" - Strange, we know that the Bluestones came before the larger Sarsen stones part of the building, they seemed to know what they were and were they came from as they travelled 200 miles to quarry and bring them back from Wales completely ignoring the Stones that make up another site next door to the stone erratics - Avebury?
So how did they move them?
|The Avenue showing Cart Tracks|
So for the first time in 72 minutes of this programme we have good scientific evidence which will answer one of the myth about Stonehenge - but before I reveal that answer lets see what the 'experts' made of these images.
The 'Professor' then explained why current theories are wrong and how he came up with a revolutionary new idea that showed how the stones got to Stonehenge.
The first view he dismissed (incorrectly!) that they brought the stones down the River Avon (a method used by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans - he never mentioned that fact!) as it is a small river (and clearly always was - remember the rain forest from episode 1?)
He then looks at the topological data and suggest that dragging the stones from their current position was impractical as they would need to maneuver around a 'massive depression' through a dry river valley, which they would have to cross with these heavy stones". - he then goes on to show a path alone The Avenue to the Right hand side of the Cursus.
Sadly he seems to be unaware that the End of the Avenue is the bottom of the Valley - so his path goes a similar route he has just dismissed?!
Then another piece of disinformation is presented as fact "Running along from the Stone circle to the River Avon are two parallel ditches and form part of the monument known as the Avenue" That's just not true - the 'ditches' end at Stonehenge Bottom and that's why archaeologists thing it was built in two stages. They maybe slight channels cut into the chalk but they are not as deep and wide as the first section - and the professor knows that and that is why he believe his 'stone pathway' carries on after the bottom.
Sadly, the research done on this is minimal as if the Professor bothered to study the early maps and drawings of Stukeley he would have found that it was an old cart track since medieval times.
|Stukeley's Map with the road to Durrington|
|Picture of The Avenue showing the 'newly discovered cart track of prehistory!!|
|The Avenue again showing the coach and Horses that used to drive down theses tracks|
|And finally The Avenue Road - with the supposed 'periglacial tracks' - looking remarkably like cart tracks?|
|Periglacial Stripes going NE from Stonehenge Bottom - and coming North South, showing that they are old cart tracks!|
What the survey does prove - and again there was a misdirection in the commentary suggesting these were 'Periglacial straightens'. Sadly, for them if they were then the 18th Century archaeologist Stukeley found them as they appear in his drawings - with other cart tracks and field ploughing of that time.
Clearly these are modern markings which this new evidence from 'Operation Stonehenge' although they are not aware of the findings - this evidence finally prove that the idea that Stonehenge was built at this point because of these prehistoric natural features is nonsense. Which goes quite nicely with the Pink Flint Thing!!
They then realised that Stonehenge were formed on a six side structure called a hexagon - which is no surprise as I have published this information some time ago and detailed it in a recent post:
The significance and consequence of the mathematics was ofcourse missed, which is no surprise to anyone - but is available on the above blog and in my book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' out very soon.
Then tier was some information about what happened after the site was Constructed and who took it over - to be honest I have no interest in these people, they are as relivent as the presnt day Druids that worship the Summer Solstice - nice theater but not relevant archaeology of the site.
But a piece if the commentry did catch my imagination. This was the reference to the Bronze found on the site and it made me wonder, why archaeologists believe that the so called 'Bronze Age' was dated at 2500BC in Britain but much older in the Mediterranean countries.
It is a very complicated story which I will go into depth with in the future and it also appears in 'dawn of the Lost Civilisation' but as a 'taster' let me throw you an interesting facts about Bronze:
Look at this 'Diffusion Map' for metal
One would imagine that use of Bronze would coincide with Copper and Tin mines - but they do not - according to archaeology Copper 'appeared' in 4000BC in the Middle East. The problem is that the nearest Tin mine to the Middle East is Germany (so how did the inventory get the raw material?)!!
It's another thing that don't make sense in History!! Unless of course the archaeologists are wrong and Copper first appeared by it's sources in Northern Europe and Spain.