Tuesday, 3 January 2017

The Great Stonehenge Hoax

13 Things that don't make sense at Stonehenge - new book due to be launched this spring!




1. The Circular Monument

  • Stonehenge is incomplete - so why do they think it was round?
  • Is it because of the first archaeologist Stukeley - believed it was a Roman Solar Temple?
  • The reality is that - it could never be complete as STONE 11 is only half the size of the other Standing Stones
  • And therefore could not have taken a horizontal lintel like the others - Furthermore, it shows no sign of being reduced by chipping

2. Summer Solstice

  • The Avenue is not centred to the Solstice Sunrise as shown by the position of the Heel Stone - which is on the left
  • Even with the Heel Stone on the left of the Avenue - it was still not in line so they tilted the stone

3. Dating the Monument

  • The recent dating of Stonehenge is based on Antler Pick carbon dating of about 2500 BCE
  • The problem is that these 'picks' were found in the infill of the ditch - which means that they dug the ditch and then filled it in again almost immediately?
  • Moreover, they ignored that they had a much better tool to dig ditches that didn't break as easily - The Stone Axe

4. Totem Poles

  • Four Post Holes have previously been found in the old visitor's car park that date back to 8500 BCE – the 'experts' suggest’ that these are ‘Totem Poles’ holes that don’t  relate to the original construction date of the Monument?
  • The problem is that these Post Holes are full of 'silt' so they must have been a river running by to fill them with such a deposit

5. Craig Rhos-Y-Felin

  • The quarry site for the original Bluestones has now been located - sadly only two of the carbon dates are within 1000 years of the original antler dates for the ditch!
  • Moreover, ALL three Hearths and a majority of the carbon dates obtained match the SAME dates as the 'Totem Poles'  of 8500 BCE

6. Moving the Bluestones

  • We are told that the stones were dragged by hand over two hundred miles from Wales to Stonehenge - without a road in sight!
  • The reality is that not only were there no flat roads to drag the stones - the landscape was 90% dense Pine Forest?

7. Stonehenge Ditch

  • Archaeologists don't talk about the ditch although it is unique to Britain - for it's NOT a real ditch!
  • It's a series of individual pits with walls and seats laid into the chalk with stone holes in the base

8. Stonehenge Layer

  • "Bluestones started to be broken up and chipped away more or less from the time they were set up in each successive arrangement. The great spread of flakes and debris usually referred to in archaeological literature as the ‘Stonehenge Layer’ is not, as once thought, the debris from a one-off act " Professor Tim Darvill
  • .........but why?

9. Location

  • If Stonehenge was built as an 'observatory' for the Sunrise or Sunset.... why was it built halfway down a hill - rather than on top or by the coast so the trees and hill would not obstruct the view?
  • Stonehenge is in fact on the edge of a dry river valley with the Avenue running down into the bottom

10. Station Stones

  • If they were so unimportant - why have only two of them got mounds and moats, whilst the other two have nothing?

11. Periglacial Stripes

  • The experts suggest they are glacial marks that influenced where Stonehenge was built
  • Yet, these marks are only a few inches under the surface - but supposed to be TEN THOUSAND years old?

12. Slaughter Stone

  • This is supposed to have been one of two standing stones - that created an entrance to the site
  • But the other stone has never been found and the holes at the entrance do not match the size of the Slaughter Stone

13. The Builders

  • We are told that the first settlers and farmers who made Stonehenge camped a distance away at Woodhenge
  • But Wheat and Barley do not grow well in high chalklands - our farmers are in the fertile lowlands 
  • Moreover, why build the camp a mile away out of sight of Stonehenge and then build a second wooden monument next to the camp?

No comments:

Post a Comment