 |
|||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 STONEHENGE
Sites marked SS - 91, 92, 93 and 94 - represent the four Stonehenge Station
Stones (the diagram is from Castleden). Of these four sites, only one now
boasts a stone accurately in situ, 93, and only one other site, the 91 'recliner',
has a stone of any sort. For all that, much has been made of the four sites and
the rectangle they appear to produce.
   1. SS93
2. SS91 corrected clo
Robin Heath - thanks!
3. Detail from Doutre
showing a rectangular
shape (of sorts).
Now the line connecting SS93 to SS91, the rectangle's hypotenuse (or one of
them) is interesting, to some, it seems. According to Bonnie Gaunt, THE
MAGNIFICENT NUMBERS OF STONEHENGE AND GIZA, that line is at angle of 118 degrees East of North and pursuing it in that direction from the centre of Stonehenge and you'll end up at the Great Pyramid in Egypt:  Note also that a line at right angles to the longer sides of the rectangle seems
to pick out the Midsummer Solstice Sunrise. It was William Stukeley, FRS,
who first noticed this solar orientated axis for the site, apparently, 1740 AD:
"whereabouts the sun rises when the days are longest".
And that's not all: according to Robin Heath, for one, the rectangle's sides
pick out the Northmost Moonset, the Southernmost Moonrise and the four
Cross-Quarter or High Cross-Quarter days, notably Imbolc (circa Feb. 1st),
Beltane (circa May 1st), Lugnasadh (circa Aug. 1st) and Samhain (circa
Nov. 1st).
(2500 BC, or so, Charles Webster tells us, moreover, looking from the centre out over SS93 on the March 21st
Equinox gave you Arcturus with the same star visible over SS94 at the Summer Solstice - and over SS91 on
Nov.21st. SS92 is mentioned in a lunar context. The idea is based on computer interrogation using Skymap.
I 've put a link to a freebie download version of this below: SkyMap Pro 8).
NOTE TO NON-AOL: you may need to scroll down a bit after this diag.!
to rejoin text. A 'browser peculiarity', it seems. APOLOGIES.
 From Robin Heath, STONEHENGE - The Marriage of Sun and Moon. Note, too - as Heath does - the right-angle twixt moon and sun (which only happens
in the latitudinal area of Stonehenge: about 35 miles either side of Lat. 51 degrees -
roughly Portsmouth to Bristol). apparently.
Cross Quarter Days - as Sig Lonegren reminds us - evoke the Celtic Cross. See his
www.geomancy.org site for an excellent exposition of the idea. The actual link is
  See also Crichton Miller for the idea that this cross represents a navigational tool of
yore: http://www.crichtonmiller.com/ (and, also, compare the Wheel of the Year
distribution of the 'elements' of Fire, Air, Water and Earth, the directions North,
South, East and West, and the Four Seasons, with those generated by the tradition
of the four Royal Fixed Star Watchers (click on 'Royal Watchers'), the Jachin and
Boaz (and alchemical) tradition, the Biblical Four Horsemen and the four Humours
of Galen (sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic and melancholy).*
*Something has to give! See www.awugabnnies.co.uk/7.html
All in all, interesting stuff! But there's trouble in this Station Stone paradise.
According to Dr. Aubrey Burl, BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY No. 35, June
1998, ' STONEHENGE ANGLES', the right-angle claim obtains at Lat.
50.485 (underwater and not around Lat. 51 degrees). I looked at this on
NAO and found the lack of decimals a hindrance, obtaining a solar value of
40 degrees northernmost moon and a solar sunrise of 49 degrees = 89
degrees. But GeoAstro gives 49.5 for the latter ... 89.5 and closing?
Burl calls the lunar alignment 'imprecisely directed' (if intentional), anyway,
and calls the right-angle idea 'superficial':
I don't quite understand why Burl gives Stonehenge a Lat. of 51 11 44 -
I'll get back to you on this one!* Oooops! I hope the rest of Burl's stuff's
not like that but THE MEGALITHIC PORTAL's Andy Burnham has
Stonehenge at 51 10 43.7... www.megalithic.co.uk - a typo by Burl
or the periodical, perhaps? Also, I had a look at NAO for sun-moon
combinations Torquay, say, to Bristol. The lack of fractions, perhaps,
denies me a '90' over the whole of this '90' range. 89? 90? Close ...
* The typo is of 1 minute of Latitude, circa 1.151 miles (ave)..
But there's another more serious problem with the Heath model, for one -
and it is one acknowledged by 'guru' Alexander Thom, for one: it just doesn't
work as regards the four Cross-Quarter Days.
Why not? Well, Midwinter opposes Midsummer exactly as the Spring and
Autumn Equinoxes oppose each other, but the two sets of Cross-Quarter
Days don't. Beltane is a different number of days from Midwinter and Mid
-summer to Lugnasadh as Imbolc is different to Samhain. But they have to
be the same for the idea to work.* It is a necessary condition.** NAO
tells us sunrise Feb 1st this year is azimuth 117 degrees. Logically, to oppose
this, Nov. 1st sunset should be (360 - 117) 243 degrees. But we get 248.
And May 1st is 65 degrees, giving (360 - 65) 295. But we get 301 degrees.
*http://websurf.nao.rl.ac.uk/ is the data source I used - its one draw
-back is it has no decimals so derived values of relative positions (of, say, the
Midsummer sunrise to the northernmost Moonset) can have nearly plus/minus 1
degree of error. There's also Epoch 2000 (j q jacobs) and GeoAstro (j giesen).
**In fairness to Sig, he addresses the X-Quarter Day "mismatch" on his site.
His idea is aesthetically pleasing (however wrong!).
Next, the rectangle itself. In Martin Doutre it's not even regular, the shorter
sides being of different lengths, and, if Doutre's wrong, then is this rectangle
the product of ('Pythagorean'/Euclid 47) 5-12-13 maths or of Octagonal maths
... or some other design, say that of Gaunt? Thing is, they're all SO VERY
SIMILAR - but yet not the same.
If we take data from Gaunt and compare it to the M L Saunders/J Neal/H H
Franklin Octagon and the R Heath/J Neal/Ralph Ellis 5-12-13 we'd find that the
'5-12-13' triangle would become 5-12.07-13.064 would become 5-11.458-
12.5 (working back). Put another way, Heath would have an angle of of 22.62
degrees with his 5-12-13 compared to an octagonal 22.5 degrees and Gaunt's
23.5-6 degrees. One degree covers them all.
Semi-organising my online reference library I was reminded of Heath's
- 'Sky and Landscape'. Robin mentions numbers that chime here: 23.52
and 33. However, something weird happens as regards Station Stones.
There's an expert: Aubrey Burl. Is that our Aubrey Burl? The one above
calling the lunar alignment 'imprecisely directed'? The one who placed the
right-angle in the sea, some 30-40 miles south of Stonehenge,
and the one who moved the henge a mile or so north?
C/o of Robin Heath, we come across 'near perfect rectangle' with the 'long
side aligned to the (northernmost) moonset'!?*
*I note Heath's 18.618 year cycle - and that it is often, loosely given as 19 years - and there are 2 events to consider,
not the one, I gather.
But that's not the biggie: I read of the Station Stones providing a 5 : 12 : 13
in one place and of them providing an octagon in another. Neat trick! Put
another way, which is it? Or is it both?
I've invited Robin to comment and will carry any relevant input I receive
- dated 11-09-07. Reply received dated 13-09-07 - thanks, Robin, you are
- and have always been a gentleman (and a scholar)! Robin remarks:
1. SS91 is the recliner and SS93 the upright! Exactly right - and apologies!
All I had to go on was information supplied me by the 'Visitor Operations
Manager - Support Services Stonehenge. This says QUITE the opposite
and places "93 in the SE quadrant" (which should have alerted me)!
3. Robin makes the point about 'apples and oranges' relating to one's
definitions (sunrise, for instance) - just as I do, below. Here is his response in
full (noting that the increasingly fuzzy and turgid doubtless means me!):
Sorry your page overheated itself.
Stone 91 is the recliner, not 93. Midsummer sunrises/sets do not exactly oppose midwinter ones. At the quarter days, and at the latitude around Stonehenge, consecutive sunrises and sets occur nearly a solar diameter apart - that's 31 minutes of degree. As these SS rectangle alignments are classed as symbolic (i.e. short distance) alignments, and we do not know where ( if anywhere) an observer in 2500 BC placed his eye-balls to use such an alignment, then it is not possible to publish a precise figure for the angles of the quarter day sun rises/sets. The quarter day in the length of the calendar year causes the sun's position to vary its rise and set positions for a given day from year to year. And in prehistoric times, the length of the summer half of the year was different to the winter half in different ratio to the present, a fact that many fail to account for. The laudable quest for precision is also doomed if the horizon elevations along each supposed alignment are not taken into account. Finally, are we supposing that the observer is interested in the first/last flash, a half-risen/set disc or the sun sitting with lower limb on the horizon? The problem here is a little knowledge of the astro-archaeology is a dangerous place to go. Perhaps some anchor points, upon which a researcher can depend, are needed. 1. Alexander Thom's survey of Stonehenge and subsequent plan (1973) represents the best available data we have from the acknowledged master-surveyor of stone circles. Thom found the axis of the monument to within a few minutes to 50 degrees. In the Journal for the History of Astronomy, 1974, pt 2 no 13, he gives the azimuth of the axis as 49* 57'. Nothing whatsoever to do with astronomy, this is what his survey revealed from the avenue axis. 2. Thom (in the same JHA) measures the azimuth looking from station 92 to stone 93 as 'about 320 degrees'. Although 'about' may appear uncharacteristically vague for Thom's data, it is the relatively short distance between these two points, the lack of a backsight stone (92), no knowledge of the original width of the backsight stone, that makes it necessary to use the word 'about'. However, he noted that Gibbett's Knoll, a small tump on the flat high ground above Market Lavington, some 9.16 miles from Stonehenge, provided an azimuth of 320* 02' from station 92. Again, this is nothing to do with astronomy, it's geodetic land surveying data. For this longer distance, it matters little where the observer's eyeballs were placed. However, if this was a long distance foresight via stone 93 and station 92, and passing through the so-called Car-Park Postholes, this line would have provided a precision alignment to the major standstill moonset around 1900 BC 3. These two precision surveying alignments 'fix' the rectangle to the rest of Stonehenge. The difference between the axis azimuth and the station (92,93) line above is within 3 minutes of degree of being a right angle, a precision of 99.94%. It is hard to attribute coincidence to this level of precision. It may be relied on as accurate, because Thom was a first rate surveyor and this is acknowledged by archaeologists. 4. Only one station still has a stone in its original hole. The holes for the rest were determined by probing by Prof Richard Atkinson during the Thom survey. There is always going to be uncertainty in determining precisely where the centres of these stone holes were placed and we shall never know the exact points. Akinson's data and conclusions on the precision of the station stones were printed in John North's book, Stonehenge (Harper 1996). ( Peter Newham determined that the station rectangle was aligned to the avenue 'midsummer' axis (shorter sides) and to the major moonset (longer sides). Thom's plan confirms the stations to be arranged to define a 5,12 rectangle. Thom also gives the diameter of the Aubrey circle as 283.6 feet to within just under one inch. This too may be relied on as 'best data available'. The later station stones appear on the plan to have been placed on the line of the Aubrey hole circle, making the diagonal of the 5:12 rectangle, 13 units of the pythagorean triangle, the same measure. ) 5. Thus, finally, it is perfectly in order to suggest that the latitude of stonehenge connects very well the geometry of the monument ( the axis and the station rectangle), and the astronomy of solsticial sunrises and major standstill moon sets. Burl may have suggested (1998) that the exact calculated spot lies in the English Channel near the Solent, but no-one has seen his calculation to check whether he accounted for refraction, horizon elevation, the date assumed nor the curvature of the earth. 6. Because we are dealing with a structure erected over 4000 years ago, we must face squarely Thom's bleak prognostication that 'only in exceptional circumstances may we expect stones to have remained in their original positions.' But precisely because of this, we are legitimised in attempting to make models of the monument that speak to both earth and sky. And speak they do, conveying a meaning presently denied by mainstream archaeology. Anyone who has understood the basis of the calendar outlined in my books will appreciate that the two principle circles at Stonehenge, the early Aubrey circle and the later sarsen circle have diameters related to the foot and the Megalithic yard. Prof North gives (correctly) the outer sarsen as 52.2 feet radius and Aubrey as 104.27 Megalithic yards diameter. These measures correspond with precision to the difference between the lunar year (354.37 days) and the solar year (365.242 days), a difference of 10.875 days), and the length of the lunation period (29.53059 days). That this fundamental astronomical constant is built into Stonehenge, as it is also built into the 5:12:13 lunation triangle and into every Type B flattened circle indicates that it is time to bypass the logjam caused by denial of prehistoric precision in astronomy and metrology, and work outside of the box. That work must involve the researcher in learning the mathematics and astrophysics to be able to spot the pitfalls that lurk within this subject. Otherwise all that happens is an increasingly fuzzy and turgid literature that obscures the subject - this suiting the present archaeological stance ideally. 7.Let me finish by making the reader aware that one cannot learn this subject - archaeoastronomy - in any UK University at present. That is why I run Sky and Landscape courses (www.skyandlandscape.com) to practically guide aspirants how it all comes together. For the past 20 years I have been taking groups to Stonehenge and other sites and they use what remains on the ground to accurately find the date, the phase of the moon and when eclipses will occur. Numerically and geometrically, Stonehenge is a perfect monument to express how to do all of these things. Eventually, more will be recovered, to be sure, but we actually already have a full cup that fully runs over. Robin Heath Back to fuzzy and turgid me: after noting. as I just did to Robin, again, that that still leaves the question 5-12-13 or octagon!? Using the figures
cited (from Thom) we'd have approximately 283.6 (13) plays 261.7846 (12) plays 109.0769 (5) as against 283.6
plays 262 plays 108.53. In the context of the centre (eyeballs) of Stonehenge, the SS hypotenuses are said - I
have read - to either pick it out exactly or almost. So 'eyeballs' means (like with the point about definitions of,
say, 'sunrise')? There IS a convention, of course, these days, but it IS NOT a convention that deals in true horizons
- what you can actually see!. So 'Apples and Oranges'?
Also, note the 50 degree axis (off north) irrespective!? of the Midsummer sunrise azimuth and the (360 - 40) 'major
standstill alignment' in 1900 BC, pretty much NAO on the moon this year? That puts the standstill and the AXIS
(rather than the sunrise) at 90 degrees?
It is Robin himself whose site had a midwinter sun directly opposed his midsummer (See Fig. 4.3 above) - but a
quick check on NAO reveals, as the email notes, a June 21 49 degrees opposes a Dec 21 of 232 degrees. 180 + 49
is 229 ... 3 degrees! (plus or minus). Dec 21 to June 21 (exclusive) is 181 days whilst June 21 to Dec. 21 (same)
is 182 days. Leap years are 182 v 182.
Last year's April moon attained this 320 degrees - unlike values for 2005 and 2007 (NAO).
I have attempted to contact Dr. Burl with little success so far! Re-reading his 1998 article, though, I notice he calls the
idea of a right-angle twixt northernmost moonset and midsummer sunrise "incorrect" and I find a value of "50 degrees"
(the Stonehenge axis value to 3 minutes accuracy! Heath) accorded the Midsummer sunrise. That fits no-one else at all!
Burl notes the differentr azimuths for Midsummer sunrise and Midwinter sunset as 50 degrees and 319 - BUT THE
SECOND NUMBER IS OBVIOUSLY A MOON VALUE AND NOT A SUN! What's going on? Is Aubrey Burl, 'Birmingham' a clue? Is this another Dr. Burl - the letter is so riddled with mistakes ... I'll query it with the periodical!
Emailed 15-09-07 to the current Editor, noting the minute extra north Lat., and the confusion northenmost moonset with
midwinter sunset, and I could also have mentioned 319 when it's 320, and his unique 50 sunrise value - where this 50
and derived 40 (360 -320) = 90!!!! Noting the absence of fractions, however, so plus/minus one degree possible.!?
CPC Note:
50 plays 40 is of no use to my CPC model (MOVING QUOITS) at all I need 51 plays 39 - whether it exists twixt
Midsummer sunrise and Norethernmost moonset OR NOT. I can look elsewhere for my numbers though - I can look
to "North" and "South".* How so? The Latitude you are standing on is pretty much the angle to the Pole Star, currently
Polaris. And Stonehenge is (comonly) at Lat 51 11* * Well, there's my '51', anyway. And my complementary right-angling
'39'? . First full day of astrological Aries and the astrological year, sometimes the Spring Equinox - this might be the '39'.
For example, NAO alues for 21st March 2003-2009 mean to 39.054.
* Equinoxes are also useful East-West markers.
**51 10 42-4 is better. A search threw up the range 51 10 36 to 51 10 42.35 (Carl Munck, 1992). Online Multimap
gives me 51 10 44 (approx. centre - but 'eyeballs' again - it's a big site!). The Longitude appears to be
1 49 34-ish (I think Munck gives 1 49 28). Wondere where I got the idea it was 1 51 from?
All in all, a thoroughly welcome and informative contribution and study, Robin. Thankyou. John Neal approached
16-09-07 - he knows quite a bit if I remember earlier email exchanges involving, also, ML Saunders, maybe 2 years
ago?
Assuming the positioning of the Station Stones was other than decorative in
intent, then all the ideas proposed are viable - given we only have the one stone
in situ and that this stone is nearly 4 and a quarter times smaller than the
'recliner', anyway (and "one of these may not be original." acc. witcombe)! Not
much here to provide anyone with proof positive ...*
*From English Heritage (thanks to Mrs Finola Andrews, PA to the
Stonehenge Director) comes this data:
91 2.6 1.5 1.1 13.1
92 1.9 1.3 1 8.1
93 1.2 1 0.7 3.1
94 1.9 1.3 1 8.1
You are looking at heights, widths and thicknesses (all metres) and weights
(tons). 91 and 93 are in bold because they actually exist. Data for 92 and
94 is pure speculation. There is no reason to suppose they were utterly
identical, for instance.
And that brings us to the actual rectangle dimensions themselves. They vary
(almost as theory to theory). If we take the hypotenuse value, say, then English
Heritage measures the distance at about 279' (from memory) to Bonnie Gaunt's
288'. Most values are in the 281'-283' range but I think Chris Witcombe carried
285' on his excellent and informative Sweet Briar College site (details below). *
Obviously, given Octagonal maths or 5-12-13, one dimension informs the rest.
Doutre, however is trapezium (UK def.) rather than rectangle proper, with
shorter sides given of 112' and 113.4' compared to, say, Gaunt's 115.1-ish'.
Ralph Ellis, THOTH: ARCHITECT OF THE UNIVERSE (2001), carries measurements of the shorter, or 'adjacent', sides: 108.75984 ..' by Flinders Petrie and 109.25196867 ..' for Atkinson, this second being explicitly centre to centre (insofar as that is possible ans imperial values being derived by me from the metric given. Given the adherence of Ellis to the 5-12-13 model, the longer sides necessarily have to be 261.0236 or 262.2 .. whilst the hypotenuse value has to be either 282.775584 or 284.0551 .. The first, or Petrie value, falls within the normal range determined (by me) above. Ref: http://books.google.com/books?id=yzXqUvQ5XBYC&pg=RA1-PA141&lpg= RA1-PA141&dq=station+stones&source=web&ots=2c_RuIpZrZ&sig= jvsVw3EF4PTed3_I09A2TRom89w *And Robin Heath gives 283.6 Aubrey=related.
And the 118 degree azimuth (angle) to the Great Pyramid? Well, the different
models produce outcomes of 117 degrees*, 117.1 degrees, 117.2 degrees,
117.38 degrees, 117.415 degrees and Gaunt's 118 degrees. NAO supports
a Midwinter sunrise azimuth of 117 degrees for Cairo, near Giza, for 14th to
the 30th of December whilst Stonehenge Imbolc/Feb 1st is also a 117 degree
sunrise azimuth, this value also obtaining just after Beltane (3rd-4th May).**
*Doutre gives SS91 at an azimuth of 115 degrees and SS93 at 114.8-116.8. James Q Jacobs kindly supplied me
with a value just less than 117 degrees (from memory - mine, that is!) .
**Not forgetting the plus/minus 0.5 degree possibility.
Gary Osborn's research may be informative here. Planet Earth tilts, the angle
varying from about 22.5 to about 24.5. The value is commonly expressed as
23.5 degrees. This is also the figure commonly given for the two Tropics,
Cancer and Capricorn. The total distance, in degrees, is 47 (click on Jesus and
John)*. Gary noticed 23.5 was a somewhat thematic angle in the art of the C16th**
and C17th AD. And thematically linked to .... St. John. See Gary's site in detail
at http://www.garyosborn.moonfruit.net/ Click on 'News' (left-hand side menu)
and explore 'REVELATIONS' and 'REVELATIONS 2'.
* A value known to Ptolemy, C2nd AD. About then precession meant the sun was in Cancer and Capricorn at the
Equinoxes - hence these being the names applied, although the actual placing no longer applies. How far back before Ptolemy the '47' goes I currently give in. **1515 AD is a date given by Gary, I notice. It is also the birth year of the man who 'invented' the letter j. When I first saw the dates 1515-1717 given in Gary's REVELATION 2 (click on NEWS on his site, given below or
http://garyosborn.moonfruit.com/revelations) I thought it was an author's 'in-joke'. Note, as Gary does, the similarity
twixt 23.5, the birthday of the Baptist (24th June) and the proximity to the 21st June Summer Solstice.
Now a right-angled triangle (Euclid 47) with an angle of 23.5 necessarily generates
another of 66.5 (as 23.4 would 66.6). The range 117-117.5 degrees covers 5 X
23.4-23.5.* It's an idea! And 235 is also the number of lunations in a complete
lunar cycle, northernmost to northernmost.
*The actual Lat. obtaining is 23.4394444r
Next, the Midsummer Solstice sunrise azimuth. It is 51 degrees (off North) from
memory, in Michell - but nothing supports this value for the 'Sunshine Line' as being
accurate (and I can't provenance the Michell '51', as yet!). NAO, for instance gives
a value of 49 degrees. And this seems to fit with:
 The 'aveglaswin' author, Michael Everest, cites various authorites for the
angle indicated: Hawkins 40 54, Atkinson 40 49, and North 40 43 (albeit in
3000 BC, this last). According to the article (link given below) Stonehenge
represents a 'happy compromise' twixt Pythagoras and the Icknield Way and
the (Station Stone) bearings are something 'all authorities agree on' - well,
pretty much. It leaves the obvious 90 degrees minus the 'bearing' = the sunrise
azimuth = 49 degrees (and a bit). GeoAstro gives us a value of 49.5 degrees
 The highly evocative Stonehenge Midsummer
dawn - and the sun is atop the Hele/Heel Stone.
Except this event isn't dawn.
Dawn happened already - to the left.
The definition? NAO gives sealevel,
uninterrupted plane tangential to the horizon.
Note the sun itself has a diameter of 1/2 a degree.
The sun first appears (false dawn) to the left and then actually appears -
also to the left - moving rapidly southwards (to the right) and rising. It
'sits' atop the Hele/Heel Stone some time later - well clear of the ground
(and the dawn). Remember though, values of variously 49 degrees, 51,
360/7 and 51 51 have been attached to the event. You could argue they
all fit kinda - and it's still a glorious visual presentation, dawn or no dawn!
*Richard Mudhar's incredibly readable overview at MEgALiThiA - Stonehenge and Astronomy - points to
some of the problems and tells of another stone, to the left of the Heel/Hele, the pair capturing the sunrise.
Site link given below. However, there weren't 2 stones but 4 (Inigo Jones sketch, 1620 AD, and seeable
Lastly, there's one line readers might like to explore: the other hypotenuse.
I've not seen any suggestion whatsoever made for it by commentators - if
of course SS92-SS94 had any purpose as an alignment I be interested as
to ideas. Perhaps Skymap?*
*(freebie download available at www.5star.shareware.com : SkyMap Pro 8 (demo version)
"Players"
Professor Richard Atkinson - a 1978 measurement carried by Ralph Ellis, p. 141
Dr. Aubrey Burl - possibly the leading (and prolific) luninary in archaeoastronomy Martin Doutre - www.celticnz.co.nz/US14.html
Ralph Ellis - THOTH: ARCHITECT OF THE UNIVERSE ... (googlebooks) Michael Everest - http://www.aveglaswin.co.uk/midsummer_sunrise.html H H Franklin - http://members.tripod.com/hew_frank/id21.htm
Bonnie Gaunt* - THE MAGNIFICENT NUMBERS .... (Numerolgy)
Gerald Hawkins - STONEHENGE DECODED (1963) Robin Heath - http://cura.free.fr/decem/06heath.html
Nick Markell - http://www.tivas.org.uk/stonehenge/stone_main.html
John North - STONEHENGE: A NEW INTERPRETATION ... (1996) Flinders Petrie - measurement carried by Ralph Ellis, p. 141 Michael L Saunders - @ http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/list.php?f=1
Alexander Thom - Megalithic Yard (MY)/X-Quarter Days (Scottish) et al. Charles Webster - http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/charleswebster
Chris Witcombe - http://witcombe/sbc/edu
www.archaeoastronomy.com
Andy Burnham - www.megalithic.co.uk Robin Heath - www.skyandlandscape.com
Sig Lonegren - www.geomancy.org
Richard Mudhar - http://www.anima.demon.co.uk/stonehenge/astronomy.html
John Neal - www.secretacademy.com http://www.greatdreams.com/gem1.htm Stonehenge and numerology!
http://www.jqjacobs.net/astro/epoch_2000.html (needs Excel)
*A list of archaeological resources relating to the Station Stones is carried under Monument Information
Alternatively, simply search Station Stones on Google and it's a top 10 outcome: STATION STONES,
Sources. Since this is the last page of the series, may I note here that the topics touched on are disparate threads of research which inform my MS MOVING QUOITS but don't necessarily make it into that (at least in any detail). This page, for instance will condense down to a few lines of particular relevance to the Glastonbury and Stonehenge vertices of the Michell Circle of Perpetual Choirs (CPC). It is the MS that unifies these pages - I just had seven A4 folders of my (many years, now) studies which would have gathered dust had I not put them here for others to pick over as they wish. One thematic line is 'right-angled triangle' - and Moggz's Whiteleaf Oak study encouraged me to look upwards: were there any significant to be found in the sky, I wondered. 'STATION STONES' provides some supportive material of the idea that there arguably were (well, nearly, anyway!) - I least I think the idea can be reasonably advanced. All the above indicates the lengths you need to go to in order to 'cover one's back' when writing even a few lines! Take nothing on trust, I've learned. Check and check again - especially internet sourced material. One person has an 'idea'. Another carries it. Presto: two impeccable sources and, ergo, it must be true. So much CPC investigation I've looked at suffers from 2 faults: 1. Instant gratification required by those 'seeking'. It's damned hard and mentally taxing work. It takes a long time and a strong capacity to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and start ... 2. Misplaced trust: I have little doubt in my own mind that a 'game' was played out over the English and Welsh landscapes in the C17th and C18th AD, and that this game carried the fingerprints of ancient mathematical significances and understandings. John Michell's work over the years have reprised these again and again - and inspired others, including, obviously, me. But the Circle of Perpetual Choirs (CPC) isn't the point: there isn't and never was one, not as imagined by John and so sought by others with so little if any success (see 1.). The real point is the maths of the construct and the Latitudes, river and BOOK OF REVELATION it has been placed on. He Phren is the point and Hafren the site. Mirrors. I apologise for this hastily cobbled together page. The previous incarnation
self-destructed at about 6.30 pm, Tuesday 04-09-07 - completely
spontaneously. Though a Japanese 'message' accompanied the event!
Shame, 'cos I'd just reached slot 2 on Google with what I intended to be
an open resource airing all thinking on the subject of the Stonehenge Station
Stones.
I will correct and extend - particularly links - in due course.
geoffss
A few notes of interest, perhaps?
1. A 'John' (47) could therefore be said to indicate 1/2 a year, 2 Johns
making a whole 12 month cycle Capricorn-Cancer and back? 2. Looking at 23.4 - and noting a right-angled triangle necessarily creates
66.6 - then note also the 'mirror' 43.2. Add to 23.4? 66.6 again.
Right-angled triangles crop up again and again and ....
If you think in terms of Capricorn and Cancer, the 2 Tropics, then the
angle below Capricorn and above Cancer will be?
66.5-66.6 X 2.
3. Given the differing dimensions above, I wondered for some time - and
in some for instances - whether it was an apples-and-oranges situation?
Station Stones occupy space. Measuring from different bits to different
bits would produce different outcomes. But I couldn't see anything
obvious in the dimensions of SS91 and SS93 to support the idea. I do
note here, however, that at least one commentator considers the idea that
the SS93 'recliner' hasn't just fallen over but has actually been moved!
4. 360/7 - James Q Jacobs provides this value for the centre of Stonehenge
out over the Hele Stone (off North - 51.428...). It is also, as he notes, the
Avebury Latitude. I have also seen the idea aired that the Station Stones
themselves provide a regular 7-sided star (as against Octagon or 5-12-13
Scherer, meanwhile, gives the angle out over the centre of the Hele Stone
as 51 51, noting the similarity the the Great Pyramid's slope (given as 51
50 40)*. The value is 51.84444r. CPC (Circle of Perpetual Choirs)
decagonal geometry creates a derived octagon ON-THE-GROUND.
Centre? Lat. 51.8428**. River Severn.
Note (Robin Heath carrying Thom) the Stonehenge AXIS is almost exactly
50 degrees.
* Scherer (et al) conflates this Hele Stone line (quite wrongly) with the Midsummer Solstice Sunrise l
ine - NAO's 49 degrees! John Michell used 51 degrees - if I remember correctly - and that is a value
that obtains for my purposes in MOVING QUOITS to inform the CPC model. The model axis actually
cuts the river at Lat, 51 51 - which is the value Michell gives for the Khufu slope in NEW VIEW OVER
ATLANTIS - but the octagon centre is at Lat. 22/7. Neat.
**The difference is just under 200 yards twixt Lat 51 51 and the Lat. 22/7 delivers. True Pi is slightly
further north.
Lat. 51.8428 ... (22/7) and 51 51 have both been used to represent Pi.
22/7 was pre-calculator 'schoolboy' Pi. If you click on Perpetual Choirs
(tab left) you'll see how Point St. John is at Lat. 51 53 (with the possible masonic joke 3113 and a relationship, numerically,
to Sq. Root 3 - 51 X 3 : 53 X 5). Now we have another significant Lat.: Pi.
I'll resist doing a Graham Hancock: It cannot be complete coincidence ...
but we have the possibility of 2 mathematically important values being
picked out. So why not a third, Phi?
Believe it or not, there's something there, just where 'x' indicates the spot
should be on-the-ground. And, since Kepler called Phi a 'precious jewel',
that's exactly where we'll look! (Click on Lady and Goat, tab left to see more). This octagon will have a radius of 50.4 miles - and 5040 is a number of some
interest: 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 (and divisible by all the numbers 1-10
inclusive, Michell, NEW VIEW ... Page 123 - deliberate page or coincidental?).
John also notes the 37 X table .... as in 74 ('Jesus') ... 666. Click on 'Jesus and
John' or on www.awugabunnies.co.uk/3.html 666 is mirrors 234 + 432, where
234 is 2 X 117 and 10 X 23.4, leaving 66.6 to make up a right-angle. Put
another way, if the Capricorn and Cancer Tropics are 23.4-5, then the
dimensions above and below them are 66.5-6 X 2.*
For the puposes of the CPC model, the sunshine line will be the 51 degrees I
believe John Michell originally specified - albeit I am awaiting provenance
for this. Note: I have found "51" used by others this year (2008 AD) ... *Note re 117 (geoffss, 01-12-07): it's a mirror (of sorts). 117 is 39 X 3. But is is also 13 X 3 (power2) ... and 1332 is 666 X 2. Two diagrams: Planet Earth's Tropics and Stonehenge's Station Stones:   NOTES: 'the obliquity of ecliptic' etc. Planet Earth is off celestial 'up' by a (moving) anglestylised as 23.5 degrees = and this number is also (and again stylised) accorded the two Tropics, Cancer and Capricorn. These denote the limits of our year's seasonal cycle. The cycle is 47 degrees summer to winter and vice-versa. The Stonehenge Station Stones have been called octagonal (22.5) and 5-12-13 (22.62). Ralph Ellis, THOTH: ARCHITECT OF THE UNIVERSE ... P. 160 (googlebooks) carries the ideas 22.5/22.6 together in the context of Stonehenge - and this value is indicative (or can be) of the lower value for the cycle of the Earth's "wobble" for which 23.5 is often used as a middle value (of sorts) - thanks for the refence, Gary. The angle from the centre to the ends of shorter rectangle sides can be the same 47 degrees as with the Tropics. Here a a link to a fascinating study embracing the tropics, 23.5, Washington DC, the Great Pyramid and Stonehenge: http://www.geocities.com/jussaymoe/Pentagram/pent_to_pyr2.htm |
||
 |
||
