We have a series of postings, referred to below, showing that the stone outcrops of the Preseli Hills etc. in Wales were quite clearly and visibly carved as astronomy, with recognizable anthropomorphic figures to mark the stars.
"Speckled" bluestones from Wales were transported and used at Stonehenge to mark major lunar cycles (Metonic and Saros cylces) because of the similarity of the speckles to the appearance of the stars in the sky at night.
The only thing erratic about the stones at Stonehenge are people posting nonsense about glacial erratics. We wrote about that old absurdity some years ago: it is an old theory, and it was as wrong then as it is now.
In our own age of alleged global warming and many clearly receding glaciers, strange as it may seem to the erratics, no "glacial erratics" even remotely close in form to those at Stonehenge have ever modernly appeared anywhere as glaciers recede.
We do not deny the existence of glacial erratics, but they do not look like the stones at Stonehenge. Besides, even if glaciers were depositing stones like this, we would expect Salisbury Plain literally to be covered with them. But it is not.
The notion that "megaliths" are glacial erratics, rather than the purposefuly erected landmark stones that many actually are, is an old erratic fantasy of erring so-called geologists and morphogeologists for whom any stone found where it should not be geologically by theory must therefore necessarily be a "glacial erratic". Once again, the science of "tunnel vision" raises its head.
The idea that stone age man could purposefully move very large stones seems not to enter the minds of the erratics so that they should take a day off from work and walk around Avebury. There it is impossible to argue that those stones are "glacial erratics" in situ. By comparison, moving the much smaller bluestones from Wales would have been a piece of cake.
Lastly, it is clear that the ancients used the force of heat, cold and water at so-called "quarries" to break stones as needed. Those modernly complaining that they do not find the "tools" they expect at these quarries indicate that they have little understanding of their subject and should be doing something else.
Check out our previous postings about the Preseli Hills, Stonehenge and immediately relatied topics at:
Pages
▼
Saturday, December 26, 2015
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
The Chump Factor: Krugman at the New York Times: The Inability of People to Admit Their Wrongs and Adapt Their Views Accordingly
Once people take a stance on a given issue, they are unlikely to change their minds and admit that they were in the wrong, even if it becomes clear later that they in fact had erred. Wishful thinking and saving face rather than facing reality guides their actions.
We see this particularly in the paradigms of mainstream science and in political, economic, social and religious views and affiliations. People will cling to their previously made allegiances regardless of the actual facts.
Although a certain amount of "loyalty" is surely laudable, blind allegiance is not, although the "Chump Factor" is a widespread human characteristic. We see a lot of this in disciplines such as Archaeology so that it is no surprise to find it surfacing in current politics as well.
Economist Paul Krugman has it right in principle at the New York Times in discussing the U.S. Presidential candidates at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.
As Krugman writes:
"Nobody likes looking like a chump, and most people will go to great lengths to convince themselves that they weren't."
Krugman, however, wrongly points to Donald Trump and his supporters as an example. Regardless of one's political leanings, Trump's supporters have thus far not been proven to be "in the wrong" at all. Trump leads, and he could win.
We say that as a political centrist.
What about all those who support and sponsor a broad field of Republican Party candidates who have no chance of winning? What about all those GOP candidates who lack the common sense to drop out of the race even though they are clearly out of the running? What does it say about a political party when "everyone" out there wants to be President? We call that wishful thinking.
The Democratic Party candidates fare no better under the "Chump Factor" test.
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State of the USA in the Obama administration from January 2009 to February 2013. That is FOUR years. Wikipedia: "She viewed "smart power" as the strategy for asserting U.S. leadership and values, by combining military power with diplomacy and American capabilities in economics, technology, and other areas." What was the result? The result is a world in chaos. Unchanged thereafter, she has committed herself to an errant foreign policy philosophy based on wishful thinking which has proven wrong.
The Democratic Party has another puzzling candidate in 74-year old Bernie Sanders looking longingly for an American version of Scandinavia in the States. A socialist-type system that is effective primarily in the more-or-less homogeneous (uniform, unvarying) countries of northern Europe has no chance of succeeding in the heterogeneous (diverse, non-uniform) USA. It is just is not going to happen. A President can not run a nation based on wishful thinking.
We see this particularly in the paradigms of mainstream science and in political, economic, social and religious views and affiliations. People will cling to their previously made allegiances regardless of the actual facts.
Although a certain amount of "loyalty" is surely laudable, blind allegiance is not, although the "Chump Factor" is a widespread human characteristic. We see a lot of this in disciplines such as Archaeology so that it is no surprise to find it surfacing in current politics as well.
Economist Paul Krugman has it right in principle at the New York Times in discussing the U.S. Presidential candidates at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.
As Krugman writes:
"Nobody likes looking like a chump, and most people will go to great lengths to convince themselves that they weren't."
Krugman, however, wrongly points to Donald Trump and his supporters as an example. Regardless of one's political leanings, Trump's supporters have thus far not been proven to be "in the wrong" at all. Trump leads, and he could win.
We say that as a political centrist.
What about all those who support and sponsor a broad field of Republican Party candidates who have no chance of winning? What about all those GOP candidates who lack the common sense to drop out of the race even though they are clearly out of the running? What does it say about a political party when "everyone" out there wants to be President? We call that wishful thinking.
The Democratic Party candidates fare no better under the "Chump Factor" test.
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State of the USA in the Obama administration from January 2009 to February 2013. That is FOUR years. Wikipedia: "She viewed "smart power" as the strategy for asserting U.S. leadership and values, by combining military power with diplomacy and American capabilities in economics, technology, and other areas." What was the result? The result is a world in chaos. Unchanged thereafter, she has committed herself to an errant foreign policy philosophy based on wishful thinking which has proven wrong.
The Democratic Party has another puzzling candidate in 74-year old Bernie Sanders looking longingly for an American version of Scandinavia in the States. A socialist-type system that is effective primarily in the more-or-less homogeneous (uniform, unvarying) countries of northern Europe has no chance of succeeding in the heterogeneous (diverse, non-uniform) USA. It is just is not going to happen. A President can not run a nation based on wishful thinking.