SalvoMont Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are photographs of sturdy chaps carrying
> cars up mountains so it can be done.

Perhaps the photos of people carrying cars over mountains are photoshopped?
[www.youtube.com]
1. This ripped squad is doing a lot of work moving the auto such a short distance.
How many times during the day are they going to have to stop for bodily needs during a
mountain trip and re-pick the load? Eating, peeing, chasing wolves and bears away all
require relifting which causes dislocated backs, shoulders, and knees (not to mention hernias)
if all the rippers do not lift in perfect unison.
2. Bodies buried at Stonehenge don't appear 'ripped'.
3. Experimental archaeology: Just because something can be done a certain way isn't
evidence it was done that way.
Given the experimental evidence in 1. and the archaeological evidence in 2., Occam's razor would
best be satisfied with a cow and a rope for least amount of work done by people and possible damage
done to human bodies.

> Tensile strength arguments are valid. MMMM

Not really certain what is being implied here, so not much I can add.

> Brian John is unbalanced when it comes to
> Stonehenge arguments and is forever busy selling
> his SH book on his blog.His novels,18th century
> boddice-rippers are GOOD.

I couldn't agree more. However, BJ could be proven wrong on a hundred points, but
in the case of Bevins et al. (2020 above) he only has to be proven right on one point in order
to call into question the overland route.

> Read some of the critical book reviews of his two
> SH books.

For me anyway, I won't be buying any of his books, so no need for reviews!

> Dragging over uneven ground seems like hard work.

At my age, everything they did 3000 years ago seems like a lot of hard work, even digging the original
pit-circle.

[www.youtube.com]
7:38/7:59
"...but if we have a hypothesis we do need to find hard evidence to back it up
because without such evidence it really is just guesswork."