Spiros Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geotio Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Spiros Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > You continue to ignore the problems
> regarding
> > lost distance "alignments " having to change
> > bearing in order to arrive at their putative
> > destinations ,and how the builders of the
> period
> > would have known when and to what extent to
> change
> > the orginal bearing .

> It seems that Google Earth has no problem
> computing them, so we need to find who had this
> technology to pinpoint the builder or designers.

That's the problem , GE can do it , how do you imagine the builders did it without the knowledge of the law of Haversines which was unknown before the 19th C .



>
>
> > Your whole point is subjective ,the "shapes
> " are
> > highly irregular ,who is to say what should
> be
> > chosen to be considered as the intended
> bearing
> > when there is no evidence to to support that
> there
> > was any bearing to consider in the first
> place .
> A bearing exits whether it was taking into account
> or not. It's out job to gudge whether it was. A
> whouldn't agree that the shape is heighly
> irregular, I whould call it eerily regular. Its
> this regularity that makes it suspitious. I
> beleive the cuurvature was intentional. The Earth
> is not a cube it is spherical.
>
> > You are cherry picking by selecting two
> points
> > from approx 100 mounds,corners at least have
> some
> > common ground .

> Glad you agree that I am not cherry picking since
> I took the corners.

I don't agree that you are not cherry picking . I said "Of course if you take the two extremes of any structure and pretend that they are somehow meant to represent a bearing when it is obvious that there is no intention of any bearing and anyone that imagines there is , is deluding themselves . "


>
> > I already told you "Even if we go along with
> that
> > view and measure from the centre of the two
> > extremes the bearing is still way off the
> great
> > circle that will arrive at Stonehenge " .
> >
> > Measure the azimuth of these two points
> then
> > compare with what is required for a great
> circle
> > to arrive at Stonehenge , subtratct the
> difference
> > and calculate the error.
> > The whole idea is fantastical nonsense but
> going
> > along with the fantasy the best option is to
> take
> > an azimith from the corners , and the centre
> of
> > the mounds at these corners , the whole thing
> is
> > so lopsided any other solution is extreme
> cherry
> > picking .
> I don't have to do all that. Google Earth does it
> for me and the alignment is perfect. If you want
> to do the math yourself , then you have to have
> the coordinates not only of Stonehenge but also
> the coordinates of two stones you are measuring.
> Like I said you need on side satellite
> measurements.

And it's relatively simple .Another problem is that your accuracy is very limited .The lines that you use on the graphic are the width of small town and you coveniently omitted the various bearing for the "alignmnets .
>
> > It is not only miles off it requires to
> change
> > bearing to get to that point that is still
> > wrong .

> See above, perfect alignment, no miles no fathoms,
> nothing.

Provide the bearings and I'll show how you got it wrong .