Stonehenge Is Older: You Are All Wrong

A team of experts, led by archaeologist David Jacques of the Open University, have excavated evidence of a settlement near Stonehenge, dating back to 7,500 BC -- which is 5,000 years earlier than previous findings suggested.
The experts have discovered the community that constructed Stonehenge and carbon-dating the material found at the site revealed a continuous occupation of the area between 7,500 BC and 4,700 BC.

It would be nice to contribute with a positive post to the subject area but the whole thing outrages me - because it is the same as what I face every day - you people of the world just keeping rushing me with your constant lies. Every thing you say is dishonest and you stand up for dishonesty with all your being - there is not one ounce of integrity left in this modern day world except for the people like me who are yelling in the wind and not being heard.

How stubborn this world is. You have someone with faith in the mysterious but they just get knocked down over and over again by others for the only reason of being narrow minded. We have such overwhelming evidence of history trying to tell us the truth yet modern day man keeps on stomping it into the ground, completely scarred that truth might enter in to the life of the every day person. It is so ridiculous and pathetic that these people are spiteful enough that they have to lie and fight with the weapon of dishonesty just because they are so selfish they don't want another person to have knowledge. These passionate liars have control over the media and the voice of truth does not get a chance to be heard. I love the creation of the planets and reality, but the cowards of ego in the mainstream world are so darn pitiful for telling us that the truth of history is not the beautiful and amazing reality that it is.

Even this isn't the complete truth, you are going to still have stubborn egotistical arguments based on fragments of stupid idiotic lies being said. The moment that every realizes that everything is a lie will signal that we are finally on the right track. So many are already lost by being taught evil and confiding in it. Nothing we know now is the truth because it was all told to us by liars. That means to have an open mind and not act like a stupid stubborn skeptic who thinks they know everything eventually turning into a delusional hypocrite because there is nothing real to support their ideas.

Here we have a voice in the wind that is not heard about the same subject (a comment to the site releasing the information). An example of how my statements are true and our own species are just obnoxious hateful liars to each other.

I know I wrote a book about it three years ago!! Robert John Langdon

a reply to: greyer

Nice Rant!
How about we post a link so others can see the evidence?
Call it a peer review.

Umm, dude. Relax. Here some archaeologists, using scientific methods, have discovered that the area around Stonehenge has been inhabited longer than previous studies have indicated, and you go on for several paragraphs about being lied to, not providing one speck of insight into that which you quoted?

Kind of an overreaction, but hey, it's your rant and by God you can rant about anything you want to because that's what rants are for!

a reply to: RedmoonMWC

I agree redmoon. What I have read about this particular find is that there is signs of semi-permanent settlements dating this far back. Which is a great find in itself, yet those finds are a mile away from the actual henge so we don't have really any "proof" they built anything to do with stonehenge. But, its a possibility. The guy being referenced is Open University archaeologist David Jacques.

a reply to: greyer

Link ?

there is not one ounce of integrity left in this modern day world except for the people like me who are yelling in the wind and not being heard.

Just because people were living there around 7,500 BC doesn't mean they are the people that built the Henge.

Edit

Working at Vespasian’s Camp in Amesbury, Wiltshire, less than a mile from the megalithic stones, a team led by archaeologist David Jacques of the Open University unearthed material which contradicted the general belief that no people settled there until as late as 2,500 BC.

Indeed, carbon dating of the material revealed the existence of a semi-permanent settlement which was occupied from 7,500 to 4,700 BC. The dating showed that people were present during every millennium in between.

It seems the belief is they built a wooden henge before they built Stonehenge so no Stonehenge isn't as old as you believe.

The researchers believe that the people who settled at Vespasian’s Camp also built the first monument at Stonehenge — large wooden posts erected between the 9th and 7th millennia BC.
news.discovery.com...

I can tell you exactly how old Stonehenge is......It is very old. I can even tell you exactly who built it....people that are long dead.

Does it really have to cost so much to find out exactly who or when? Why can't we just enjoy seeing something built long ago. We are working with theories yet these theories are told to be facts. History has been erased, the builders of Stonehenge could even be much older than that, they could have been adding on or repairing it at that time.

Scientific evidence to view for this?


It's wildly know that the site predates the rocks construction but I honk the construction of the site we see today has been dated and checked time and time again

a reply to: greyer

Aaah. Thank you OP. A most needed rant indeed. Could'nt agree more. Sad to see so many people has totally left their own sense and ability to evaluate "truths"... It seems like "truths" these days HAVE to be something defined by the politically correct "channels"...

Throw this exeption as something to think about regarding truths and "scientific proof". there is surely some misconseption about this...

www.psychologytoday.com...


Peace from Norway.

a reply to: octahedron

Stonehenge Is Older: You Are All Wrong

It seems like "truths" these days HAVE to be something defined by the politically correct "channels"

The truth is the OP is wrong the story isn't about Stonehenge being older than previously thought regardless of the "politically correct channels".

Believing something doesn't make it so.

originally posted by: octahedron
a reply to: greyer

Aaah. Thank you OP. A most needed rant indeed. Could'nt agree more. Sad to see so many people has totally left their own sense and ability to evaluate "truths"... It seems like "truths" these days HAVE to be something defined by the politically correct "channels"...

Throw this exeption as something to think about regarding truths and "scientific proof". there is surely some misconseption about this...

www.psychologytoday.com...


Peace from Norway.

Hey thanks for letting me vent, indeed this is just a rant and I don't stand by my ranting words in the heat of passion. I would agree that this is about every human being that walks the earth, to open our minds and stay away from the power of deceit which seems to linger over like a cloud. I am not against acting unsatisfied in writing over the internet and I am not with believing in all of the fringe researchers who just want to gain a buck, but we have to come together and believe people as a whole because it is not impossible to discover lies. I am just suggesting that the truth could be more amazing that what we were taught.

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Scientific evidence to view for this?

It's wildly know that the site predates the rocks construction but I honk the construction of the site we see today has been dated and checked time and time again

How many pieces of evidence as a whole does a scientist need to make a conclusion of something, 10, 20? Reality in this case relates to this quote 'if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck,'

The wooden posts were so much more likely to prevent damage from what was already there. The way we know that Stonehenge is even older than the Sphinx is because of the same way we know the Sphinx is older than the history books and not originally constructed by the Egyptians - weather erosion.

a reply to: greyer

Nice data, as you know there are modern so called druid groups whom claim it as one of there sacred site's but the celtic culture only entered the british isles about at least 1000 years after the STONE henge was FIRST erected and it's current allignment may not be it's original one as it was actually reconstructed in the 17th century by a wealthy landowner whome found it toppled over and re erected several of the stones and then re mounted the lintal stones, the altair may have actually been a standing stone.
It is a highly contaminated site from an archeaological view so will they ever get to the bottom of it, New grange in ireland is nearly as old and far more spectacular though the stone circles are found right accross western europe and especially france, britain and ireland with Avebury in wiltshire being the largest and believed to have been the most important one of all that we know of.

Having seen the buried standing stones of gobekli tepi though it may even be possible that these stones once had carvings on them.

originally posted by: greyer

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Scientific evidence to view for this?

It's wildly know that the site predates the rocks construction but I honk the construction of the site we see today has been dated and checked time and time again

How many pieces of evidence as a whole does a scientist need to make a conclusion of something, 10, 20? Reality in this case relates to this quote 'if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck,'

The wooden posts were so much more likely to prevent damage from what was already there. The way we know that Stonehenge is even older than the Sphinx is because of the same way we know the Sphinx is older than the history books and not originally constructed by the Egyptians - weather erosion.

No, that's wrong. The sphinx has been eroding very quickly, the rock is soft and basically the claims it's older are all BS and well debunked by actual geologists and archaeologists. You should check out the Halls of Maat site to see exactly why Schoch was wrong.

Prior to the Neolithic there was nothing but hunter gatherer settlements in the Nile. I'm very well accquainted with the Nile archaeological sequence, before the arrivial of Asian farmers 7,000 bp there's nothing but little wooden huts, some nice glazed pots back to 10,000 bp, and older than that stone tools back to the deepest levels where hominid remains are no longer modern humans..

a reply to: LABTECH767

It is a highly contaminated site from an archeaological view so will they ever get to the bottom of it

That's very well stated.

I happen to think the site may be even older than is indicated in the OP. We'll never know for sure at this point. In that light, I agree with this rant wholeheartedly. Sometimes I just want to force-feed a knuckle sandwich to these so-called scientists whose credentials are worth as much as a liberal arts degree.

There have been settlements around the area far pre-dating Stonehenge itself, but there's little doubt in my mind that Stonehenge and Avebury Stone circle were connected in the ancient past.

Having visited both and photographed them (see my avatar), the Wiltshire area is replete with ancient excavations (ditches), barrows, mounds (Silbury Hill not far from Avebury), and wood henges (one just around the corner from Stonehenge itself).

To visit Stonehenge itself today is a tourist nightmare with visitors from all over the world in a constant circular stream around the henge. I had to wait nearly 30 mins to capture the photograph I use as my avatar so there were no people in it. The original picture is 78mb.

Between Stonehenge and Avebury is the White Horse carved into the chalk hill side. Obviously, with Stonehenge itself, they cannot accurately date it as very little organic detritus has been discovered for carbon dating, you cannot carbon date stone.

The settlement was massive. Stonehenge was just a small part of it, and they believe there is an avenue that led the way towards Avebury, which is well worth a visit.

The stone circles that exist throughout the British Isles are very interesting indeed. I cannot believe that they were erected by different peoples and tribes that did not share similar ideologies and belief systems. The circles are just too similar in construction. They certainly pre-date Christianity by thousands of years, and there were a lot more than you have read about, and that are not mentioned in the books.

Where I live - North West of England - there are the remains of 5 separate stone circles, one of which is called 'Hoarstones' in Fence, you won't have heard of these. I believe that in Britain's ancient past there was once a people that lived all over the British Isles and were the builders of these stone constructions, but I have no evidence for this but the circles themselves.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Silbury hill is perhaps even more enigmatic and the closes thing to a pyramid that we know of in britain though construction of the hill fort's moved often even more soil and rock, there was a theory that the stone and it's adjacent wood henge formed part of a funerary rite for the deceased and the white horse like the man carved from the chalk may actually be of Roman origin though that also is just a theory as is the one linking the man to hercules (Though in that case they are almost identical) and like much later victorian regiment's whom also carved there regimental badge into the hill's it is possible that they were the mascott of roman soldiers.
It is beautiful down there is'nt it.