4,000 years old Stonehenge rebuilt and less than 50 years old?

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Ridiculous! In 1889, my Welsh g-grandparents visited Stonehenge and Glastonbury. Both were there....




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I wouldn't go so far to call it a facsimile, they haven't made anything up or added anything to the site which wasn't there. All the restorations did was to right some stones that had toppled. They are in the right place as they should be and using the exact same stones that whoever built the site used.

It's no different to the Colosseum in Rome, or the Parthenon in Greece or any number of ruins dotted around Europe for that matter, of which many were either restored or otherwise made "safe" so people could go and view them.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   

stumason
reply to post by rickymouse
 


No it isn't assembled "wrong" - most of the stones were as they are now, but with some of them having toppled. It is relatively easy to see how they fit together from markings, shape etc, much like fossils are put back together..

As for the restorations, as some have said it is hardly a secret and had sod all to do with the military. Not really sure what the OP's point is.


I agree. I think they did a great job "RESTORING" it. Notice the use of the word "restore". They only put stones back where they belonged. They did not add any new stones to make up for the stones that had gone missing.

Like a rollin' stone...



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I am sorry, but how do people not know this? The 50's were a while ago but they weren't the dark ages. Come on, other than very, very young people who have not had a chance to experience much yet who the heck is not aware of this?

Have I officially become an old fart?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Boy did Ancient Aliens get that one wrong.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


Yes....


I think it's more down to people not bothering to educate themselves



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



I wouldn't go so far to call it a facsimile, they haven't made anything up or added anything to the site which wasn't there.


Actually.. I would. I would say anything spiritually significant about placement, order or alignment was compromised if not thrown off by the rebuilding from bare and cleared ground ..as at least one photo there shows the site prior to the reconstruction of what used to be.

Have you ever been to Knotts Berry Farm in California? A piece of trivia...if you weren't aware of it. The "ghost town" that forms the original core of the park isn't made from the hardware store. Not originally anyway. It was the Faithfully disassembled, carefully tagged and numbered to the last board, reconstruction of a Ghost Town from the California desert.

They claim that isn't a replica...and in some ways, they're right. It isn't. Replica would suggest fabricating the material too. They didn't..and Stonehenge apparently didn't either.

However, neither are authentic. For a tourist ghost trap? Who cares...it's neat. In the case of a location of great spiritual meaning and deep connection to many on this planet? It MATTERS. A LOT.

I can't explain it better if that doesn't capture the issue.. I guess we'll call it a Faith thing I can't communicate better.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


Kinda jealous that you live by these sites.. Would be very cool indeed to live in that area. One of the big reasons I love ATS is this kind of personal reporting from people that live in the locals being reported on or talked about. So thanks for that, and the picture!! After your first reply I said to myself it would be cool if you posted a picture of one of those sites you talked about.. and than lol Very nice.

Great OP as well, I also did not know of the extent of rehab done to the site over the past century.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It wasn't bare clean ground though - not sure where you got that from. All the stones were in situ and have been since the place was constructed all those years ago. That photo you're alluding too, someone pointed out it wasn't real/faked. There are first hand accounts of people going back centuries describing the site and the stones.

19th Century Painting showing the stones in situ, albeit a bit fallen over.

William Stukely was an artist from the 17th/18th century who did engravings of the site

EDIT: That picture of bare, clean ground in the OP is not actually even the Stonehenge site. I am not sure where it is, but it isn't Stonehenge. The OP should remove it as it is misleading and technically perpetuating a hoax.
edit on 22/12/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by toepick
 


You are so welcome. Sorry for just the one.

One time I will do a thread with a few of the pictures and some history around them.

There are some very good ones that are still very intact. The one I cycle to is in not very good shape these days, but I like it because there is a real atmosphere about the place.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000

the rebuilding from bare and cleared ground ..as at least one photo there shows the site prior to the reconstruction of what used to be.





I'm pretty sure at no point whatsoever was the ground "cleared bare" and then all the stones put back in formation??

Utterly ridiculous.

The OP is just insane...it makes out that they cleared everything and rebuilt it, which is pure bollocks.
This is the problem when people don't actually have a clue, they just read the OP, don't read any posts to why it's BS and then go and parrot it around


A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
edit on 22/12/13 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Indeed they do...

It does seem that a lot of my time on ATS is spent countering ill thought out posts and erroneous information these days, rather than finding out anything new or interesting. You also know when you've been here too long when you see the same stuff pop up periodically and you have to counter the same bollocks over and over...



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



Absolutely mate.

They say that there's a sucker born every minute, well we have about 10 a day registering on ATS.

*sigh*



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Well, it's entirely possible that I've missed something.



Has that photograph from the OP been determined to be a fabrication? If so..where is that a photograph of, if not what is presented?

Again..If I screwed up here by not reading every message and replying to an OP, as I sometimes do when it looks well built or self evident, I'll be happy to admit that and move on.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think it would be impossible to say unless you knew the site in the photo personally - I tried to see on the website it was on what the filename was of the pic, but that didn't yield any clues but I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that is NOT Stonehenge - I have been there several times and driven past it even more and the landscape doesn't look right.

EDIT: As an added proof of the stones standing there before the restoration, there is an etching in Benjamin Martin’s Natural History of England, which was printed in 1759:

Etching - c 1759
The Book itself - the date is in Roman numerals, MDCCLIX, which is 1759.
edit on 22/12/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Some further research leads me to believe that the photo shown as "Stonehenge bare" is actually a photo of something else entirely, namely a Disc Barrow, which is a burial mound and plenty of them exist throughout Southern England and indeed, near Stonehenge itself. I haven't the time to identify the exact one in the image, but I am sure given long enough I will be able too....



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
You do realize pretty much every historic site has been restored at one point or another, right? It's not secret at all.

When I was taking a tour of the pyramids in Mexico, they discussed all the restorations that went into each site. Nature just has a way of reclaiming abandoned buildings, especially those in the jungle.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


The fossils thing probably wasn't the best illustration, they have gotten that wrong MANY times...Think Brontosaurus....lol

Jaden



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Well, I guess it's only fair that it's been rebuilt. Talk about getting a hands on look at the place. I've wondered about this before, and pondered the possibility that they may have placed a few stones incorrectly, giving us an erroneous concept of its purpose. However, I'm sure it was blatantly obvious about the position of the stones, given its simplistic design.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by skyblueworld
 


I thought it was widely known that Stonehenge was "fixed". And I thought that was one of the reasons why we marvel today at what they did back then with bare hands. Like putting the stones on top of each other. (Something that we had to do with modern machinery.)





top topics
 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join