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

page: 3
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by skyblueworld
 


The photo without stones is a hoax .. this thread should be pulled IMO.

As others said the stones were rearranged in the 19 century / early twentieth century - but they have been there for 1000s of years. [ this is common knowledge BTW].




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

stumason
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



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)


Yes exactly - well said. Very misleading thread by OP.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

stumason
reply to post by Leonidas
 


Yes....


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


Oh come on now. Learning about Stonehenge being restored is hardly vital education.

As for the thread, I don't think it matters too much. I'd rather see an authentic restoration to see how things used to be rather than some rocks laying on the ground... people say that they've somehow ruined it, that it's changed everything, but how is leaving some fallen rocks more accurate?



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Well I will come forward and admit that I too am one of the idiots whom, purely by happenstance, has never throughout my lifetime happened to have come across this information in any form retained within those memory banks accessible by my conscious self. In defence of us Non-Knowers of The Sacred Information...
...It appears this information was dropped from the guidebook in the 60s and perhaps the official guidebook was where many other places got their key "bullet point" information from which might explain why many articles, publications, TV shows etc., created after "the sixties", may not have included this information. And while I admit I have never done any serious research on Stonehenge, I have seen it mentioned in a lot of places, both conspiratorial and purely academic, and other, and I have not seen it mentioned. I'm almost sure it wasn't mentioned in any of my schoolbooks but I could have forgotten.

Anyway, one thing I really wonder about is what made them fall over in the first place? Maybe someone already figured it out, like I said I personally have not studied it in depth. From examining diagrams of how the stones were placed when found as well as the stones themselves,, maybe it can be determined if it was perhaps an earthquake or intentionally done by a human.

I wonder if someone could figure out how strong of an earthquake it would take to do the damage surveyed. Or maybe someone decided it was evil and got a team of horses and some rope... or...or...maybe it was the giants. The same ones who built them... in a fit of rage they knocked down the stones after one too many meager sacrifices, or missed altogether sacrifices from the humans who grew weary of the giants demands or perhaps were simply unable to fulfill them with the time, energy and resources available... of course I'm also open to the idea of just one lone giant as is the case in some legends.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by skyblueworld
 


This was all part of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882 which followed vigorous campaigning by the Antiquarian Society. Not so successful until the Amendment in 1913. See this link....

Historic Preservation

There has actually been a very interesting series on this recently on BBC4 - at least interesting to those us that way inclined! For those who wish to look for it, it is called "Heritage: The Battle for Britains Past".

For all those sites saved, countless number have been lost including other henges. A lot of the monasteries that are still around are only there because the remaining walls were hollowed and then had cement poured in to keep them upright - a crude but effective method that has allowed us to remain enjoying such places to this day.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by 3n19m470
 


Stones were disappearing from all sorts of historical sites, including Stonehenge for things like building work. Also, back then, the sites were all owned by Private landowners who had absolutely no duty of care towards such monuments.

It is because of the active work of the members of the Antiquarian Society that these issues came to the public consciousness and for that i wholeheartedly applaud them.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
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.


All those images that appear on the Russian site are ripped off from the English Heritage site

www.english-heritage.org.uk...

The image posted that has been completely misrepresented by the Russian website is at Stonehenge but part of a circular bank enclosing Stonehenge. See image caption quoted.

English Heritage image link


English Heritage.NMR
Reference Number: P51423

Caption: View to the south showing a section of the circular bank which encloses Stonehenge. Constructed from chalk around 3000 - 2920BC, the bank would have originally have been gleaming white, and visible across the surrounding countryside.
Photographer: R J C Atkinson Date Taken: 1953


I kid you not there is even a thread on GLP that is claiming that they are images from the files of the KGB! Are people that gullible! I guess they are as you only have to do an image search to see how far the completely misrepresented images and story has gone.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The following link should take you to an English Heritage thumbnail page showing the images ripped off on the Russian website.

Scroll through the pages and click on them for the captions. The compiler of the Russian website can't even get the dates correct. Some of the images are from 1964.

English Heritage Thumbnail Link



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I only learned about this a year or so ago and felt massive disappointment when I found out it was rebuilt. I never thought it was a magical or spiritual place...but definitely cool. When I heard that it had been rebuilt and wasn't original I lost all interest in it.

I don't know why they felt the need to rebuild it...hell, let's throw some drywall onto the pyramids to spruce them up.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Nowyouseeme
 


It is original though, as it has been pointed out by other members, all that has been done is the stones tidied up and put back into place.

Nothing has been added to it, nothing removed (at least by the people restoring it).



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 



I kid you not there is even a thread on GLP that is claiming that they are images from the files of the KGB! Are people that gullible! I guess they are as you only have to do an image search to see how far the completely misrepresented images and story has gone.


Well, you could look at people as gullible, or you could consider that some simply don't have the time to spend even 5-10 minutes on every story to backtrace, fact check and investigate the OP.

I appreciate your clarifying this though and that's always helpful to have other facts brought to consider. Thanks for your addition on that.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Nowyouseeme
I only learned about this a year or so ago and felt massive disappointment when I found out it was rebuilt. I never thought it was a magical or spiritual place...but definitely cool. When I heard that it had been rebuilt and wasn't original I lost all interest in it.

I don't know why they felt the need to rebuild it...hell, let's throw some drywall onto the pyramids to spruce them up.


That's right the current Stonehenge is made of plaster and paper mache, surely everyone new this? I'm joking, of course it wasn't, STONEHENGE WAS NOT REBUILT. All they did was lift back up a few stones and cleaned it, they helped make it the world famous monument it is today.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
who knocked that stuff down, anyway?

seems liked you'd need some muscle.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 


It's been up for a few millennia, so weather and human activity over the centuries will move even the biggest rocks. Anyway, most of the larger stones were still standing anyway, it was just the top one's which had toppled off.





new topics
 
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join