Off Topic

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:58 pm

Digit wrote:Hi Beag, yes, we got that, or that subject at least, and building that hill simply as an obsrvation platform seems a bit OTT. I can accept that the height was so that the other points were visibile for some purpose that we are unaware of, but simply for puposes of coordination seems a little unlikely I would think.
What about you?

Yeah, It seems to be a lot of work for just that one thing. The hill was talked about as a ceremonial structure in its own right. The folks in the show were making the observation that a fire on the hill could easily be seen from a great distance, and they mentioned several pagan sites spread around the hill that, while they could not see a signal from each other, could see one from the hill.

The people that know for sure are long gone.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:12 pm

check the local topography
if they wanted a signal point theres plenty of natural spots that would have done just as well
the site of the west kennet long barrow for instance is on a hilltop ridge and you can see all the same spots from it
Silbury hill is situated for another reason and was made out of chalk blocks brought from uffington which is another high point 8 miles to the north iirc
its not a defensive position because it doesnt protect anything (think Maginot line)
and its not an observation point for the same reasons
now can you think of another reason why a spot might be needed that could be orientated to several henge sites and from which an unparralelled view of the sky above might be neccesary ?
I climbed Silbury during last years vernal equinox
you can see the horizon in all directions
and anything coming over it, which you can't do from the henges because of the local hills

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:18 pm

Absolutely Marduk! I think some pet hobby horses needed exercise and they ran out of ideas, well logical ones at least.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:33 pm

To our friends in the US. An article in today's press says that Blair is expecting to make 100000$ a time for speeches in the States. Is that likely? He wouldn't get a bent Nickel over here.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:41 pm

He will easily get that kind of money over here. Happens all the time.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:51 pm

Well Beag I wouldn't believe any thing he tells you. In his press conference today he informed us the government's figure of 3% inflation was actually 2%, that dismissing nursing staff will improve hospitals etc. The frightening thing is he seems to believe all the BS.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:56 pm

Well Beag I wouldn't believe any thing he tells you.

Trust me, I won't be in the audience.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:59 pm

He'll get that kind of money from the Neo-Cons and those assholes believe any fool thing they are told.....as long as they can get some tax cuts to go along with them!

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:00 pm

We don't even get the tax cuts! Damn it!

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:31 pm

Totally different subject ladies and gentlemen. I have a number of half plate glass plate negatives of an expedition in to Egypt before WW1. Anybody know how to produce prints from these other than by 'wet' photography so that I can send some prints to friends?

stan · Post by **stan** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:42 pm

They can be photographed on a light box (with back lighting).
Best to use a digital camera with close up lens, then use
digital imaging to produce a "positive" image from the negative.
Someone with a little professional experience could do it for you.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:54 am

Hi Stan, I know that route my friend as I collect and repair old cameras. Two probs, no dark room and the ratio of light to dark on these plates is about 20 to 1. When I first printed them, with advise from Ilford films, the contrast on some was so great no modern paper could handle it and 'dodging' etc wasn't feasible because I was contact printing. I was wondering about a scanner and then perhaps some correction on the computer?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:54 pm

you should be able to just scan them straight in
the scanner is a light box
then just reverse the polarity in photoshop and change the tone a little and hey presto perfect prints
if you dont know how to do that Roy send me the scanner copies and ill send you the corrected prints back

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:07 pm

Cheers Marduk, I was hoping something on that line might be pos. Currently my scanner, and my son's, are both US so I'll deal with that later. I'll get back to you if I have to take you up on your kind offer.

stan · Post by **stan** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:47 pm

Here are some interesting photos of a "prehistoric shark" rarely seen alive.
from National Geographic. Maybe this belongs on the evolution thread.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... photo.html