Comet Impact Biomass Fires

[E.P. Grondine]

First of all, the new Mexican discovery is still another smashing example of how LIDAR is literally lighting up the past. What a revolutionary tool. Overnight LIDAR has revealed a vastly more complex and populated Mayan world, and now this. Fantastic!

Second, at this point, rather then be bored to death by two people smashing each other over the head over the definition of henge, ad infinitum, page after page after page after page, it would probably just be easier to denote what E.P. Is referring to as a "Grondine henge", understand that it is not the same as a henge as classically defined, and just accept it as E.P's working term, so that if there is any argument at all to be advanced, we can at least get past "it's a henge; no it's not; yes it is; no it's not; yes it is; no it's not; yes it is; no it's not". Just seems easier to accept E.P's informal working definition, understand it does not match the formal definition, and get on with it.

Hi shawomet -

Thanks for the acknowledgement, but the word "henge" has been used in the way that I use it long before I ever wrote on them.

We still have the problem of what to call the "stone trees" erected by the ancient lake dwellers in Nicaragua with which they intended to keep the Earth and Sky separate.
tiompan has not provided us with a word for those yet.

Perhaps we can call those henges,
while referring to circular arrangements of henges as "woodhenges"or "stonehenges".

This volcanic eruption may have been the Sun of the Earth, but in any case it should be showing up in the surviving Mixtec proto-historical materials.

[Tiompan]

You can call anything you like a henge , but when it demonstrably not a henge , your error will be pointed out .

[Tiompan]

A partial list ,which you have seen before but have conveniently forgotten about /ignored .
Which also highlights your error or anyone else daft enough to think you may have a point .

https://content.historicengland.org.uk/ ... rcles.pdf/
From page 1 of the text , note “Henges (or henge monuments) are enclosures where, unlike those with a defensive purpose, the ditch lies inside the bank (although this is not the case at early sites like Stonehenge I – even though it gives its name to the type! – or Llandegai A). Some of them enclosed circles of upright timbers or stones, though most such circles are not associated with henge earthworks. “ .
The above was written in 2011 by an eminent archaeologist .

http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/henge.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henge

http://www.digitaldigging.net/henges-or ... ice-versa/

Points out the common error , the same one you have been yoked to for years despite being told often enough where you are getting it wrong . “And what they are not. A common mistake (and an understandable one given the origins of the term) is to confuse a henge monument with the stone or timber circles they sometimes contain (or once contained). Woodhenge, for example, has a henge (Class I), and used to have a timber structure inside the henge. "

Note the exclusion of anything to do with astronomy . Henges are stand alone monuments that sometimes have other monuments associated with them . The vast majority of henges do not have stone or timber circles associated with them nor astronomical alignments for that matter .
Some henges have possible archaeoastronomical features , it is accepted that Stonehenge does , although the majority , having orientations at all points of the compass , have little convincing archaeoastronomical orientations and few are suggested even by the wildest of the alt crowd .

The above are not my definitions they correspond to what anyone who knows about henges accept as the proper definition .

Why should anyone consider a made up definition by you ? Not only do you not know anything about henges or archaeoastronomy exemplified by this "by the way, the Thom's hypothesis about the henges is now established doctrine", you never managed to explain that one either but the definitions are simply wrong and one is doesn't even make sense e.g. “Henge = a large stone or wooden post set in astronomical alignment.“ Lol . Think about it , ,it's like your solstice marker tree , an alignment consists of more than component . If it was plural it is still not a henge , and there is a terminology for them too , which you have also been told of ,over the years. Stop wasting time and space .

[E.P. Grondine]

I do not know how to break this news to you, but what you call a "henge" is usually referred to as a "circular earthwork" over here.

[Tiompan]

Is that your idea of response to showing how your definition of a henge is a long way from the proper definition ? i.e. ,the two components you made up for your definition , timber or stone monuments and an astro alignment are
not part of the real definition .
And never anything from a reliable source to support your fantasy .

Circular earthwork could describe many things .A henge is more than just a circular earthwork , and there are none in the US .

[E.P. Grondine]

Circular earthwork could describe many things. A henge is more than just a circular earthwork , and there are none in the US.

If we use you definition you use, there are many "henges' in North America, which is one of the reasons I do not share your definition of "henge".
We covered this earlier in the section of the discussion titled "Imaginary Celtic Empires in North America".

[Tiompan]

Circular earthwork could describe many things. A henge is more than just a circular earthwork , and there are none in the US.

If we use you definition you use, there are many "henges' in North America, which is one of the reasons I do not share your definition of "henge".

For the umpteenth time , it is not my definition . Unlike you I don't go around making up definitions to suit an agenda .
It's the definition of a henge accepted by anyone who knows about the subject , including countless Americans .

Provide an example , if you can , and I'll show you where you got it wrong .

[E.P. Grondine]

"Henges (or henge monuments) are enclosures where, unlike those with a defensive purpose, the ditch lies inside the bank (although this is not the case at early sites like Stonehenge I – even though it gives its name to the type! – or Llandegai A). Some of them enclosed circles of upright timbers or stones, though most such circles are not associated with henge earthworks. “ ."

Yes, when your type site from which you derive the name does not demonstrate a key feature of your definition then you do have a problem.

But this is YOUR problem, not mine.
In a larger perspective,
I view it as a problem between the locals around Stonehenge and the locals around other henge sites,
in their struggle for the tourist dollars.
The same way I view the debate between Wales and the North resort areas over ownership of Arthur.

Now, one of my problems is people of limited intellect who use intellectually dishonest methods to avoid dealing with hard data,
such as burn layers with high platinum group element levels.
Q.E.D.

Now do you really want to continue to demonstrate this further,
when you have demonstrated it very fully already?

To put your quibling in perspective, another of my problems is that
Friday evening the Ancient Alien folks proposed two novel hypothesis:
first, Aliens used impacts to clear away faulty alien-human hybrids, and
second, aliens provided warnings of impacts.

[Tiompan]

Yes, when your type site from which you derive the name does not demonstrate a key feature of your definition then you do have a problem.

The problem is all yours the common one , you don't understand simple english or take the time to read.
You have never managed to understand the derivation of the name .
Re-read this, attempt to understand and you will see how your comment makes no sense .
"The component henge in Stonehenge probably comes from Old English “hencg “ = hinge or hencen =hang or gallows .
The term Henge was first used by Kendrick in the early 1930's to describe a type of monument , see above for a definition .
Woodhenge was named after Stonehenge and both were named before the term henge was coined . "


Yes the problem is your limited intellect .
Another connected problem is your inability to respond to problems .
You failed as ever to "Provide an example , if you can , and I'll show you where you got it wrong ." That's yet another addition to the new list of failures .

Not only is there no response to the numerous links to the the reputable definition of henge , there is also a failure to respond to those attempts at rationalising the made up by sneaking it into what looks may look like a reasonable comment to the ignorant ,but are obviously gobbledygook : a frequent trope of yours . Others are just fantasy

1)" As the Yuchi festivities were astronomically timed, the archaeologists here define it as a "henge" . When asked to provide evidence to support this made up rubbish you failed .”
2)"This discussion started with Andre Collins' hypothesis that Gobekli Tepe was a henge."When asked to provide evidence to support this made up rubbish you failed .
3)"Any US archaeologgist who does not use the word "HENGE" when talking or writing about a henge site will have the word "Henge" provided to him by his audience or editor." When asked to provide evidence to support this made up rubbish you failed .
4)”I wonder if his ancestors brought henge technology with them. “ When asked to clarify what was meant by the term “henge technology “. A nonsensical made up term , you failed .
5)"by the way, the Thom's hypothesis about the henges is now established doctrine"Why didn't you provide a quote or link to anything reputable /falsifiable that actually supports that nonsensical comment?.Failed again
6)The most recent one "“If we use you definition you use, there are many "henges' in North America, which is one of the reasons I do not share your definition of "henge". “ When asked to provide evidence to support this made up rubbish you failed .
Mentioning aliens , comets and King Arthur are not really responses to the highlighted errors and failures around your fanatasy definition of henge , even you should understand that .
You won't be able to respond to the above . But it won't stop you responding with non sequiturs , bile ,red herrings or even more fantasy .

[E.P. Grondine]

I will concede that I failed to provide you with that colonial account of the timing of Yuchi visits to their henge site,
and clearly that needs to be made more easily accessible.
But given that I have responded to your demands for proofs in depth,
and you are unable to perceive those proofs,
would you stop wasting our time?

What does any of your ramblings have to do with this burn layer, which you can not see either?
You will note that I did not report this burn layer,
so why continue to insult me?

That you can not handle hard data has been well established.
Let me share some images with you from earlier in our discussion:




For comparative purposes:




NOTE ESPECIALLY THE HOLED STONE'S LOCATION AT GOBLEKI TEPE.

NOTE PLAQUE C here especially:



C looks to me to be two sighting stone circles, with a comet shown nearby.

The ant(?) at the bottom may be raising a stone.
This is the first time I have seen an ant(?) symbol in this area.

The obverse of C may represent a meteor storm, the Draconids.

It appears there is disagreement on which ends are up:



That said, the twin pillars had significance for the builders of Gobekli Tepe:

[Tiompan]

I will concede that I failed to provide you with that colonial account of the timing of Yuchi visits to their henge site,

You misunderstood .
1)" As the Yuchi festivities were astronomically timed, the archaeologists here define it as a "henge" . When asked to provide evidence to support this made up rubbish you failed .”
Your comment and failure to provide evidence was nothing to do with colonial accounts .
Read the quote , particularly "archaeologists here define it as a "henge" .That is what you failed to provide evidence for . Further the comment contradicts your own definition .
A festivity, no matter when it takes place , is not a monument . Not only can't you respond to the problem , the quote itself is nonsensical whatever definition of henge is used .

You didn't provide evidence for the other points either and evaded these problems entirely . e.g.
2)"This discussion started with Andre Collins' hypothesis that Gobekli Tepe was a henge."When asked to provide evidence to support this made up rubbish you failed .
3)"Any US archaeologgist who does not use the word "HENGE" when talking or writing about a henge site will have the word "Henge" provided to him by his audience or editor." When asked to provide evidence to support this made up rubbish you failed .
4)”I wonder if his ancestors brought henge technology with them. “ When asked to clarify what was meant by the term “henge technology “. A nonsensical made up term , you failed .
5)"by the way, the Thom's hypothesis about the henges is now established doctrine"Why didn't you provide a quote or link to anything reputable /falsifiable that actually supports that nonsensical comment?.Failed again
6)The most recent one "“If we use you definition you use, there are many "henges' in North America, which is one of the reasons I do not share your definition of "henge". “ When asked to provide evidence to support this made up rubbish you failed

"Mentioning aliens , comets and King Arthur are not really responses to the highlighted errors and failures around your fantasy definition of henge , even you should understand that ."
To that we can add burn layers and more wasted space on pics of the plaques , another of the problems , you evade .

If I have said anything about " hard data "that you can you can refute , provide the quote and do so . As I continually do to your time wasting evasions .
Like waiting for the responses to the lists of your errors , breath won't be held .

[E.P. Grondine]

tiompan,

As your rather complete inability to deal with the data at hand,
this time this burn layer, is already well demonstrated,
one has to wonder why your persist in giving further demonstrations of your psychological disfunction.

[Tiompan]

The data at hand is the list of your errors regarding henges . The one pathetic attempt at a concession only exacerbated ,the error , your desperation and the real root of your problem , an inability to understand simple english .
The psychological disfunction is your inability to handle these facts . Another symptom is returning to the problem only to increase the number of errors .
Any other data , like the multiple errors on other subjects shows the same problem .

Now , if I have said anything about any data provided by anyone that you can you prove to be wrong , feel free to do it , as I constantly do to you .
All that is needed is the quote and a refutation . As in all these other cases breath was never held and there was no meaningful response .
All we ever get is a complete lack of any refutation , evasion of the errors , and a waste of time and space .

[E.P. Grondine]

I was going to write "look, you pretentious limey twit", but I can't believe that all english are as dense as you are.

Not only does your type site for "henge" lack an essential defining charcteristic,
your "wood circles" and "stone circles" are not circles.

And by the way, your henges were not built by Angles or Saxons.

[Tiompan]

The typical response of ignorant alt crowd ,when they can't reply meaningfully to their highlighted errors are highlighted ,they resort to abuse .
Never ever provide examples or quotes , because they can't .

You have been given multiple examples of the definition of a henege as understood by those who know what they are talking about .
The definition , by it's nature contains defining characteristics . Only you could miss that .
The characteristics are nothing like your made up definitions . That is one of the reasons that your made up definitions are nonsense .

Who said stone circles or timber circles were circular ? Some are , some are roughly circular and others are far from circular .
Of course Henges weren't built by Saxons or Angles , who would be so daft as to say that .
That's the type of thing you might say . After all you thought the Yuchi built a henge .