SH Archive Was Stonehenge rebuilt, or constructed in 1954?

SH.org OP Username
KorbenDallas
SH.org OP Date
2018-03-23 07:13:16
SH.org Reaction Score
110
SH.org Reply Count
110
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-12-12 05:48:34
Reaction Score: 1
In my understanding that is the work in process. They will make these holes deeper. There are too many photographs to study out there.

stone 7.jpg
stone 7-1.jpg
I am not sure what water we are talking about here. And obviously I can be entirely wrong about everything and this is just a small reconstruction involving the removal of approximately 30% of the entire monument.

I'm done for tonight. May be some other forum members will have an opinion to voice.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: 0harris0
Date: 2019-12-12 05:52:00
Reaction Score: 2
this page has a "reconstructed" depiction from 1725, and a 1906 aerial photo to start with... and sooooo much information about what's been done there.

feel free to give it a read. just because they give you mainstream dating it doesn't mean what they've discovered didn't happen.
also looks to me like there was no stone raising in 1954, just digs. stone raising seems to have happened in 1919/20, 1958 and 1964.
i can walk you through every phase of photography and reconstruction.
1853-tall, thin stone has a lean, the foreground "n" of 3 stones is standing:
stoney.jpg
1906, supposedly- 2 of those previous 3 stones have fallen. no other changes.
stonehenge-research-023.jpg
1924 - the tall, thin stone has been uprighted. a few more were straightened up (i think the outer "n" behind centre ones, judging by photos)
Stonehenge-aerial-July1924.jpg
1958- starting work to raise the (now standing) 5 other stones (bottom left in above pic)
photo link
1964, it looks like they tried to raise a large flat stone, which is still on the ground today...
photo link

pretty chronological, pretty explanatory. where the mystery at?!

would really like to get back to the juicy questions... the who, why, how, what, where and whens! ;)
[and a bonus "wtf happened between 1853 and 1906?" ]
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-12 15:19:49
Reaction Score: 3
In the 50'-60's rebovation reconstruction event stones were taken 'off site' for 'repairs and replacements' which included rock drilling, installing hidden steel bolts, recarving brand new sockets for a lintel or two due to a'twisting' of the pair of uprights. They twisted away from each other and the fallen lintels sockets were 'too shallow' (bloody jerry builders back when this thing was assembled!) and one of the uprights was damaged to the point it couldn't support the weight of the lintel.
No mention of how it could support the same lintel with a socket ina different place.
Some of the stones are three or four feet into the ground one is eight feet in. Most of the stones are of unknown depth.
Why weren't the twin uprights simply 'loosened in their sockets and repacked in their 'original positions?
Cannot recall which particular stone ground socket was excavated in the 20's but they 'found' two coins, one 'roman' one 'georgian' and as they lifted the stone out they found a pair of 'antler picks' right in the bottom underr a multi tonne stone. Strong stuff these antlers.
These were subsequebtly radiocarbon dated between 3340-2910 cal BC..
Amazing truly amazing.

The leap of imagination is then made that these incredibly hard antlers (sat between chalk and bluestone are evidence of the build date. Coblers is the only response to that, to me always to me.
I cannot imagine the effort involved in hacking out an eight foot deep or a four foot deep slot even in chalk with an antler pick. Only room for one or at most two men swinging picks in these slots.

I've had lots of stonehenge sites open and closed and clearly I have closed the one that has all of the above information so no link. Will add it in when it resurfaces.

It came out of a search for the Antrobus connection and the spooky 'lawyer' (why is it always a bloody lawyer involved in 'recent history' and always a bloody catholic in 'ancient history'?) Chubb who shelled out £6500 at auction in 1918 (said to be the equivalent of a million pounds in today's currency) because he though "a local man should own it" only to hand it over within a couple of years to "the nation". Makes no sense,

Here's a site well worth a read. Silent Earth: Restorations at Stonehenge
And another Parishes: Amesbury | British History Online
And a third. A new Medieval view of Stonehenge

This thing was of zero yes zero importance to the 'private' owners who were buying and selling the lan around it over the centuries, at least as far as my digging into them is concerned.

Finally for now a 'great storm on new years eve 1797 (if memory serves) blew a lintel down that broke in two when it fell in another smaller stone sending bits over eight feet away. Bloody strong wind or maybe an upright was a 'bit wobbly' in its socket. Another storm in 1900 blew down another upright standing stone.
Other elements which have taken down stones are water which 'washed out the fill' and ice which did its magic to the water and split the fill to loosen the stone, apparently. It's a wonder to me how any of them managed to stay upright under such an onslaught.
And another thing if antlers were tough enough to carve out chalk what the hell was tough enough to create flat surfaces, sockets, tenons and tongues on blue and sarsen stones?
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: 0harris0
Date: 2019-12-13 11:20:07
Reaction Score: 0
but just enough photos to use some out of context to try and prove a point?
what 30% supposedly was removed, and where did you get this information? is it verifiable?

@jd755 , cheers for the links!

in the photo set from 1958, the only stones i see being lifted onto trailers are previously fallen stones... definitely see the fallen lintel block (the one which is still up in 1853, presumably the stones that "blew down" [haha] in 1900) being lifted from the ground. hard to tell if they took one of those fallen uprights, but it sure doesn't appear that they dismantled any of the already standing stones or lintels!

says they were found in the ditch (from one of your links) -
"Cuttings C41 and C42 across Segment 98 of the henge ditch. Two antlers found at the bottom of C42 (seen in this image) gave calibrated radiocarbon dates of 3340-2910 cal BC."

anyways,
The whole private landowners not giving a shit thing always baffles me, but so do things like entire mansion estates being sold off (house included) to be razed and turned into a housing estate... makes me think the rich are generally fkin clueless, oblivious and ignorant about history and truth. the money-obsessed bubble is a tough one to pop!
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2019-12-13 18:46:52
Reaction Score: 0
So this article and a few others are going around. It purports they have now found the oldest known photograph of Stonehenge. Thoughts?

stonehenge.jpg
An 1875 photograph of a family dressed in finery enjoying a day out at Stonehenge may be the earliest such snap taken at the monument.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-13 19:04:39
Reaction Score: 1
You need to read a fair few sites to get a handle on the removals. The damaged but repairables were lifted out onto transporters and taken to a work area off to 'the side' of stonehenge, the bluestones were dug out, lifted out and taken to a nearby storage site to allow the cranes access to lift the sarsens uprights and lintels.
Yes they found more antlers in the box cuts and some in holes the 'experts' cannot explain what if anything the holes held.
Antrobus was the only private owner who made money from them by putting up a fence and charging visitors. This apparently was used to pay for the guides and the resetting of a leaning upright stone or two.

Should we have some pictures?
Yes why not. All taken from the Historic England online archives. Their description in black my comments, for what they are worth in red.
What are we really looking at here?
Those three stones all allegedly once connected look equally weathered on all the visible faces. Of it fell in 1740 and broke then surely the newly exosed, in 1740, faces should show much less weathering than the 'first cut' faces dating back to 2900 BC.


P51564.jpg
View from the interior of the monument looking north-west. The broken upright stone 59 (in three pieces) of a trilithon fell before 1740. Its surviving companion upright (stone 60) is behind and part of the shattered lintel to the far right.
How does one date a carving and when were question marks actually written like this?

P51563.jpg
Detail of a carving on the fallen lintel, stone 156, of the central or great trilithon. The carving, which is in the form of a question mark with the initial LV within the loop, was according to Atkinson cut by an itinerant workman c.1829.
How did the original carvers/masons get such a mass of stone removed to leave this tenon behind. Antler picks?
Unique to Stonehnge eh, I'll bet they are.


P50014.jpg
Detail of the top of stone 56 showing a flattened surface and tenon that once supported a lintel. Tenons and mortices are commonly but uniquely seen on the stones at Stonehenge. Some of the Aubrey Holes appear as white discs beyond the stone.
Where is the wear on hese things?
And the state of preservation being in the ground for so long, amazing truly amazing.


P50405.jpg
View showing excavated fragments of red deer antler picks. Picks like these were used to dig the ditches which form the earliest components of Stonehenge, around 2950BC. At this time, available metal tools were not robust enough for such a task.
How did they shae the end of this stone that went into the ground without snapping it?

P51947.jpg
Bluestone 69 of the the Bluestone Horseshoe being temporarily removed during work to re-erect Trilithon stones 57 and 58
This sis stunning machine work. We are looking att the bit that goes in the ground how did anyone prior to the advent of machine tools achieve such a sharpness and why bother when the blustone up the page is as rough as arseholes by comparison.
Even allowing for the 'smooting effect' of the plasterr shroud if that is what it is, why its covered thus isn'tt explained.
Even the tennon work up the page is rubbish compared to this. What are they 'putting back', original or replacement?


P50529.jpg
Lifting fallen trilithon stone 58. In order to protect nearby fallen bluestone 42, railway sleepers were placed over it during the lifting process.
Not sure what is going on here in this 1901 photograph.

aa80_6439.jpg
Stonehenge seen during Professor Gowland's excavation and restoration in 1901. Many of the Sarsen stones had become unstable; one huge upright stone is being supported by a wooden frame in this photograph.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Starmonkey
Date: 2019-12-13 19:22:08
Reaction Score: 1
Must feel empowering to fabricate history and dupe people out of their money. Just like most of the major charities out there. Lies to separate the gullible from their scrip.
I'm sure most of the past of the "wild, wild west" is just that way. Stereotypes and hypes of fancy.
We found out the cliff dwellings of Manitou Springs near Colorado Springs was just that. A big hoax.
The true history would be DEATH to the industry and ESTABLISHMENT. Massacres, bloodshed, massacres, enslavement...
You're FIRED!
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-14 11:15:08
Reaction Score: 1
From here; Interpreting Stonehenge in the 17th Century
One of the most influential seventeenth-century interpretations of Stonehenge was put together by the famous architect Inigo Jones.

He is remembered today as England’s first major architect in the classical style: you can see the Banqueting House that he designed for Charles I on Whitehall. Charles was later executed in front of that very building.

It might come as a surprise, given all that we now know about Stonehenge, to learn that Inigo Jones declared it to be a Roman building. In fact, he even asserted that he knew exactly what the ruin had once looked like, and that he could therefore decode its meaning precisely. Like Hooke, he tried to draw the building as it once had been – not as it appeared to his own eyes. Here is one of his most important drawings:


inigo2.jpg
Plate 2 from Inigo Jones, The most notable Antiquity of Great Britain Vulgarly called STONE-HENG on Salisbury Plain. Restored by INIGO JONES Esquire, Architect Generall to the late KING, edited by John Webb (London, 1655).

For Jones, this drawing of the ground plan of Stonehenge as it must once have been was a key piece of evidence proving its Roman origins. This was because it demonstrated – if his reconstruction was correct – that the inner circle of stones formed a hexagon.

‘the Scheam also by which this work Stoneheng formed, was an Architectonicall Scheam used by the Romans.’
inigo3.jpg
That looks to me to be the 'thing' that inspuired the memorialt o some dead men on this thread; 1918-1929: USA, Maryhill Stonehenge. WW1 Memorial?

Another article about Inigo Jones and his Roman Stonhenge; Inigo Jones and the Ruins of Stonehenge

American visitors during WW2 Yanks at Stonehenge

From here; Silent Earth: Restorations at Stonehenge
The modern story of restorations at Stonehenge begins in 1880 when the site was surveyed by William Flinders-Petrie, who also established the numbering system for the stones that is in use to this day. The very first documented intervention to prevent stone collapse at Stonehenge happened in 1881 and is described here by Simon Banton. In 1893, the Inspector of Ancient Monuments determined that several stones were in in danger of falling and he was subsequently proved correct when stone 22 collapsed in a New Year’s Eve storm on 31 December 1900. The stone remained intact and was not damaged, but lintel-122 broke into two pieces with such a shock that a fragment was found 81 ft away. They were the first stones to fall since 1797 (after a rapid thaw succeeded a hard frost) and, as the guardian of the site was ill at the time, Sir Edmund Antrobus paid for a police constable to keep sightseers in order.

My god why only one stone down, stone 22, in a storm that followed hard frost and rapid thaw. Cannot imagine that this was a uique weather line up since the stones were erected and why only one stone?

‘The most dangerous and intricate piece of work to be undertaken was the raising to an upright position of the great monolith called the Leaning Stone, the king of the mystic circle and the largest in England, Cleopatra’s needle excepted. This stone was one of the uprights of the great trilithon which stood behind the Altar Stone, and the Duke of Buckingham is said to have caused its fall by his digging and researches in 1620. The fallen upright is broken in two pieces and its lintel lies, as it fell, across the Altar stone.’

Bloody aristocrats disregarding "a wonder of the ancient world" again.

Excavations were made both in front of and behind the leaning stone 56 and its fallen and broken partner stone 55. A Roman coin (a sestertius of Antonia) and a George III penny were found (at a shallow depth), and many chippings of both the blue and the sarsen stones. Numerous flint axe-heads and large stone hammers (weighing from 37 to 64lbs) were also found at a depth of from 2 feet to 3 feet, 6 inches. A pick of deer antler was found close to the bottom of one of the holes. Interestingly, a stain of bright green (the colour of corroded bronze) marked a sarsen block seven feet down. Lady Antrobus also observed that animal bones had been found.

All the 'right' implements concurrent with the historical theory narrative operating then and now. They could just as easily have been thrown in as fill on previous preservation efforts which are undocumented or when that Marquis was poking around.

Stone 56 is just short of 30ft long and more than 8 ft of it was embedded in the ground, originally holding the lintel 21 feet above the ground. Its partner, stone 55, was only 25 feet long and had to be held in place with a little over 4 feet of its base set in chalk.

Bit haphazard in their 'original building' as regards foundation sockets and their choice of stones to pair. Seems from the above that the original buiilders simply found these stones lying on or in the ground (stone pile stonnage?) and didn't quarry them but 'worked them with flints and antlers, apparently. One would think the chips of flint blue and sarsen stone would make an excellent back fill into the sockets as it would act as gravel aka be stable in the ground and allow the water to drain easily into the porus chalk around and under the socket.

The more I read the more fantastical the tale becomes.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-12-14 19:17:03
Reaction Score: 2
I am not sure where the info about Ambrosius Aureliaunus originally came from, but below is a small excerpt from this 1778 England's Gazetter.

stonehenge-1.jpg
This Ambrosius guy was buried under the Stonehenge in 500 AD. We do not know when this 500 AD happened, for the person responsible for us counting years in this manner, Joseph Justus Scaliger, was not born until 1540 AD.

Ambrosius, if he ever existed, was one of the Last of the Romans. These "Last Romans" could as well be the last Gods, or demi-Gods. That is in my opinion, of course, but in the images they all look like revered Giants. Scythian hats and auras add to the confusion.

VergiliusRomanusFolio100v.jpg
Just thinking that if there was a Giant "Ancient" ruler buried under the Stonehenge, and the stones themselves were engineered to have medicinal values, and were a part of some ancient treatment facility, TPTB would have taken advantage of it. I do not believe the place could avoid getting "raped".

Additional Reading: Stonehenge and Avebury. (1866 opinion on Stonehenge.)

At this point I think that Stonehenge was frivolously dated (archaeologists believe) to 3,000 BC. Using the dating approach, they could date it to 30,000 BC if they wanted. Whatever was really buried under the stones was removed by our current powers in the beginning of the 20th century. Some, if not most of the stones were replaced with replicas.

Based on what I have seen so far, 10-15th century AD would be a very generous construction date for the construction of the Stonehenge.

And the thing that makes me wonder the most:
  • Why did ruins need restoration? Ruins are ruins, and if they wanted to preserve their authentic antique state, they would never repair a broken structure to a differently looking state of a broken structure.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: HollyHoly
Date: 2019-12-14 19:53:46
Reaction Score: 0
I have whole thesis about these so called 'healing sites" hint >not for the average Joe, they don't care a thing about healing you. I guess there are lidar views of a whole complex underneath this thing ,soooo that would be why we have the hype about our antler pick ancient stone mystery circle, it's all about sequestering the site so as not to disturb the healing /resurrection spell , Geomantic energy they need to feed off of because vampires are like that. I'll make a prediction that if it were dug you would find a huge deposit of human remains Paris Catacomb style cause thats the pattern thats how TVTB roll.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-14 20:07:06
Reaction Score: 1
Reading through the articles on the silentearth site it becomes clear 'they' haven'tt a clue and indulge in make it up thinking, they being the 'experts'.
However out of it and the blue came this image. Said to be Salisbury plain in 1888 but to me its a dead ringer for the Crimea.

2014-07-18-11.01.32-800x479.jpg
Lady Antrobus of Amesbury Abbey captured the above stunning image on 12 September 1872, which is taken from her personal scrapbook. The location is below Beacon Hill on Salisbury Plain, which is now Bulford camp.
And another odd image. This time from here; Stone 156

There is an enigmatic piece of graffiti carved into the middle of the eastern face, that is the face that would have been the underside of the lintel when it was in position in the Great Trilithon.
It's somewhat in the form of a question mark (?) with the letters LV in the upper left.
In about 1880, G.E. Robinson made a rubbing of this graffiti:


H.H. Robinson's ~1880 Tracing of Stone 156 Graffiti.jpg
Looks to me to be a sickle shaped object though that doesn't explain the ring on the long bit.

sickle.jpg

Perhaps it's actually a depiction of a latch like this.

eye.jpg
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: HollyHoly
Date: 2019-12-14 20:50:46
Reaction Score: 1
could be Crimea? but check this out what the heck is going on ?Second Henge bigger than the first Henge this article is from 2015 but how about this quote from the article?? so I guess that's just what you do on Salisbury plain! You rearrange rocks willy nilly, all the time, for all eternity and for no reason or because you decided to worship the Sun instead of rocks?? or because the vampires are constantly tweeking their resurrection tech ??
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-14 21:13:17
Reaction Score: 0
The 'source' is The Daily Mail whose peoples reputaion for honesty and integrity is none existent. It along with wikiwakipedia people are the bullshit department.
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-12-14 21:16:00
Reaction Score: 1
They probably report more truth than more reputable likes of BBC and CNN.

 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: HollyHoly
Date: 2019-12-14 21:26:08
Reaction Score: 0
Digital Journal is The Daily Mail?? I didnt know
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-15 09:24:20
Reaction Score: 1
I meant THE source od the story not the website.
Speaking of the new stone construction, the Mail Online quotes Professor Vince Gaffney, from the University of Bradford, who said;
Although as for the digitaljournal company...
When a corporations people describe it as "a global citizen journalist news hub in 2006." instead of saying they are a curated news wire hub then I lose interest.
The mail online actually has a page of rolling news wire feed on its site so Tommy Lee Jones, or rather whoever put those wordss in his mouth, may be onto something who knows. I know we have to voluntarily take part in 'their system' so maybe publishing what they are going to do or doing in a publication somewhere on earth is vital but unless their words get translated into every language on earth it seems a bit hit and miss.

I'm currently going through Historic England report on Stonehenge, 444 pages in a pdf on a 7 inch screen may take some time, and it deals with the periods of renovations/restorations. up to 1939.
I'm at the 1881 efforts and will copy and paste the bits I feel are relevant to this discussion when I get to the end of the 1881 part.
Have a read yourself, if anyone is so inclined.

Restoring' Stonehenge 1881-1939
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: HollyHoly
Date: 2019-12-15 18:12:59
Reaction Score: 0
no matter what source sources or experts (if there are any) you consult you will discover that people have tinkering with these rocks since time began and maybe THAT is "The Stonehenge Mystery" that and whatever is under them?
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: 0harris0
Date: 2019-12-16 19:14:33
Reaction Score: 0
about 22 years too late ;) [its claimed to be the oldest "family photo" @ the henge]
what on earth are all these people supposed to be doing here?! there's not alot around in Salisbury plain :unsure:
 
Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-12-16 20:41:36
Reaction Score: 0
Watching military manouvers according to the site.
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.
Back
Top