Stonehenge created in 1900?

[belboid]

Bit fucking unnecessary wasn't it?

no

 

[xes]

Bit fucking unnecessary wasn't it?

That's what you get though, when you question anything. Stupid cunts who think that if they shout the loudest, they win.

Belend isn't exactly know for its niceness though. the cuntoid.

 

[belboid]

What evidence?

I have no doubt you have read all the surveys carried out on the stones ovr the last couple of decades, surveys that have finely dated when they were placed where they were, their original configuration and the stones that are now missing. You obviously wouldn't do anything as silly as basing your view on somethng you read on one shitty website

 

[moon]

do your own research. I saw a history channel documentary on stonehenge (and seahenge) ages ago, and have read several articles on it. of course, I'm willing to be proved wrong, but the chances of it being entirely a 19th century forgery strike me as miniscule.
(read your links before you post them and people won't mock so much)

I was being mocked before I posted the links.. ok so if its on the history channel it must be true...

 

[belboid]

Belend isn't exactly know for its niceness though. the cuntoid.

I am very nice to nie people. Braindead morons however....

 

[DotCommunist]

I was being mocked before I posted the links.. ok so if its on the history channel it must be true...

right, I'll wait for it to be released as a shaky youtube video backed by psytrance, that'll be proof positive.

 

[xes]

I am very nice to nie people. Braindead morons however....

I've never seen you be anything other than a 100% cunt. So you can sing it to yourself, sweet tits.

 

[editor]

Engraving of 'restored' Stonehenge, made in 1575.

http://www.britannia.com/wonder/emstoneb.html

 

[belboid]

I was being mocked before I posted the links.. ok so if its on the history channel it must be true...

you posted a link in your OP, you silly billy. You were mocked for your highly imaginative interpretation of what you saw (or thought you saw) on their.

And then you were mocked for not reading your shitty sites that were meant to back your nonsense up.

 

[JimW]

I must admit I didn't stop to consider the political courage it takes to question the antiquity of Stonehenge against the vast panoply of dark forces that would deny this, and how vital this issue is to the way we - all of us - live in the world today. I feel ashamed.

 

[belboid]

I've never seen you be anything other than a 100% cunt. So you can sing it to yourself, sweet tits.

sorry, I've never noticed you at all, your twenty odd thousand posts have obviously all been drivel

 

[editor]

From the Beeb:

But without a reliable carbon date for the construction of Stonehenge, it has been difficult to establish this, or any other, theory.

Until now, the consensus view for the date of the first stone circle was anywhere between 2600BC and 2400BC.

To cement the date once and for all, Professors Darvill and Wainwright were granted permission by English Heritage to excavate a patch of earth just 2.5m x 3.5m, in between the two circles of giant sarsen stones.

The key was to get organic matter from the bluestone sockets

The dig unearthed about 100 pieces of organic material from the original bluestone sockets, now buried under the monument. Of these, 14 were selected to be sent for modern carbon dating, at Oxford University.

The result - 2300BC - is the most reliable date yet for the erection of the first bluestones.

Strictly speaking, the result was rounded down to "between 2400BC and 2200BC" - but 2300BC is taken as the average.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7625145.stm

 

[xes]

sorry, I've never noticed you at all, your twenty odd thousand posts have obviously all been drivel

well, you've been rude enough to me on a number of occasions, so i guess that it's your own cuntishness that you've got lost in. And have forgotten who you've been a cunt to.

either way, fuck yourself to death, cunt.

 

[two sheds]

no

I've had a look through the references (not read all of them thoroughly i admit), you clearly have so where's the answer to moon's question again?

Is it true that current formation of Stonehenge was created in the early 1900's?

Note the words 'current formation'.

 

[Epona]

Engraving of 'restored' Stonehenge, made in 1575.

http://www.britannia.com/wonder/emstoneb.html

Very

There's not much of that era, but there's plenty in the way of later antiquarian illustrations of Stonehenge dating from pre-1900s, John Soane (who died in 1837) collected them and they are in his museum for any member of the public to go and have a look at. This thread is a complete non-issue, other than as a display of excessive gullibility.

 

[danny la rouge]

That's what you get though, when you question anything.

What exactly is being questioned, though, and based on what evidence?

Yes, there is footage of 20th century restoration work. What does that mean, though? That the site as we know it is a fake? That it doesn't look like it did to Turner, or to the 16th Century engraver the Editor mentions?

What is being ridiculed is not questioning, but the quality of this question.

 

[belboid]

well, you've been rude enough to me on a number of occasions, so i guess that it's your own cuntishness that you've got lost in. And have forgotten who you've been a cunt to.

either way, fuck yourself to death, cunt.

giggles

 

[SpookyFrank]

Many of the stones were re-erected and set in concrete, yes. But the actual monument is ancient and the archeology supports that, showing successive developments over time. It is not 100 year sold ffs

Why this post didn't kill the thread I've no idea.

 

[butchersapron]

I've had a look through the references (not read all of them thoroughly i admit), you clearly have so where's the answer to moon's question again?



Note the words 'current formation'.

I doubt that they changed them around, diff psotions and that. I expect the formation is eactly the same. In fact, it is.

 

[belboid]

I've had a look through the references (not read all of them thoroughly i admit), you clearly have so where's the answer to moon's question again?



Note the words 'current formation'.

you already quoted it.

the answer is 'no'

 

[belboid]

Why this post didn't kill the thread I've no idea.

Because it is too boringly true. Not daft conspiracy theories or lizards.

 

[belboid]

Note the words 'current formation'.

did you miss this bit, btw?

"How can people claim that Stonehenge is ancient etc when it was quite clearly built using cranes etc?"

 

[butchersapron]

What exactly is being questioned, though, and based on what evidence?

Yes, there is footage of 20th century restoration work. What does that mean, though? That the site as we know it is a fake? That it doesn't look like it did to Turner, or to the 16th Century engraver the Editor mentions?

What is being ridiculed is not questioning, but the quality of this question.

I suppose you think there's WMD i Iraq too eh? *prods pigeon chest*

 

[SpookyFrank]

The biggest mystery about Stonehenge is why the people who decided to build that fucking great road right next to it were not dragged out into the street and shot

 

[danny la rouge]

I suppose you think there's WMD i Iraq too eh? *prods pigeon chest*

 

[two sheds]

you already quoted it.

the answer is 'no'

Interesting, so you're saying the reconstruction was exactly correct? All the stones they put on top of the other stones were there originally? Butchers says they were, but i'm not that sure about 1900s archaeologists knew what they were doing. Would be interested in a reference.

 

[danny la rouge]

The biggest mystery about Stonehenge is why the people who decided to build that fucking great road right next to it were not dragged out into the street and shot

Duh. They needed to build a street that the street-builders could be dragged into and shot.

 

[butchersapron]

It's a bit boring anyway isn't it - need a weatherspoons or something. Avebury is much better.

 

[two sheds]

did you miss this bit, btw?

"How can people claim that Stonehenge is ancient etc when it was quite clearly built using cranes etc?"

Yep looks like clumsy phrasing, still doesn't say moon believes it was a total fabrication. Even if she did it's not worth the stream of poisonous invective that you've spewed out of your head.

 

[DotCommunist]

It's a bit boring anyway isn't it - need a weatherspoons or something. Avebury is much better.

Needs a few graff pieces doing on it. I propose ShitCunt and ChavScum pieces being done, along wit pictures of big titted aliens.