Woodhenge

34. And this is the result - Woodhenge - one of the two keys that unlock the Stonehenge hypothesis.

This is the result of the Jenks' survey and there's none more accurate. So, if you think that Professor Alexander Thom got it right, you need to think again! As we shall see, Thom's Woodhenge plan was made corrupt!

Maud Cunnington completely stripped Woodhenge when she excavated the site in 1926/28. She noticed that some extra posts were added to its six egg-shapes, and concluded that they formed a corridor through which the summer solstice sun could pass. However......

35. WOODHENGE: KEY TO THE HYPOTHESIS OF STONEHENGE. Photographed on summer solstice morning 2009.

The tape on the right represents Woodhenge's solstice corridor as defined by the monuments excavator, Maud Cunnington. That tape can be seen to aim to the right of a hill on the horizon called Sidbury Hill. It also takes in Silk Hill but this hill cannot be resolved in this photo.

The tape on the left represents the axis of symmetry of Woodhenge's two outer eggs found by folded tracings and further refined on CAD. That tape points to the left of Sidbury Hill and Silk Hill to where the northernmost moon rises - otherwise known as the Major Lunar Standstill.

Attempting to enclose and even to aim right through the middle of far-off hills, was commonplace in the Neolithic. It is also pretty obvious that the Woodhenge designers were interested in the summer solstice with the narrow pointy-ends of Woodhenge's eggs pointing the way.

Conclusion.

Woodhenge was a geometric moon-egg meant to be fertilised by the sun. So, what do you think Stone Age folk hoped to get by building it?

Sidbury Hill and Silk Hill are not too clear in the previous picture so we have moved a few hundred metres north and took this picture in broad daylight from the top of the Durrington Walls Henge. The dished shape of the henge is obvious.

Did I mention that when archaeologists excavated the top of Sidbury Hill they found that water-rolled stones, probably gathered from the River Avon, had been used to pave its crest. Some believe that the stones were placed as a way of turning the world upside down.

Remember the inverted tree found in the middle of Seahenge in Norfolk?

36. Woodhenge outer Ring A

Based on a pair of back-to-back 1 by 7 megalithic-yard triangles, and two 7 by 15.5 by 17.007351352 Pythagorean triangles.

The arcs of three circles are cast from the small 1 by 7MY triangles... A single 46MY diameter at north-east, and two 47 diameters to south and south-west. A blend radius of 40MY completes the shape.

This updated image of Woodhenge's outer ring of timber posts comes with latest text:

Computer aided design (CAD) superimposition, placed over a deliberately faded version of Professor Alexander Thom’s 1957 survey of Woodhenge, from “Megalithic Sites in Britain by A. Thom, Oxford University Press 1967.”

Thom’s survey showed Woodhenge to be a geometric moon-egg based on his Megalithic Yard.

Dismayed archaeologists protested strongly against Thom’s findings. They wanted Woodhenge and Stonehenge to be maintained as profitable mysteries, whereas Thom’s survey gave away the whole Stone Age hypothesis! Hence, archaeologists requested, nay, insisted, he disguise the truth and distort his Woodhenge plan out of all recognition.

Despite many years of hoping to gain acceptance for his Megalithic Yard, Sandy Thom complied with the request and produced a corrupted plan by deducting 0.06% from his measurements. He also twisted the plot clockwise to point at the mid-June sun - see his faint and dotted triangles above! However, Sandy made one big mistake. Being unadulterated, one post of Ring A escaped the 0.06% treatment. This post - like a signature of deceit - identifies his survey as corrupt for being the only post in its proper place!

My folded tracings made in 2007 proved Woodhenge to point at the moon - as did the 2008 GPS survey.

The posts of Ring A have been highlighted to make them stand out. Bear in mind that Thom’s real-life plot is undersize by 12.6 imperial inches. Accordingly, my CAD plot has necessarily been reduced to match.

A modern calculator reveals that the hypotenuse is actually 17.007351352 not that Stone Age folk would have known it. They thought it was 17!

Supernumerary posts a and b register an exact 50-degree azimuth - like Stonehenge. These two posts were likely placed first.

Perceived errors in post positions are not necessarily in error! Most can be put down to having to describe an egg-shape, whilst at the same time, having to respect the mandatory 10-degree rule.

40. This is how the lying Professor Alexander Thom turned his survey of Woodhenge into gobbledegook to hide its true purpose.

The picture of Thom's handwriting seen on the right says... (PS. Don't try to understand it)

Survey was made with a tape having a stretch of 0.6% (to 0.5 at 50 feet). Hence the megalithic fathom would have measured 5.44 divided by 1.006 or 5.41 feet.

Hence 5.41 feet is the unit used in setting out this diagram. It is thus applicable to the survey plotted with no stretch correction.

Also note his pencilled correction of ?0.4% when AT wonders if 0.4% might be better than 0.6% (My italics)

Thom's diagram on the left says...

Tape stretch 0.6% on 100 feet, 0.5% on 50 feet. Note: The plot is of the raw material, therefore, any measurements taken from the plot must be increased by 0.6% or as shown above.

As you can see, AT complained that he had measured Woodhenge with a stretchy tape and claims to have estimated exactly how much was needed to be deducted from his measurements to put things right. This is a distinct lie because he is known to use steel tape. "A very careful survey, using a steel tape and theodolite, was made of the concrete posts which the excavators placed in the post-holes in the chalk." Megalithic Sites In Britain. A Thom, Oxford University Press, 1967.

The concrete datum post in the centre of the site is a modern fixture. A Thom took his measurements from the centre of this post, which remains on-site to this very day. Thom, living in Oxford, at the time, could have taken the short trip to Woodhenge to put matters right. But he didn't bother!

So, the conclusion has to be that Professor Thom deliberately distorted his plan of Woodhenge by making an undersize plot of it.

Thom's plot of the outer egg (Thom himself called Woodhenge an egg) is proven by CAD to be 12.6 inches undersize (0.32 Metres). And If all this wasn’t bad enough, he skewed the solstice 'round a bit' to make it look as if its six eggs were aligned on the sun, when they are not.

Professor Thom, highly skilled engineer, with an Oxford University Department of Engineering named after him, was not capable of such obvious mistakes, but clearly had some reason for abandoning his cherished Megalithic Yard.

The images seen above are taken from Alexander Thom's notebook which was gratefully provided by Edinburgh Museum. The museum also provided me with Thom's original co-ordinates, which when plotted on computer, give a plot of Woodhenge that is upside down.

There is no getting away from the fact that Professor Thom was a good guy until he came to Wiltshire and met some archaeologists. This would have been in the 1950's.

Thom started off, like so many of us, by becoming fascinated by our Stone Age monuments and their purpose. Living in Dunlop in Scotland in his formative years, AT was a keen and qualified engineer, who set out to prove that Scotland's many stone circles, flatted circles, and egg-shapes, were all measured out using one common standard of length. He named this standard - The Megalithic Yard.

Thom's 'Yard' came under much criticism from the establishment, and was told - despite having surveyed some 400 of the things - to go away and find further proof by measuring still more of them!

Well he did, he went for the Biggy - Avebury. Not that it did him much good.

******

I am not the first to make folded tracings of Woodhenge that prove the monument to be aligned on the moon. A certain Mr Musson, an architect writing in the appendix of Professor’s Wainwright and Longworth’s book ‘Durrington Walls,’ had already made tracings in 1971 to prove that Woodhenge points at the moon.

Extract:

Some objections to Thom’s propositions have been advanced by Wainwright and a purely visual study of the published plans made during the preparations of these notes raises further doubts about some of Thom’s analysis. In this study as smooth a line as possible was drawn through each ring of post holes: this was then copied on tracing paper, reversed, and adjusted over the original drawing until the closest fit was judged to have been obtained: the long axis of the rings – as actually dug – could then be found by simple graphical method. The orientations so obtained were as follows:

Axis of rings (Cunnington’s) AB 36.5, CF 40.5, and DE 43.5 degrees.

Axis of rings...........(Thom’s) AB 44.0, CF 47.0, and DE 48.5 degrees.

C. R. Musson 1971 (architect) Durrington Walls 1966-1968. Society of Antiquaries, London 1971, p374.

Averaging Musson’s results gives 43.33-degrees, which is some 6.5-degrees to the north of the solstice, and therefore in an area of sky impossible for the sun to visit. Even so, what Musson would have given for my computer!

From the above, we can see that archaeologists knew the truth about Woodhenge as long ago as 1971. How many more lies, and spoilt archaeology do we have to suffer?

46. This image appears by kind permission of Hugo Jenks who noticed that a 10-degree sighting line could be made between sides of opposing pairs of timbers in Ring C. This idea developed out of Hugo's work on Stonehenge. www.brontovox.co.uk

This image harks back to the Arminghall Henge and the way Arminghall divided the sky into 10-degree steps too. Who was it that said Beaker People arrived too late to be the technicians that designed Stonehenge?

Maud Cunnington was the first to notice a preference for ten's when she excavated Woodhenge in 1926-8. More proof of this idea of an astronomy in tens, will be provided in the next image and also when we consider Stonehenge's lozenge's of gold, such as those found in the moon-aligned (southernmost setting) Bush Barrow of Stonehenge. And that's not to mention the prehistoric track that leads from Stonehenge to the Bush Barrow and moon, despite a length of the track having been destroyed for an airfield.

Further thought convinced me that perhaps Hugo's alignments ought to pass right through and out the other side of all Woodhenge's six eggs. So, I thought I might give it a try and see what happens. Above is the result.

Of most importance are the black-coloured supernumerary's, a and b, which fixed the 50-degree line shown red. These two posts were most likely planted first.

Maud Cunnington believed that supernumerary's a and b were placed to make a 50.5-degree corridor through which the solstice could pass. This corridor can now be safely dismissed as imaginary.

47. Taking a Mallet to Crack an Egg.

From the archaeological report PDF. A Massive, Late Neolithic Pit Structure associated with Durrington Walls Henge. Gaffney et al.

Archaeologists recently found a series of at least 20 pits to surround the Durrington Walls henge. It isn't known for sure how many of these pits are man-made, natural sink-holes, flint mines, something to do with the military, or a mixture of all.

I think Pit 1A might be the man-made hollow that goes by the name of Ratfin. Either way, I am going to assume that all 20 posts are man-made prehistoric and every one held wooden posts.

Relying heavily on archaeologists published plans, which appear to be accurate, layering their figures 3, 4 and 23 in CAD, tells us a lot about the circuit of the Durrington Walls Henge. Especially those pits lying to the south.

One thing is very clear, Durrington Walls started off by following the rules laid down by the Arminghall henge, but on a massively larger scale. As at Arminghall, some posts were accurately aligned on the cardinal points of the compass, north, east, south and west, whilst other pairs divided the horizon into steps of 10-degrees. Avebury subdivided some 10's to make 5's. See Beckhampton's Cove.

The difficulty of placing posts accurately over such large distances was addressed by a having a second series of posts on what would one day become Durrington Wall's bank. These post more than halved the distance and made them visible. (I show two of them in red).

The posts beneath Durrington Wall's southern bank have been known about for some time, the southern bank largely levelled years ago by medieval ploughing. Archaeologists announced the discovery of some underground anomalies in this area which looked like a row of stones. A small rectangular dig was conducted by Professor Pearson to investigate. Pearson considered these anomalies to be timber posts.

After setting out the pits and placing massive timber posts at their centres, what appear to be wattle fence arcs were run between them. These arcs are another express of growth. The three known arcs were found to run from posts 9A to 5A as seen above, right.

These arcs were found to scale at 375, 750, and 1,500 megalithic yards, giving an expression of growth.

The 1,500 megalithic yard arc, (3,000 MY diameter), is twice Avebury's largest (What did you expect from Stonehenge?). But the 1,500 arc is concave to the circuit, which also might tell us something about Avebury! This idea will be put to you later.

Please press the Stonehenge Gold button.

Stonehenge gold