Sorry about the confusion I seem to have caused. Lets try and straighten it out.
Do you OI types keep up with the rest of the forum?
I have recently been posting on some work I have been doing on RLC, particularly the landscape geometry. I have found the basics of David Wood's RLC landscape geometry to be repeated at Glastonbury in a most convincing way. All the various layers of his design are repeated with the exeption of one. The right leg of the pentagram coincides with a field on the edge of the village of Charlton Adam. This field/area is marked on the 25,000:1 Ordnance Survey map as Pleasant Spot.
Despite the layers at Glastonbury being at different orientations to those at RLC, the alignments and check-circles etc that Wood found still line up. This sounds impossible, but it is there in black and white. Anyone can check it. The geometry at Glastonbury is described in detail with large scale map images of the design on my web site starting at http://www.hiddenlandscapes.co.uk/example3d.htm
Along the way I found errors that Wood had made. When the geometry at RLC is redrawn, the result is staggering. The result at Glastonbury is mind-boggling.
One of the major dimensions on the map at Glastonbury is 153mm. (At Glastonbury the dimension on the map in mm seems important, just as Henry Lincoln and David Wood found the dimension on the ground in miles at RLC to be relevant.) I typed "Remind anyone of 153 metres at Oak Island?". I was not pointing out a new dimension at OI. I made a mistake. I should have typed "153 feet". Sorry if it led you astray.
I see RLC as Stage 1, Glastonbury as Stage 2 and OI as Stage 3. It is vital to understand at least the geometry at Glastonbury before any headway can be made at RLC. Glastonbury will, I am sure, give pointers to OI. I do not see OI as a 'mark the X and dig the treasure' operation. It will be at least as complex as RLC and take many years to solve. There are as many allegories here as at Glastonbury and RLC. 153 here is a depth: doesn't that indicate a 3D puzzle? The cross has already been likened to the constellation Cygnus. Was the cross not also used as a star-sight? How good are we at spacial geometry these days?
Please try drawing out the geometry at Glastonbury and RLC yourselves to see the interconnected overlays and other complexities we are talking about here. See how the same alignments and check-circles align at both locations despite the vast difference in both length and angle. (Btw, I don't think the geometry at OI will be anything like that at RLC and Glas - I have a hunch it will be far more complex).
I have no inclination to start dabbling with OI at the present, though I would like to visit the site when I have more time available. If I was working on this, the first thing I would do is thoroughly research all the MikMak folklore and legends however seemingly inconsequencial. I would make sure that none
where lost. I would also preserve the site. Any
feature might be essential to eventually solving the puzzle (air shaft at Giza, anyone).
The most dangerous thing is obsession. If you stand too near the screen you loose sight of the big picture and possibly even, focus itself. But nothing I say is going to alter what you do is it. I just hope you don't cause too many problems for the generations that follow.