18 Jan
1999
18 Jan
'99
2:42 p.m.
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Joe wrote:
At 03:58 PM 1/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
Well, except perhaps for the concrete replica in the Columbia River Valley.
- don
A recent program on Stonehenge on the Discovery
channel said the RAF
wanted to
level Stonehenge with explosives, but the person
who owned the land they were
on refused to let them. *boggle* Is it just me, or does all this suggest
that in the 1930s and early 40s good maps were much harder to come by than
today? I know the advent of satelite mapping has improved it, but you'd
think
anyone planning to invade England would have gone
there in 1938 and just
BOUGHT maps.
The problem wasn't the maps, it was the fact that if you were in a plane
and caught above the cloads and then came down you had NO idea where you
where since the winds could have pushed you in ANY direction away from your
predicted location. One bridge, railroad, road, church steeple looks
pretty much like another but Stonehenge is an ABSOULUTELY unique landmark!
Joe I've never heard that one. Plenty of things
like that were done in WW2,
mostly to impress upon the public that 'there's a war on'.
Both my parents (who lived through the war) assure me that Stonehenge was
not moved, laid flat, or anything else in the war.
Of course some things (stained glass windows, for example) were moved to
protect them in the event of bombing.
Anyway, stones lying flat in a field would also be a good landmark IMHO.
Possibly even more visible.
-tony
--
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Meadocrat! Bill and Opus in 2000 - Who ELSE is there?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------