Ley Lines and the Earths Magnetic Field

Ley Lines and the Earths Magnetic Field

When I first became interested in Ley Lines, around 5 years ago, I approached the subject with an air of cynicism. Although I was fascinated by the whole topic it was certainly not something I was sold on. At the time I was researching a lot of conspiracy theories and it seemed important to me to be discerning to all my areas of interest. During my research I began to find more and more evidence to suggest that Ley Lines were in fact a very real and interesting phenomenon.  

Now of course when researching Ley Lines in the UK one inevitably gravitates towards Stonehenge. Although it didn't take long for me to realize the significance of Avebury in the UK Ley Line network, I have to admit that I was not even aware of the sites existence until I started investigating Ley Lines. How strange is that? Europe's largest standing stone circle and I had never heard of it. The conspiracy theorist part of my mind boggled! 

During my research on Stonehenge I came to a simple conclusion. There had to be a magnetic or functional purpose behind Stonehenge. The main topic of interest with the general public is how were the stones actually transported? Now what seemed more interesting to me was why would they have gone to so much effort to get certain stones? 

To give those of you not familiar with the stones at Stonehenge a brief explanation... the majority of the stones are from a site near Avebury less than 20 miles away, these are the Sarsen stones. However the Blue Stone of the inner core of the stone circle are from Prescelly which is around 200 miles away. So given that the majority of people seem to be most interested in the logistics of carrying a stone that heavy that far, why on gods earth would they carry certain stones further?

One explanation is the appearance of the stones, as the stones from Prescelly look especially attractive when wet. However, this theory holds little weight in my mind, given the excessive weight of the stones in question (some 60 tonnes in weight for each stone.) The Prescelly stones are also said to have held certain healing properties, which may be a more plausible reason why they were chosen to feature in Stonehenge.

Although I do not doubt that Prescelly blue stones do have healing properties this does not really justify the scale of the site. If you look at conventional thinking on how Stonehenge was built it is estimated to have taken 30 million man hours, a fact that puzzled me as a child. We are meant to believe that this was a society of people living hand to mouth and yet they had 30 million man hours to devote to superstition! Hardly likely.  

I am certainly not an expert in crystals but I am led to believe that the Prescelly blue stone has a different crystalline structure to the Sarscen stones and that this is the reason these stones were transported so far. This crystalline structure is said to interact with the energy of the Ley Line and cause the stones to give off an electromagnetic field. What effect and to what purchase this achieves is something I can only speculate on at this time and not something I intend to go into in this post. 

Now this conclusion could seem like a wild leap especially since I seem to lack any real scientific knowledge of the crystalline structures I am referring to. In making this conclusion I considered lots of research that has been done into the magnetic of the planet and how these interact with Ley Lines. 


In 1972 Ivan Sanderson researched all the disappearances of planes and ships since these records began he noticed that there were significant concentrations of these disappearances in 12 key locations on the planet. Yes you guessed the 1st one, the Bermuda Triangle. What is most remarkable about this is that these 12 locations are equally spaced across the planet in a geometric shape. These 12 places are sites with huge magnetic anomalies and form a Icosahedron shape. Although Sanderson discovered this in the modern age, it was something Plato had also contemplated millennia before. 












The work of Ivan Sanderson has been developed greatly over the years and many authors have expanded his original grid. Much of this work was done by researchers Bill Becker and Beth Hagens. These researchers used a shape derived by R. Buckminster Fuller to expand the grid of the earth and they clearly found the megalithic sites on the planet were all located on these lines or points where they interact. Stonehenge of course being one of these points. I recently came across an interesting picture which show the effects of magnetism on ferrofluid. This showed a clearly defined pattern, as you would it expect but it also seemed to me to be very similar to the grid of World Ley Lines we are now familiar with. 

Now what did seem a fascinating idea to me was that this would help to explain how Ley Lines include man made and natural features, as I discussed in my last post. If megalithic structures likes Stonehenge were build in accordance to magnetic pattern of the earth then surely you would expect to see natural features which line up with these. Although I am no geologist, I can only assume that a strong magnetic force in a certain area would impact the formation of a landscape and enhance peaks and troughs, such as the mountains and lakes we see lining up with man made sites on ley lines. 

I know this discussion has brought up as many questions as it has offered answers to, I can only encourage you to do your own research. I am certainly not an expert on this subject I just seem to be more interested than most! 

I would very much love to hear your thoughts and views on this topic and I encourage you to leave your comments. If there is something to do with Ley Lines you would like to discuss with me please let me know. 

What is a Ley Line

What is a Ley Line? 

The term Ley Line refers to a geometrical alignment of ancient sites. These alignments form straight lines, some across massive distances, marked by neolithic monuments, hill tops, churches, cathedrals and even modern buildings. 

The term Ley Line was first used by Sir Alfred Watkins in his books, Old British Trackways and The OId Straight Track, following his discovery of Ley Lines in 1921. Although Watkins is famed for coining the phrase Ley Line although it is probably a term used well in advance of his discovery. Watkins himself chose this term for his discovery because he noticed that many of the settlements that these lines passed through had the word Ley, Lea, Leigh in their name. So I am sure you would agree that he rediscovered this term.  

Alfred Watkins himself did not see any any mystical purpose to the Ley Lines. His conclusion was that Neolithic man had erected these structures and taken advantage of natural peaks and features in order to create track ways that could be navigated by eye and line of site. This network of track ways would have been neolithic mans road network and map in one. 

At the time of Watkins publishing his books the main argument against his Ley Line theory was that the neolithic man was not sophisticated enough to implement such a system. This argument has long since been dismissed as a greater understanding of neolithic society has been discovered and indicates that the people in this age were capable of such feats. A second argument, something Watkins himself was cautious of, is that if you have a sufficient amount of monuments and markers this will inevitably result in straight lines. Watkins inspired people to go Ley Line hunting and he created a point system so that the validity of a Ley Line could be measured and tested. He concluded that a true Ley could only be confirmed if it passed through at least 4 significant sites and peaks, to act as view points. Here is his points system...

Mounds 1 Point 
Stones 2  Point 
Circular Moats 1 Point
Castles 1 Point
Beacon's 1  Point 
Traditional Wells 1 Point 
Churches 3/4 Point (some later ley hunters have given churches a full point)
Crossroads (if named ancient) 3/4 Point 
Road Alignments (higher value if 1-1/2 miles or over) 1 Point  or 1/4 Point 
Fords (higher value if notched) 3/4 Point or 1/2 Point 
Tree Groups (higher value if on hilltop with ancient name) 3/4 Point  1/4 Point 
Single Trees (only if ancient and named) 1/2 Point 
Notches 1/2 Point 
Track Junctions 1/2 Point 
Camps 1/2 Point 
Ponds 1/4 Point Square Moats 1/4 Point     

The total points would test the validity of one Ley Line compared to another. Although I greatly admire Alfred Watkins initial discovery and his scientific dedication to his theory I feel that time and technological advances have taken the theory of ley lines to a greater and more interesting place. An example of this would be churches. I have discovered through research that after the Roman's introduction of Christianity in the UK the pagans were easier to convert if the churches were built in the center of their sacred site. It would seem it was the location that revered. To me Churches on such sites should be given a greater significance. This is information that can now be readily found on the internet, a luxury that Watkins himself did not have. 

The research following Watkins findings have resulted in what would appear as a disjointed network of ancient sites in an undoubted linear fashion. However I feel that this is the result of a variety of factors such as misguided research and an incomplete survey of the lines. The UK is a prime example of this and we can see from the UK Ley Line map that there does not appear to be an easily identifiable pattern or logic behind the lines as a collective. 

  

I believe that if we can identify a Ley Line that spans between cultures that would have had no interaction it adds significance to the Ley Line and also raises significant doubt over Watkins' theory that these sites were used as navigation tools. Even if different societies used this technique the statistical chances of these lines aligning is such that this can not presented as a rational theory. Lines like these have been identified world wide and there is very strong argument being presented that ancient sites are in fact all connected by a world wide network of geometrical alignments. If we believe this is the case it raises a variety of interesting points. One being that this would disprove Alfred Watkins hypothesis that these were used exclusively as line of site paths for navigation. If you have discounted this then it leaves you with the interesting conundrum of how these "man made" alignments that clearly include natural features of significance. It could be then argued that the existence of world wide Ley Lines implies a global initiative, world wide co-operation or mutual understanding between man and nature. All of these would of course suggest a very different prehistoric culture to that currently perceived.