Naturally the academics and scientists who studied the idea, like Hutton, threw it out, since there is
no evidence at all to support it! Watkins' initial revelation referred to Herefordshire in England, an
area which is particularly dense in exactly the type of markers that he suggested were relevant. In
fact it is so dense that if you take a map of reasonable scale and a ruler, and place the ruler
between any two of these markers twenty miles or so apart, you will certainly find several of
these markers either on the line or sufficiently near it to be within a reasonable margin of
error. However, this can be achieved using only the natural markers; so that pure chance could
have established this network of 'lines.' In fact, the number of alignments that can be found doing
this is no more than would be the case if chance were the agent. This has been theoretically
confirmed in several ways; a geometric analysis of 137 random dots on a plane will reveal 80 4-
point alignments, and archaeologist Richard Atkinson mapped the positions of modern telephone
boxes, to reveal similar alignments, which he called 'telephone leys'. His point of course, was that
we know that the boxes were not set up on straight lines, so the fact that alignments do occur must
be sheer chance. Thus there is no reason whatsoever to suppose any agency other than chance in
the alignments between Watkins' 'markers'.Nevertheless, while the use of Occam's razor might be
tempting here, there remains the possibility that, as Watkins proposed, the lines were simply
straight lines of sight between landmarks. Not unnaturally, if people were travelling along them, this
would promote settlement; that is to say that even though the alignments could have happened by
chance anyway, some of the man-made ones, at least, were deliberate.Since the foundation is
invalid, all the later theories are false too; but such is their attraction to belief that many people
refuse to accept this, instead insisting either that the original theory is sound, in the face of all
evidence to the contrary, or that even if Watkins were wrong, the lines of force that were later
proposed, or whatever the viewer 'believes' is there, nevertheless exist.What concerns us here is
the way in which a set of beliefs have grown up, initially surrounding a proposition which we know
the origin of and can easily demonstrate is completely without foundation, that proceed on to
encompass beliefs which had nothing to do with the original, instead being later additions, but which
use the original to support themselves. Consider Wedd's proposition that 'ley-lines' were lines of
energy used for navigation by alien spacecraft, or Michell's weird juxtaposition of unfounded
pseudo-science with Oriental mysticism.So, from an observable phenomenon, that there are lines
of sight between landmarks, and a reasonable proposition, that people use landmarks to navigate,
has developed a hypothesis which seems at first sight plausible but which is false, that straight
roads existed between landmarks, which has further spawned a belief, based in no fact at all, that
aliens navigate the earth along these lines. This then develops, now accelerating away from any
contact with reality, to suggest that in fact these are lines of power in the earth, that they represent
a cosmic connection with celestial bodies, and even a form of vitality within the earth, or
more.Incredible though it may seem, many people believe all this to be true; indeed within sections
of the so-called 'New Age' community, it is taken as proven matter of fact that ley-lines are indeed
lines of cosmic power, and this is in turn taken as proof of celestial connections, earth-deities and
planetary consciousness. And this despite the fact that at every turn, recognised experts in the field
of history, archaeology, and statistics, used to having their work peer-reviewed, have subjected the
original proposition and its successors to scrutiny and have debunked them time and time again!
Let’s jump ahead to the 1950s, and bring in one of the major crazes of the decade: UFOs. A
Frenchman named Aime Michel, writing in his book Flying Saucers and the Straight Line Mystery,
claimed that the reported sightings of UFOs fell into perfectly straight lines, which he was
considerate enough to plot on a map. As it would be difficult to get permission to reprint it here I will
ask you to trust me on this: the alignments are dubious at best. Most are simply a line drawn
between just two sightings, though a few include a third point.
The relationship between Ley lines and UFOs was forged by one Tony Wedd, formerly a pilot in
Britain’s Royal Air Force. In his book Skyways and Landmarks he proposed that UFO pilots used
ancient sites as navigation points. I guess that even with all their technology the idea of tuning in to
navigational aids (like our own radio-based VHF Omnidirectional Rangefinders) had escaped them.
After all, where does one purchase Earth navigational charts and flight supplements since the outlet
on Rigel 7 went out of business?
As you might expect, the New Age movement has seized upon Ley lines. Not only does the belief
seem to be growing, but it has even succeeded in dipping into the public purse. A dowsing
organization called the Geo Group recently received $5,000 (US funds) from the Seattle Arts
Commission to produce a map of Ley lines in the Seattle area. After taking money from the
taxpayers of the city they are now flogging the maps back to them at $7 a pop.