The one thing that is missing is the first word in the link , Evidence .
"Stukeley maintained there were 30 stones in the ring, “
Aubrey recorded 20 stones , 50 years years before Stukeley had seen the five that remained when he first visited .
Stukeley didn’t know how many there were and he also guessed at nice round figures for other monuments in the area all totalling a nice round 650 .
"But there are quite a number of stone circles with 30 stones in the ring, most notably Stonehenge itself, and also Stanton Drew “
Neither have 30 .
Stanton Drew great circle has 26 surviving stones ,it may have had 30 we don’t know .
Likewise at Stonehenge there are not 30 stones belonging to the outer sarsen circle ,there is a gap in the south west which may have had a number of stones allowing for a total of thirty but again they are not there and we don’t know if they ever were .
Why didn’t he actually mention the specific results of the geofizz ?
"If you watch a star coming up on the eastern horizon and then watch where it sets on the western horizon that could mark two sides of this symmetrical axis." You don’t say
;) I have only ever almost lost a dog over the cliffs, but they are spectacular. Thank you for the walk along the cliff tops anyway. Though they are not prehistoric Porthgain and Aberridy are also awash with ruins of Wale's industrial past....
Well worth checking out and adding an opinion The arc is surely too large to represent the kerb of a former cairn and I would suggest finding such a naturally occurring arrangement would be very unusual indeed? The positionning is also classic 'stone circle', is it not?