Well the obvious comment would be to state that as clouds are transitory, they can gather no 'place name' clout, like that the images represented as being the Glastonbury Zodiac figures have.Annasdottir said:In that case, why relate it to astrology or zodiacs at all? Both Maltwood and Caine maintained that the Glastonbury Zodiac was an actual representation of the zodiac signs, created by 'the ancients'. Although, to be fair to them both, I can't remember what justification they gave for changing the symbolisms so drastically.
Yes, it is an interesting insight into psychology and mythos. But, if so, what makes seeing 'Zodiacs' in the landscape all that different from, say, seeing Jesus in the clouds?
If you have the book by Caine, you can see all of the place name synchronicities that she discusses, such as the river Tonne making up what looks like a tongue on the "Girt Dog" figure. The tail of this figure, oddly enough, is supposed to border a village called Wagg.
I suppose if a cloud that looked like Jesus appeared in the same spot repeatedly for hundreds of years, and was near the town of Christcloud, you could look at it the same way some would look at the GZ, but otherwise I fear that the analogy made, was one that I don't feel really cuts it.
As an aside, do you think that the zodiac signs have always been represented by the same symbols thoughout time? Because they haven't, I can assure you!