The Newport Mystery Tower

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
the only plausible document reg. the attempt of Norsemen to create a colony in America beyond Greenland - the record made by Thorfinn, Karlsefni about 1007 - 1008; it testifies that supposed settlers were kicked out by the native americans. The location of that colony of Karlsefni is not clear as well . Evidently it was on Newfoundland< not on the mainland... Vinland of Leif usually was placed in the region of cape cod, but its still a question,,,there were even opinions that it was northenr part of Newfoundland.
Some pay much attention to the origin of the word "Norumbega" from the words Nordhman Bygdh (a settlement) and its connection with the Norman Villa, and a Norman Villa was identified as the stone tower in newport...
there was such Marc lescarbot, he was in the first expedition of Samuel de Champlain,and he testified that the Basque also visited the coasts of North America, adn called all the French Northmen and that the native Americans got this word from them! This fact seems to me most plausible than any doubtful theories about the presrved scandinavian words.




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I believe the Plowden document refers to Long Island. I'm not aware of a document that points to Rhode Island. Perhaps Russi knows the source?

One can compare the the L'anse aux meadows site to this one. As Sky suggests and I always recommend. Find signs of habitation. If people lived there, there will be signs of them in the ground. Amateur archaeology is rather strong in that area so if anything had been found it would have been communicated.

Amanekusagasu! (search)

The tower is one of those sites where it has been 'mysterified' beyond the level of actual mystery. Unless you can find Norse material - and even if you do, you won't be able to assign them as builders of the tower.

We do know/suspect that LAUM wasn't the only site. The Norse may have built more and they probably can be found, but they are most probably underneath a existing Canadian or US habitation.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I think that is mysterious even without the runes, myself. Very curious, if it was a structure built from another structure. And whether or not the original purpose was a mill. We still don't know who built it.


I think it's mysterious/cool, whatever it is.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 





We still don't know who built it.


But we have a lot of data that points to British colonial dudes doing it. The data pointing elsewhere is a bit thin.

1. Built in the style of a building from which colonist came from

2. No cultural remains from any other culture at the site

3. Documentary evidence and claim by someone that it is "my tower"

4. Carbon date all over the place but an average points to aa date that points to the three items above.

I'd say the mystery is over with - but that wouldn't be any fun!

Oh one other note, 'mystification' a site has been over mystified when the site, suitable or not, is taken as evidence, for an increasing number of alternative theories. The site has become part of the fringe mythology.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Oh, haha. I'm not being as crazy as you think I am ^_^
I meant someone specific, like a person, specific colony. There doesn't seem to be a record of it being built but someone must have done it, I just wonder who. And what the original intent of the building was, be it shelter, mill, or otherwise.

I don't think the Nordic did, or aliens, or anything like that. It's just weird there is no record of it being actually built.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
One can compare the the L'anse aux meadows site to this one. As Sky suggests and I always recommend. Find signs of habitation...We do know/suspect that LAUM wasn't the only site. The Norse may have built more and they probably can be found, but they are most probably underneath a existing Canadian or US habitation.


Actually, I don't believe the sites can be readily compared as L'Ans Aux Meadows really only played out as a series of hummocks that were regarded as some kind of site by the locals. They figured Native. There is no other recognised site in North America, though there may well have been some exchange in the High Arctic.

Find a book called The Farfarers, by Farley Mowat. It provides a pretty reasonable premise for pre-Columbian contact.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


You are right, it does look very much like that windmill. You said it is thought to be 16th Century, this windmil is 17th century so just about ties in doesn't it. The architect who is said to have helped with build the mill was a pupil of an architect called Inigo Jones who was a well known architect. It is thought that the mill was originally an observatory - could this be what the American tower was also meant to be?

www.chestertonwindmill.co.uk...

www.engineering-timelines.com...


Inigo Jones, the teacher, also carried out a survey of stonehenge:



Inigo Jones, who surveyed Stonehenge in 1655, was so impressed by the skill of its builders that he assumed they were Romans and a century later John Wood, who shared Jones's assumption, based his great neo-Classical Circus in Bath on Jones's plan of Stonehenge.


www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MCoG1980
 


I am 97% sure that at some point in time it was used as a windmill and designed as such.

I'm not sure if that's what it's original purpose for as one of the sources above seemed to suggest that it may have been a Native American monument of some kind or originally designed as a watchtower/shelter (like in Long Island) and was later converted into a mill.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
By the way, I can't find anything else about the tower on Long Isle. I was looking for a picture, and I keep finding the same thing, but no picture.



60. Petition of Sir John Lawrence, Sir Edmund Plowden, Sir Boyer Worsley, John Trusler, Roger Pack, Will. Inwood, Thos. Ryebread, Chas. Barret, and George Noble, adventurers, to the King. Are willing at their own cost, to plant at a remote place, called Manati or Long Isle, 150 miles to the north of James City, and settle three hundred inhabitants there for the making of wine, salt, iron, &c. Pray for a patent of the said isle and thirty square miles of the adjoining coast, to be erected into a county palatine called Syon, and to be held of His Majesty's Crown of Ireland, with the like title and privileges to Sir Ed. Plowden, as was granted to Sir Geo. Calvert in Newfoundland by King James. [In Stafford's letters and despatches Vol. I., pp. 72, 73, will be found a petition from Sir Ed. Plowden, &c., praying for a grant of Isle-Plowden, otherwise Long Isle, where the petitioners are willing to settle five hundred inhabitants, and also for forty leagues square of the adjoining continent, to be erected into a county palatine by the name of New Albion. This petition is inclosed in a warrant from the King to the Lords Justices, dated July 24th, 1632, directing them to cause the grant forthwith to be passed with the customary privileges for government.]

www.british-history.ac.uk...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Yeah, here, I know something from this site was linked before but here's a direct quote.
www.hallofmaat.com...



And there's the problem with the Newport Tower claim. The petition says that this 'county palatine' is to include the island in question and some of the adjoining continent, and is at 39 degrees latitude and 150 miles north of James City. Newport is at 41.27 degrees latitude and much more than 150 miles north of James City. The area in the petition is the area of the Delaware/Maryland peninsula, and the tower in the ‘commodities’ document, whether proposed or existing, is not in Rhode Island.

Shortly after this Plowden revised his petition, renaming the island ‘Isle Plowden’, increasing the number of prospective settlers, changing the name of the colony to New Albion and asking for a grant 120 miles to a side to include all other small islands between 39 and 40 degrees latitude. A patent was issued on July 24, 1632, although the charter was not forthcoming until 1634. This was a feudal charter held by Plowden by knight service of Charles I’s Irish crown (which meant the king could profit from it), allowing Plowden to grant titles, etc. which he liberally did (creating one of his sons ‘High Admiral and Baron of Roymount’.

However, nothing came of it. Plowden did not leave for New Albion until 1642, spending his time in lawsuits with tenants, creditors, debtors and his wife while Swedes were busy colonising along the Delaware River. Rather than go to New Albion, in fact, he went to Virginia. An attempt to go to New Albion was then met with mutiny, and that was the end of Plowden’s only known attempt to settle the land he had been granted. He spent the rest of his life (he died in 1859) in lawsuits and conflict with his family.


So I guess it may not have ever been built, that "Long Isle" tower. Which would mean that the Newport one may be the only one built by the colonial people. Does that sound right?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Don't know if you have seen this site already but thought you might find it interesting:

www.neara.org...




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MCoG1980
 


I did, but thank you for posting it and thinking of me ^_^




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MCoG1980
 


I did, but thank you for posting it and thinking of me ^_^


I always appreciate contributions and good evidence. That is some good evidence right there. There is a decent table but I cannot for the life of me get it to format right.
www.neara.org...

I assume this is talking about the actual mill structure and not the original foundations, if there were different original foundations. Since there's nothing Native American listed.

[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]

[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13...the Newport one may be the only one built by the colonial people. Does that sound right?


Try this on for size: "The most important message about the Tower comes, not from the park around it, but from the building itself. "
www.chronognostic.org...

In addition, a pal of mine has been doing some investigation. I'm going to show him the Chronognostic site and see what he thinks.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


It's build to coincide with solstices?
NO WAY!
That's Amazing with a capital A.
The other implications in this article are fascinating.
www.chronognostic.org...



Once the Tower’s location is established by the orientation to north and the Summer Solstice, the Tower’s windows, by their location in the walls and their shapes, are no longer a mystery. From inside the Tower, on its first wooden floor, a person of about five feet five inches tall, standing in front of a point marked in the sill of the south window, could see the summit of Miantonomi Hill through the very small north _ Above the hill, in the sky in the same direction, is the North Star - Polaris.





[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I had mentioned L'anse as an example of what one would find in a Norse settle in North America. Nothing like it has been found associated with the Newport tower.



So I guess it may not have ever been built, that "Long Isle" tower. Which would mean that the Newport one may be the only one built by the colonial people.


The New England area has lots of stone buildings and towers built during the colonial period. The tower we are discussing is just more famous and one of few that survived to this day.

No way

Sorry no, the alignments are too forced. All known "calendars" have the person in the center with the sun RISE thru the east observation point. No eastern portal.

You'll note they had to place the observer against the wall? Based on this my house was built to be an observatory too. All buildings where you can see out could be called "observatories" if you can move the observer to any point and only want to see one set up.

Putting windows in at the cardinal points was again just a normal way of setting up a building in the colonial time frame.

There is no east observation port and the west one is blocked by a wooded hill.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
No way

Sorry no, the alignments are too forced. All known "calendars" have the person in the center with the sun RISE thru the east observation point.


Could be...but we're all just guessing, right? What I find intriguing is that this outfit is serious enough to commission an archaeological survey of the site. Looks like there is no definative answer at this point, and that leaves a lot of doors open.

Tell ya, though...if you don't look, you're not gonna find.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


One of fads and fashions that ran thru archaeology was finding archaeo-astronomical connections, that has fortunately run its course, well almost. The item in that website is a child of that fad although I give them a bronze star for trying it is what is sometimes called forcing the data. Based on their assumption, every single building that has at least two opening - or a roof, can be made into an observatory. Nope don't think so. If there is an answer for the tower other than mundane colonial construction it will be found in the ground. Not in the sky.

I'll take that web page over to the Bad Astronomy and see what they have to say



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


It's another interesting source.
I like to keep my mind open, because I'm not looking for a definite conclusion.
I like to see all sides and opinions on an issue, and not discount certain ones and not others.

If you have an opinion on the thread then please post it once and do not claim that every other article to be posted is inaccurate. I'm sure if I did that in a thread of yours, you would ask the same of me.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HansluneOne of fads and fashions that ran thru archaeology was finding archaeo-astronomical connections, that has fortunately run its course, well almost.


Sure...but you're still just guessing. A whole bunch of archaeology is theoretical, and a whole bunch is speculative. I don't mind calling something crap if it is patently absurd, but if it is well possible, even though it is not the best fit...I'm not about to go out on too much of a limb and say "No Way"

Lot of people just got themselves an education regarding the peopling of the Americas...one they didn't expect. Know what I'm saying?

But be fussy, by all means.





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join